Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-03-11_Council Website Agenda Package Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday, March 11, 2021 Via Facebook Live Office Location: 151 King Street, Chester, NS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (15 minutes) 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Council – February 25, 2021. 4.2 Public Hearing – February 25, 2021 – Amendments to improve clarity and administration of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-Law adopted a year ago. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Committee of the Whole (recommendations for approval) – March 4, 2021 – Warden Webber. 5.2 Any Other Committee Meetings. 6. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 6.1 Correspondence dated February 22, 2021 from Robin McAdam, Sherbrooke Forest Homeowner’s Association, request for a new zoning classification for Sherbrooke Forest specific to lakeside communities (increasing zoning regulations and environmental protections) (appointment time at 9:15 a.m.). 6.2 Lunenburg County Seniors’ Safety Partnership Society Presentation – Chris Acomb, Seniors’ Safety Coordinator (appointment time at 9:45 a.m.). 7. MATTERS ARISING: 7.1 Barry’s Brook Trail Bridges Repairs (referred from Committee of the Whole Meeting on March 3, 2021). 7.2 Watercourse Setback Relief Options – Staff Report #1 – Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner. Page 2 of 2 8. CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 Correspondence dated February 25, 2021 from Donna Thomson, Permit Coordinator, from Pride Signs regarding request for an amendment to the sign by-law regarding Tim Horton’s located at 3811 Highway 3, Chester. 8.2 Correspondence dated February 17, 2021 to Warden Webber from NS Firefighters Benevolent Fund requesting financial assistance. 8.3 Correspondence dated February 1, 2021 from Lieutenant Governor The Honourable Arthur J. LeBlanc regarding recognition of the Municipality and presentation of Community Spirit Plaque in recognition of community spirit and resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Request for Decision prepared March 1, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation – Three Telecommunication Tower Reports prepared by Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS): a. Request for Decision document. b. Schedule A. c. Schedule B. d. Schedule C. 9.2 District Grant Request District 2 – Aspotogan Heritage Trust (& Through the Years Daycare) - $1,200 for installation of a shared streetlight to enhance safety and security. 9.3 Request for Decision prepared March 1, 2021 – Corporate and Strategic Management – Cost of Living Adjustment - Consumer Price Index Adjustment for 2021/22. 9.4 Request for Decision prepared March 4, 2021 – Corporate and Strategic Management – 2021/22 REMO Budget. 9.5 Emergency Grant Applications: a. Emergency Grant Spreadsheet. b. District 1 Community Centre. c. Through the Years Day Care and Community Centre. d. Royal Canadian Legion Branch 79. e. Hubbards Area Lions Club 10. IN CAMERA 11. ADJOURNMENT APPOINTMENTS VIA ZOOM 9:15 a.m. Robin McAdam, Sherbrooke Forest Homeowner’s Association (item 6.1). 9:45 a.m. Chris Acomb, Lunenburg County Seniors’ Safety Committee (item 6.2). 75 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COUNCIL MEETING Via Facebook Live from 151 King Street, Chester, NS On Thursday, February 25, 2021 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor Veinotte District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford District 3 – Councillor Barkhouse District 4 – Warden Webber District 5 – Councillor Assaff District 6 – Councillor Connors District 7 – Councillor Church Staff: Dan McDougall, CAO Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Jennifer Webber, Communications Officer Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS Amendments:  Change of outline of agenda.  Addition of Church Memorial Park to Committee Reports.  Establish a date for a Strategic Priorities Workshop 2021-090 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church the agenda and order of business for the February 25, 2021 Council meeting be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION No public input received. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Council – February 11, 2021. 2021-091 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse the minutes of the February 11, 2021 Council meeting be approved as circulated. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS Council (continued) February 25, 2021 76 8.1 Peter Cullen, Executive Director of Ross Farm Museum regarding 2021/22 Major Projects Grant Presentation. Councillor Connors provided a brief overview of the project and introduced Peter Cullen, Executive Director of Ross Farm Museum and Mr. Cullen provided a detailed overview of the project and the interactions with the Acadia First Nations for spaces at Ross Farm and the Gold River property, connecting the Mi’kmaq Community to the New Ross Community – story telling with outdoor locations and eventually a trail connecting the locations. Council acknowledged the asset that Ross Farm is to the Municipality and the additional value of this project. Discussion was held on budgeting, maintenance, signage, planning, tourism, additional organization involvement, trail network, etc. Councillor Connors asked that Council now deal with item 9.2 on the agenda commenting that Mr. Cullen was present now to answer any questions regarding the Major Project Grant Application. NEW BUSINESS 9.2 Request for Decision prepared February 17, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation - Major Project Grant – Ross Farm Museum. Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development and Recreation, briefly reviewed the Request for Decision, noting that Mr. Cullen had probably reviewed most of the material. He did provide an overview of the forecasted Wind Reserve Balance – which is anticipated to be at $867,000 at the end of the year. 2021-092 MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council provide pre-budget approval for the Major Project Grant Request from Ross Farm Museum in the amount of $100,000 to support an enhancement and expansion of trails as well as the addition of outdoor learning spaces. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. A 10 minute break 9:52 a.m. to 10:06 a.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Committee of the Whole (recommendations for approval) – February 18, 2021 – Warden Webber. 2021-093 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse that Council approve the following recommendations from the February 18, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting: 2021-074 – “… approve the Lunenburg County Accessibility Plan as presented by the Lunenburg County Accessibility Committee and authorize the submission of the Plan to the Provincial Accessibility Directorate.” Council (continued) February 25, 2021 77 2021-075 – “… to  Write the Nova Scotia Premier, the Minister of Justice Mark Furey, Minister responsible for the Accessibility Act, as well as the Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM) to lobby for municipal funding programs for the implementation of Municipality Accessibility Plans; and  Direct staff to develop the Municipality of Chester’s Accessibility Action Plan which will become an appendix to the overarching Lunenburg County Accessibility Plan for consideration of Council at a future meeting.” 2021-076 – “… direct staff to develop a disposition policy for information technology assets to include a process for disposition and sale to municipal staff with proceeds to be donated to ProKids.” ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 5.2 Nominating Committee – February 11, 2021 – Councillor Connors. Councillor Connors provided a brief review of the meeting, noting that there were two applications for the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee both from District 2; however, the vacancies were for Districts 5 and 2. The recommendation is to appoint one member to District 5 and allow the other member determine if he would like to be appointed as a member as the committee came to the conclusion that, although the preference is one from every district, they would like to see the committee at full complement. Councillor Assaff reiterated that Mr. Wood can make the decision to accept the position as a representative on the Committee representing District 5. 2021-094 MOVED by Councillor Connors, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve the following recommendations from the February 11, 2021 Nominating Committee meeting: 2021-083 – “… the following persons be appointed to the Committees noted, with the exception that Dennis Wood be given the option to accept or not accept the position representing District 5: Committee Vacancies Applications for Audit 1 – Any District Heather McLeod – District 6 Municipal Planning Advisory Committee 2 – Districts 2 and 5 Ross Shatford – District 2 Dennis Wood – District 2 5 Recreation & Parks Committee 1 – District 4 Olivia Corkum - District 4” ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 5.3 Lunenburg County Seniors’ Safety Program – Councillor Connors: a. 2020 Annual Report. b. January 2021 Monthly Report. c. February 2021 Monthly Report. Councillor Connors provided an update and noted that the group would be making a presentation to Council in the month of March. Council (continued) February 25, 2021 78 5.4 Church Memorial Park – Councillor Church Councillor Church indicated that the Trustees have met and will be coming to Council regarding funding for the next four years as well as for capital project assistance. She noted that the sprinklers must be replaced at approximately $50,000 as this is a fire safety issue. Their income by the end of December was down approximately $38,000 but they are hoping to make some of that up. It is an aging facility, and they are working to get their priorities established. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Second/Final Notice – Amendments to Policy P-100 Hospitality Policy. Councillor Connors asked for clarification on page 3 regarding the phrase “outside” the Municipality and it was noted that the reference to “outside” is referring to outside of the organization itself and not the geographic boundaries. It was agreed to change the word “possible” on page 6 in section 5.02 (c) to “practical”. 2021-095 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council conduct Second/Final Notice of amendments to Policy P-100 Hospitality Policy as per the requirements of the Municipal Government Act with amendment to section 5.0 (c) to change the word “possible” to “practicable”. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 6.2 Corporate and Strategic Management Department Quarterly Report – 3rd Quarter. This was deferred to an upcoming meeting. 6.3 Request for Decision prepared February 19, 2021 – Corporate and Strategic Management – Wastewater Service Study RFP MODC-T-2021-014. Councillor Veinotte declared conflict of interest and left the room. Christa Rafuse, Director of Infrastructure and Operations, joined via Zoom and reviewed the Request for Decision with Council, outlining the scoring and additional personnel used during the process from the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Six proposals were received, and all four reviewers agreed on the proposal from EXP. A question was asked where the company was from and it was noted that the office in Bayers Lake although they are a national company. It was noted that previously Council would have received more information on the submissions and award. The CAO indicated that the Municipality has changed the amount of information provided in the award request for decisions because of an obligation of privacy. It is okay to list the six firms but if Council wishes more detail it would require a closed session. Councillor Connors voiced her concern that Councillors can answer questions in public regarding awards of tenders or proposals. She also noted that the contractor also submitted a bid for the Haughn property assessment, but Council has not yet received that information even though it was awarded on April 3rd. Council (continued) February 25, 2021 79 this contract is heftier, and Council has yet to see the results of the assessment. The timeline on this project is worth 20%. The CAO indicated that Council was provided a briefing before Christmas on the procurement process and how, at the front end, staff would bring the RFP for review and at that time there was discussion on the type of information staff should be providing at the award phase. What is in the public package is different than what can be provided in a closed session (where confidential information can be provided). This is the new process and is what a number of other levels of government are doing. The Haughn property works is complete and a Request for Decision is coming forward that will contain the work done by the consulting firm. Councillor Assaff asked about local preference and it was confirmed that the local preference component is only available for low value procurement. The CAO indicated that procurement staff could provide more insight as to why governments no longer identify the complete details – privacy and competitive reasons. We are following the practice and guidelines of some other provincial departments and municipalities. There was a lengthy discussion regarding information the public would like to have, changing the practice to what it was previously, transparency, what constitutes going “in camera”, the fine line between public and privacy, etc. The Deputy CAO indicated that in the past we have provided scores but usually only provide the winning bid amount. There is some consideration – as we have ramped up procurement policies – and an expectation that when companies are submitting bids, they are confidential. If there was a FOIPOP request, the staff person would have to contact the third party and he would have to evaluate if they have a case to not release the information – this is all part of the Provincial Privacy Act. The CAO acknowledged that this change makes it more difficult for the public to see information they would be able to see if they did not agree with Council’s decision. He is also mindful of Council’s interest in more detail and why it is identified in closed session to provide information you would need. Councillor Connors commented that this is a process and not a policy so it can be changed. She indicated that she would have questions asked of her. The CAO suggested that, rather than change the practice on the fly, table the discussion and bring back to Council for further discussion. 2021-096 MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council convene “In Camera” as per Section 22(2)(e) – Contract Negotiations under the Municipal Government Act. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Following a meeting held “In Camera” the meeting reconvened in Regular Session with all Councillors present except Councillor Veinotte who was out of the meeting room due to an earlier declared Conflict of Interest. 2021-097 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council accept the recommendation to award the Request for Proposals MODC-T-2021-014 for a Wastewater Service Council (continued) February 25, 2021 80 Study to EXP in the amount of $235,870 (+HST) for a four-month term to begin once the contract is awarded and that the practice of not releasing pertinent information obtained during proposal calls be reviewed by Council. DISCUSSION: Councillor Connors asked, and Council agreed, to review the practice of what is or is not released publicly in proposals that are awarded. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was held from 11:06 a.m. to 11:16 a.m. Councillor Veinotte returned to the meeting room. CORRESPONDENCE 7.1 Email from New Ross Regional Development Society with letters to Council dated February 16, 2021 and May 12, 2014 regarding sewer capacity at the New Ross Wastewater Treatment Plant related to Strategic Planning for New Ross and area. Councillor Connors indicated that this was a follow up question from the New Ross Regional Development Society to their letter of 2014 regarding capacity at the New Ross Wastewater Treatment Plant as they are reviewing their four year term strategic planning session. Warden Webber directed staff to forward a letter to the New Ross Regional Development Society advising them where the Municipality is at this time in the process, i.e., the award of the Wastewater Service Study awarded today. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Request for Decision prepared February 17, 2021 – Corporate and Strategic Management Department - Fire Services Association of Nova Scotia nomination to represent Lunenburg County. Bruce Blackwood, Fire Services Coordinator, joined the meeting in person and outlined the process to appoint a director or an alternate annually as a representative for Lunenburg County on the Fire Services Association of Nova Scotia. This year, Gordon Appleby was recommended to be the 2021/22 Director. 2021-098 MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council approve the nomination of Gordon Appleby to represent Lunenburg County as the 2021/22 Director of the Fire Services Association of Nova Scotia. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.3 Emergency Grant Funding Application – New Ross Regional Development Society (time sensitive COVID-19 Response). Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development and Recreation was present in the room and reviewed the application received. Council (continued) February 25, 2021 81 2021-099 MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council approve the Emergency Grant Funding application from the New Ross Regional Development Society in the amount of $500 to be used for a Family Fun Day/Winter Frolic. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.4 Request for Decision prepared February 19, 2021 – Corporate and Strategic Management Department - IT Partnership – Chester/Town of Lunenburg. The CAO reviewed the material commenting on the organizational review started over a year ago and identified a number of initiatives that were opportunities or pressures within the organization. Since that time Council has made some decisions on a number of them. Staff is also dedicating a fair amount of time on procurement and reviewing other opportunities. With today’s decision on the Wastewater Management Study staff are hopeful there is more ICIP funding related to wastewater. Cliff Gall, Director of Information Services, joined the meeting via by Zoom and reviewed Information Technology support, growth, and current service delivery pressures. The recommendation is to hire an IT Systems Analyst and authorize staff to work with the Solicitor to develop an intermunicipal agreement with the Town of Lunenburg. He also reviewed the benefits as outlined in the material. Discussion was held regarding IT certifications required, ability of the proponent to communicate technology in layman’s terms, working in offices or remotely, Chester being the lead agency, cost recovery, succession planning, state of infrastructure at the Town, work plan, working with other units, and shared services. 2021-100 MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council approve the authorization of staff to commence recruitment of a full time IT Systems Analyst and authorize staff to work with our Solicitor to develop a partnership agreement with the town of Luneburg based on a 60%/40% cost sharing. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.5 Date for Strategic Planning Workshop The date of March 9th from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. was chosen and staff will confirm with Council once the facility is rented. IN CAMERA There were no further items to be discussed “In Camera”. ADJOURNMENT 2021-101 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the meeting adjourn. (11:53 a.m.) ___________________________ ___________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk 65 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COUNCIL MEETING – PUBLIC HEARING Via Facebook Live from 151 King Street, Chester, NS On Thursday, February 25, 2021 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:53 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor Veinotte District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford District 3 – Councillor Barkhouse District 4 – Warden Webber District 5 – Councillor Assaff District 6 – Councillor Connors District 7 – Councillor Church Staff: Dan McDougall, CAO Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Jennifer Webber, Communications Officer Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor UPDATE FROM THE CLERK There were no written submissions received nor were there any requests to address Council on the matters. COMMENTS BY MUNICIPAL SOLICITOR The Solicitor indicated that the matter is properly before Council. OVERVIEW BY PLANNER Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner, joined the meeting via Zoom and reviewed the report noting that with the Municipality approaching one year since the adoption of the new Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law, staff have identified several amendments to improve the clarity and administration of the By-law. The changes identified in this report are generally minor in nature and can be accomplished without amendments to the policies contained in the Municipal Planning Strategy. While the specific changes were not possible to predict, the reVISION Plan Review process anticipated the likelihood that within approximately one year of adoption, amendments would be required to ensure the intent of the documents was being carried out and to address any errors or difficulties as the regulations began to be administered. Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 66 The specific amendments proposed are detailed in the Discussion section of the report and the draft amendments were attached as Appendix A. The Senior Planner reviewed the nine amendments and discussed with Council how to determine the oldest structure on a lot where there is more than one. The Solicitor suggested to allow the Development Officer to do some investigation where there is uncertainty. PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPER There was no Developer in this case. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON THE PROPOSAL No public input was received. CLOSING REMARKS The Senior Planner confirmed that at this time Council was in a position to vote on the adoption of the amendments. DECISION OF COUNCIL 2021-089 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve the following amendments to the Chester Municipal Land Use By-Law with the addition of the ability of staff to carry out an investigation to determine which structure, if more than one, is considered the original structure on a property when determining the front yard: Amendments to the Chester Municipal Land Use By-law Be it enacted by the Council of the Municipality of Chester as follows: 1) Amendments to regulations on Accessory Structures at Section 4.1.9 as follows: a. Amend Section 4.1.9 to remove the restriction on placing accessory structures within the Front Yard of a lot; b. Clarify that accessory structures, small accessory structures and minor accessory structures are not permitted to be constructed within 1.5 m of a main building or structure, excluding signs, except that a fence or retaining wall may join accessory structures with a main building. 2) List “Accessory Structures related to Existing Golf Courses” within the Neighbourhood Comprehensive Development District Zone to permit development of accessory structures at Aspotogan Ridge Golf Course by development permit; 3) Amendments to Definitions Section: a. Add definition to the Land Use By-law to define a “landlocked lot” that has no frontage on a public street may be intersected by a private road. b. Add definition to the Land Use By-law for “tourist homes” (short term rentals) 4) Other Corrections and Amendments: Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 67 a. Correct a reference at Section 4.7.3 to refer to Sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.2; b. Correct a reference at Section 6.3.5 to refer to Section 6.3.4; c. Land Use By-law Section 4.28.1 c) replace existing text to state that small accessory structures, fire fighting impoundments and structures related to water systems are permitted to be located within the Lakefront Overlay; d. Reorganize and alphabetize the General Provisions section to correct the location of 4.25 Places of Worship which is currently out of alphabetical order. Chester Municipal Land Use By-law Underlined text is added. Strikethrough text is deleted. 1) Amendments to regulations on Accessory Structures at Section 4.1.9: 4.1.9 Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be permitted in all zones and, unless otherwise indicated, shall be subject to the following: a) Shall not be used for human habitation; b) In zones where minimum yards standards apply, shall not be permitted within the front yard of a lot or to be located closer than 1.2 m from any other lot line, with the exception of one accessory structure without plumbing which may be built to the ordinary high-water mark; c) Shall not be located or built within 1.5 m of a main building or structure, excluding signs, except that a fence or retaining wall may join accessory structures with a main building; d) Small accessory structures shall not require a development permit in any zone with the exception of the Single Unit Residential Zone (SU), the Protected Watershed Zone (PW), and on any land within the Lakefront Overlay; e) Notwithstanding 4.1.9 c), in any zone that includes regulations for Farm Animals, Small accessory structures used for the rearing, breeding, boarding, sheltering and keeping of Farm Animals shall require a Development Permit; f) Minor accessory structures shall not require a development permit. 2) List “Accessory Structures related to Existing Golf Courses” in the Neighbourhood Comprehensive Development District Zone 8.5.1 Permitted Uses and Developments The following uses are permitted in the Neighbourhood Comprehensive Development District (NCDD) zone subject to the specified approval process and standards: Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 68 Amendments to Land Use By-law Definitions: a. Add to Definitions Section as follows: Lot means any parcel of land as described by its boundaries, and for greater certainty: Abutting lot means a lot having one or more boundaries coincident with one or more zone boundaries; Corner lot means a lot situated at the intersection of two streets, highways or private roads; Flag lot means any lot which gains street frontage through the use of a narrow strip of land, referred to as the “staff”, which is integral to the lot. For greater clarity, lots where the “staff” is more than 20 m in width shall not be considered a Flag Lot. Interior lot means a lot situated between two lots and having access to one street, highway or private road; Landlocked Lot means a lot that has no frontage on a public street or a private road but may be intersected by a private road (shared right-of-way) which may or may not be contained on its own parcel of land. Through lot means a lot bounded on two opposite side sides by streets, highways or private roads, however, if any such through lot also qualifies as a corner lot, it shall be deemed to be a corner lot for the purposes of this By-law; Waterfront lot means a lot of which any portion is within twenty-nine (29) m of a watercourse, water body or the ocean. Approval Process Min. Front Yard Min. Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Max. Height of Structure Municipal Parks DP none none none none 1 – 2 dwelling units on an Existing lot in Mill Cove Park listed below DP 1.5 m 1.5 m 1.5 m 11 m Accessory Structures related to Existing Golf Courses DP 5m 5m 5m 11m All other Developments & uses in accordance with an approved Development agreement pursuant with the Municipal Planning Strategy. DA Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 69 Lot line means a boundary line of a lot. Front lot line means: (i) the line dividing the lot from the street, highway or private road; or (ii) in the case of a lot which does not abut a street, highway or private road, the orientation of the main building on the lot; or (iii) in the case of a corner lot, the lot line abutting the street or highway based on the orientation of the main building on the lot; or (iv) in the case of a through lot, the longer boundary line abutting the street or highway; (v) in the case of a flag lot, the Front Lot Line is considered to be the lot line parallel to the street excluding the “staff” portion of the lot; or (vi) in the case of a landlocked lot with two or more main buildings on the lot, the Front Lot Line is determined based on the orientation of the original main building. b. Add to Definitions Section as follows: Tourist Home means a dwelling functioning in a commercial capacity as self-catering accommodation for the travelling public and does not include facilities open to the general public such as meeting rooms, restaurants, or entertainment facilities. 3) Additional Minor Amendments: a. Changes at 4.7.3 4.7.3 High Capacity Electrical Generating Facilities Any electrical generating facilities not permitted under sections 4.7.1 4.3.1 or 4.7.2 4.3.2, such as a large-scale wind turbine facility or solar farm, shall be permitted by development agreement in the General Basic (GB), Business Park (BP), Kaizer Meadow Industrial (KI) and Kaizer Meadow (KM) zones. b. Changes at 6.3.5 6.3.5 Special Requirements: Short-Term Habitation of Vehicles Notwithstanding 6.3.4 6.2.3, nothing shall prevent the temporary habitation of recreational vehicles within the Settlement Residential One (SR-1) zone, up to a maximum of fourteen days in any calendar year without the requirement for a temporary development permit or a development permit. c. Changes at 4.28.1 c) Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 70 4.28.1 Lakefront Overlay a) all developments within an area that is covered by the Lakefront Overlay (Schedule “B”) shall require a development permit; b) main buildings are not permitted within the area covered by the Lakefront Overlay. For greater clarity this covers lands within twenty (20) m of the ordinary high water mark of any water body identified on Schedule “B”; c) minimum yard requirements shall not apply to sSmall accessory structures, fire-fighting impoundments and structures related to water systems shall be permitted within the Lakefront Overlay subject to the provisions of this By-law;, or where otherwise permitted in this By-law; d) Impermeable surfaces within the Lakefront Overlay shall not exceed 25% of the total area of the lot including buildings and hard-surface landscaping. d. Changes to Alphabetization from 4.17 to 4.25 4.17 Places of Worship & Cemeteries 4.17.1 Places of worship and cemeteries shall be permitted in all zones with the exception of the Business Park (BP), Kaizer Meadow Industrial (KI), Kaizer Meadow (KM), Protected Watershed (PW) and Conservation (CS) zones. 4.18 Private storage 4.18.1 Where there is no other main building on the lot, private storage buildings shall be permitted in any zone subject to the zone standards for yards. 4.19 Public Structures and Uses 4.19.1 Public utilities provided by the Municipality such as, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, pumping stations, water storage reservoirs, and stormwater management facilities shall be permitted in any zone. 4.18.2 Public buildings, public uses and parks shall be permitted in any zone. 4.20 Radio-communications facilities 4.20.1 Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the use of land for the installation of radio- communications facilities that have been issued a license by the Federal Government following due process as prescribed in the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS) Antenna System Siting Review and Consultation Protocol, Reference Issue 3 [2014] as amended from time to time. 4.21 Salvage yards 4.21.1 Where permitted, salvage yards shall have an approved commercial highway access from the appropriate Provincial or Municipal department. The area of a salvage yard shall be screened to provide a visual barrier that is at least two (2) m in height. Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 71 4.22 Shipping containers 4.22.1 Shipping containers shall be permitted, subject to development standards, in all zones except the Single Unit Residential (SU), and Coastal Island (CI) zones and shall not be used for human habitation unless converted in compliance with the Nova Scotia Building Code. 4.23 Site Plan Approval 4.23.1 Where permitted in the zone, and in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Government Act, the Development Officer may issue a development permit, upon approval of a site plan approval of moderate-density residential development, or a commercial, institutional, recreational or industrial development, as indicated in zones where such approval may be considered, in which the following requirements have been addressed: a) approval by the authority having jurisdiction for sewage disposal either by an on-site sewage disposal system, or by connection to a municipal central sewer, or by connection to a sewage disposal system satisfying the design and construction requirements of the Municipal Specifications adopted by Council; b) adequate emergency vehicle access; c) adequate solid waste collection access; d) approval by the authority having jurisdiction for access to any public street; e) adequate on-site potable water supply for domestic use and fire suppression, such as not to negatively impact existing abutting developments; f) location of new buildings and additions to existing buildings within the permissible building envelope, and no less than twenty (20) m from any watercourse, water body, or wetland; g) location and design of on-site loading and parking areas to facilitate safe access between building(s) and vehicle parking and maneuvering areas; h) screening of parking areas and any outside storage areas from adjacent properties and from the public street by a fence at least 1.2 m high or an equivalent combination of berms or landscaping; i) location and design of walkways and any outside storage areas so as to facilitate building access, and shall be surfaced with stable materials to prevent dust from blowing onto adjacent properties; j) provision of a landscaped buffer consisting of a combination of trees, shrubs, plants and grass, or retention in the form of existing vegetation, in the front yard, side yard and rear yard, exclusive of parking, driveways and pedestrian walkways, a minimum of 25% of the total land area; k) retention and incorporation of existing vegetation into the site landscaping, including the protection of environmentally sensitive areas; l) with regard to watercourses and water bodies: (i) maintenance of a vegetated buffer of twenty (20) m in depth from the ordinary high-water mark of a watercourse or water body; Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 72 (ii) retention, replanting and maintenance of the vegetated buffer, in tree cover and understory vegetation to at least 75% of the linear water body frontage of the buffer, and not as a maintained, mowed lawn; (iii) allowance of a 3.5 m wide opening in the vegetated buffer for access to watercourses and water bodies by means of docks, decks and pathways; (iv) allowance of small accessory structures shall be permitted within the vegetative buffer so identified. m) indication on the site plan approval of all easements where applicable; n) indication of measures including lot grading and the limitation of impermeable surfaces, such as concrete and asphalt, to areas for access, parking, and pedestrian walkways so as to demonstrate satisfactory stormwater drainage; o) other than the minimum infilling required for construction of boathouses, slipways, wharves and bridges, indication of adequate management of land levels within twenty (20) m of any watercourse, water body, or the sea such that they are not altered by filling in of land greater that 0.3 m above the natural ground surface; p) provision of outdoor lighting fixtures with full horizontal cut-off such that direct illumination does not extend beyond the lot lines of the development; q) all buildings and all other structures, lawns, trees, shrubs, parking areas, lighting systems, and other landscaping elements shall be maintained in a tidy, attractive and useable state free of unkempt matter of any kind; and the development shall not generate emissions such as dust, radiation, odours, liquids, or light to the air, water, or ground so as to create a recognized health or safety hazard or to create a nuisance to the adjacent properties. 4.23.2 Notwithstanding site plan approval requirements, accessory structures under fifty (50) m2 shall not require site plan approval but shall be approved by development permit. 4.23.3 The applicant shall enter into a written undertaking to carry out the terms of the site plan approval. 4.24 Stormwater Standard 4.24.1 Residential developments comprising 12 or more dwelling units; or a commercial, institutional, light industrial or heavy industrial development with a gross floor area over 1,000 m2 or occupying a land area over 6,000 m2 shall submit a storm drainage plan, furnished by a qualified professional, namely an engineer, using stormwater management best practices such that: a) surface runoff from impermeable surfaces, and rooftop runoff from downspouts, shall drain across permeable areas such as yards, vegetated areas or other permeable surfaces, utilizing rain gardens, drainage swales or other stormwater control methods, before entering any watercourse, water body, wetland, stormwater system, or drainage ditch; b) peak post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows for all major storms including extreme weather events (1 in 20-year storms). Council – Public Hearing February 25, 2021 73 4.25 Temporary structures 4.25.1 Temporary uses: special occasions Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the use of land for the erection of temporary structures or signs for a special occasion organized and operated by the Municipality, a non-profit organization, or private household. Such use of land shall not require a development permit. 4.25.2 Temporary structures: incidental to construction A temporary structure incidental to construction of a main building, including but not limited to a mobile site office, tool shed, scaffold, shipping container or temporary shelter of goods, shall require a temporary development permit. The temporary structure shall be removed no more than six (6) months from issuance of a temporary development permit for said temporary structure. 4.25.3 Temporary structures: special occasions A temporary structure for special occasions and holidays, including but not limited to community or private celebrations, and commercial promotions, shall not require a development permit, shall not be installed more than ten (10) days prior to the start of the special occasion and shall be removed no more than ten (10) days following the termination of the special occasion. 4.25.4 Temporary signs: special occasions Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the use of land, the use of structures or the erection of signs during and for the purposes of municipal, provincial or federal election campaign provided such uses are terminated and such signs are removed within seven days following the election. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT The Public Hearing ended at 9:12 a.m. and the meeting then convened in a Regular Council session. __________________________ __________________________ Allen Webber Pamela M. Myra Warden Municipal Clerk Page 1 of 2 MOTIONS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FROM MARCH 3, 2021 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING 2021-105 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS 2021-106 APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 18, 2021 COW MINUTES 2021-107 GOLD RIVER BRIDGE INSPECTION/ASSESSMENT AWARD TO ABLE ENGINEERING MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to approve an expenditure not exceeding $46,500 (estimated cost plus 10% contingency), funded from the current year’s revenue, and direct staff to award the Gold River Bridge Inspection/Assessment Project to ABLE Engineering Services Ltd. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2021-108 APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO CANADA HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE FUND FOR WASHROOM FACILITIES/UPGRADES MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to direct staff to submit an application to the Canada Healthy Communities Initiative fund for washroom facilities as outlined in the March 1, 2021 Request for Decision regarding Canada Healthy Communities Initiative funding at a 50% request, with an increase in budget for solutions to $20,000 for enviro-toilets and an increase to $65,000 for the Wild Rose Park washroom facility. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2021-109 AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT TO EXECUTE FUNDING AGREEMENT - INTERNET MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Veinotte that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to authorize staff to execute the funding agreement and thus authorize the $128,300 contribution towards the Develop Nova Scotia/Bell Phase 2 projects in the Municipality of Chester, pending legal review of Bell Canada’s draft Agreement. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2021-110 TRAFFIC STUDY/IMPROVEMENT PLAN RFP DOCUMENT APPROVED MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to accept the recommendations of staff as outlined in the Request for Decision prepared December 11, 2021 with the addition of Bayswater Beach and Fox Point Back Road and Councillors as stakeholders for a Traffic Study/Improvement Plan. FIVE VOTED IN FAVOUR. ONE VOTED IN THE NEGATIVE. MOTION CARRIED. Page 2 of 2 2021-111 DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING BACK UPDATED RFQ FOR REPAIRS OF BARRY’S BROOK BRIDGES #1 AND #2 Moved by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to approve an expenditure not exceeding $136,000 to complete the repairs of both Barry’s Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2 and direct staff to bring forward an updated Request for Quotation for the repairs of the bridges. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2021-112 STAFF REPORT REQUEST – IMPACT ON GRANTS WITH AN INCREASE TO THE COUNCIL DISTRICT GRANT AMOUNTS MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that staff be directed to provide a report outlining the impact on grants (Council, Tourism, Recreation, Major Grants) if the Council District Grants were increased to $10,000 from $5,000 for each district. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2021-113 ADJOURNMENT. REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION Prepared By: Greg Jonah, C.E.T. Date March 4, 2021 Reviewed By: Christa Rafuse, P. Eng. Chad Haughn Date Date Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date CURRENT SITUATION Municipal Council approved an expenditure not exceeding $136,000 to complete repairs to Barry’s Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended to Council that Council approve the draft RFQ and direct staff to issue publicly. DISCUSSION Barry’s Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2 are twin single span structures requiring repairs. The recommended repairs to the bridges include:  Repair and/or reinstall granite stones  Repointing mortar joints on abutments  Adding scour protection  Sandblasting and painting steel girders  Replacing steel bracing members  Replacing bearing pads  Replacing rail ties  Install paved approaches  Analyze superstructure to determine residual load capacity  Design, supply and install a new decking system able to support a 28 tonne loaded tandem dump truck. REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Recreation and Parks / Infrastructure and Operations DATE: March 11, 2021 SUBJECT: Barry’s Brook Trail Bridges Repairs ORIGIN: Trail Bridge Maintenance Program Staff have prepared a draft RFQ for consideration. It should be noted that Frank Cowan recommended the insurance requirements follow the guidelines for contractor insurance published on December 14, 2020 by the Canadian Construction Document Committee (attached). These requirements are reflected in the RFQ. 2 Request For Decision IMPLICATIONS Policy Procurement Policy (P-40) Financial/Budgetary N/A Environmental N/A Strategic Plan 1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility; 2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services; 3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses; 4. Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources; 6. Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity Work Program Implications N/A OPTIONS 1. Approve the draft RFQ and direct staff to issue publicly. 2. Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as identified by Council. ATTACHMENTS  Draft RFQ  CCDC Contractor Insurance requirements Request for Quotation Repairs to two (2) trail Bridges Barry’s Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2 MODC-T-003 CLOSING May 4, 2021 AT 3:00pm EST The Municipality of the District of Chester Infrastructure & Operations www.chester.ca PROJECT OBJECTIVE The objective of this Request for Quotation is for the Municipality of the District of Chester (Owner) to retain one (1) Contractor for the provision of all necessary design work, labour, equipment, and materials necessary to complete repairs to Barry Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2 in the Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia by Nov 30, 2021. 1. SPECIFICATIONS These project documents have been prepared for use and require being read in conjunction with the Standard Specification for Municipal Services as published by the Nova Scotia road Builders Association Consulting Engineers Nova Scotia Joint Committee on Contract Documents. Copies of the Standard Specifications are available from the Joint Committee on Contract Documents c/o Spectech Limited, 455 Colby Drive, Dartmouth, N.S., B2V 2K4; Telephone: (902) 430-2534, (902) 233-9362 or email nsmunicipalservices@gmail.com. 2. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 2.1 DEFINITIONS 2.1.1 The “Contract” is the undertaking by the parties to perform their respective duties, responsibilities, and obligations as prescribed in this Quotation document, and includes any other subsequent documents or adjustments that come into affect as a result of completing the work. 2.1.2 The “Contractor” is the person, firm or corporation awarded the Work in whole or in part. 2.1.3 The “Owner” is the Municipality of the District of Chester. 2.1.4 The “Work” is the total construction contemplated, or the complete provision of equipment, including delivery and set-up, or service, as specified in this Quotation. 2.1.5 The “Municipal Engineer” is the Director of Infrastructure and Operations of the Municipality of the District of Chester or his/her designate 2.2 The authorization for administration of the Contract will be through the office of the Owner’s Chief Administrative Officer or designate. For this Contract, the designate authority will be the Director of Engineering and Public Works, or his/her designate, for the Owner of the Municipality of the District of Chester. 2.3 All subcontractors employed by the Contractor will be subject to the same terms and conditions of the Contract and will be under the supervision and control of the Contractor. The Owner may, for reasonable cause, object to the use of a proposed subcontractor and require the Contractor to employ another subcontractor. Nothing contained in this Contract shall create a contractual relationship between a subcontractor and the Owner. 2.4 All changes in the scope of the Work must be authorized in writing by the Owner to the Contractor, prior to the change in the Work proceeding. Approved changes to the scope of the Work will not remove the responsibility of the Contractor to complete the Work, save for adjustments in the completion schedule for the revised Work. Adjustments in the Contract price and the Contract completion schedule resulting from changes in the scope of the Work will be mutually agreed to by the Owner and the Contractor. 2.5 There will be no variation in the quoted unit prices for items of the Work with respect to variation of actual quantities from estimated quantities. All unit prices will include all sales taxes, customs duties and excise duties save for the Harmonized Sales Tax, which will be calculated as a separate item on the total of prices for all items of the Work. Provisional and option prices will be shown as separate prices and will exclude HST. 2.6 Payment will be made to the Contractor by the Owner within 30 days of submission of invoice by the Contractor to the Owner, for items of the Work completed to the satisfaction of the Owner. Prices for the items of Work on the submitted invoice will be per the quoted unit prices, and subsequent quotations. The total payable to the Contractor will be the total price of the items of the Work, as approved, plus the applicable Harmonized Sales Tax. 2.7 No partial use of the Work shall constitute acceptance of the Work or products, which are not in accordance with these Quotation Specifications. Final acceptance of the Work will be achieved when all items of the Work per the Contract including changes in the Work, are completed to the satisfaction of the Owner, notwithstanding the requirements of Section 11 Defective Work 2.8 Unless otherwise indicated in this document, the obtaining of all required permits, licenses and certificates, and payment of related fees, will be the responsibility of the Contractor, except for obtaining access to the place of the Work. 2.9 The Contractor shall protect the Work and the Owner’s property and property adjacent to the place of Work, and private property and chattels permitted in a public place, where the place of the Work is open to the public, and the Contractor shall be responsible for damage that may arise as the result of his operations under this Contract. 2.10 The Contractor shall be responsible for the proper performance of the Work. There shall be no warranty requirements for the Quotation. 2.11 The Contractor shall have complete control of the Work and shall effectively direct and supervise the Work to ensure conformance with the Contract. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for means of construction and supply of equipment and services, per the items of the Service, and for co-coordinating the various parts of the Work of the Contract. 2.12 Defective Work, equipment and service, whether the result of poor Workmanship, use of defective products or damage through carelessness or other act of omission of the Contractor, and whether incorporated in the scope of the Work or not, which has been rejected by the Owner as failing to conform to these Specifications, shall be removed promptly and replaced or re-executed promptly in accordance with the Contract at the Contractor’s expense. Other contractors’ Work destroyed or damaged by such removals or replacements shall be made good promptly at the Contractor’s expense. If in the opinion of the Owner, it is not expedient to correct defective Work or equipment or service, or same not performed in accordance with these Specifications, the Owner may deduct from the Contract price the difference in value between the Work performed, and that called for in the Contract. 2.13 The Contractor is to assume the full cost and responsibility of for any damage or loss to their equipment. Sufficient measures to avoid damages or loss are to be taken by the Contractor. Loss by theft, fire, accident, or negligence, will also be the Contractor’s responsibility and shall take appropriate precautions. 2.14 Contractors will be deemed to have familiarized themselves with existing site and working conditions and all other conditions which may affect performance of the Contract. Contractors may examine the site to satisfy themselves of the conditions. No plea of ignorance of such conditions as a result of failure to make all necessary examinations will be accepted as a basis for any claims for extra compensation or an extension of time. 2.15 The Contractor will have included with the quotation submission a Clearance Letter/Letter of Good Standing regarding current premiums paid to the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia. The Contractor, and his subcontractors, will maintain continuous Workers’ Compensation coverage during the course of this Contract. The Owner reserves the right to demand proof of current premiums paid to the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia from the Contractor and any of his subcontractors during the course of the Contract. 2.16 The Contractor will be responsible for workplace safety for the scope of the Work, per the Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act, and its Regulations, and including the Owner’s Site Safety Policy and Manual of Procedures. The Owner reserves the right to inspect to ensure that the Contractor is following its Safety Policies and Procedure. The Contractor will have included with the Quotation submission a Letter of Good Standing issued by a safety organization approved by the Worker’s Compensation Board of Nova Scotia. The Contractor will maintain his Letter of Good Standing during the Contract. 2.17 INSURANCE The Contractor shall provide, maintain and pay for the insurance that meets the following requirements: 2.17.1 Commercial General Liability, underwritten by an insurer licensed to conduct business in the Province of Nova Scotia, for a limit of not less than ten (10) million dollars per occurrence. The policy shall include an extension for a standard provincial and territorial form of non-owned automobile liability policy. This policy shall include but not be limited to: 2.17.1.1 Name the Owner as an additional insured 2.17.1.2 Cross-liability and severability of interest 2.17.1.3 Blanket Contractual 2.17.1.4 Products and Completed Operations 2.17.1.5 Premises and Operations Liability 2.17.1.6 Personal Injury Liability 2.17.1.7 Contingent Employers Liability 2.17.1.8 Owners and Contractors Protective 2.17.1.9 Broad Form Property Damage 2.17.1.10 Firefighting Expenses 2.17.1.11 Elevator and Hoist Liability 2.17.1.12 Attached Machinery – while loading & unloading 2.17.2 Automobile liability insurance with a minimum coverage of at least ten (10) million per occurrence, covering all owned, leased and operated vehicles. 2.17.3 Contractor Pollution Liability Insurance with a minimum coverage of five (5) million per occurrence including Difference in Condition Auto Policy 2.17.3.1 The evidence of coverage supplied MUST specify there is no exclusion contained within the policy applicable to the materials being handled, transported and/or treated in performance of this contract. 2.17.4 Property Insurance (Builders Risk Coverage) with a minimum coverage of two (2) million per occurrence 2.17.5 Professional Liability insurance in the amount of one (1) million dollars providing coverage for acts, errors and omissions arising from their professional services performed under this document. The policy SIR/deductible shall not exceed $100,000 per claim and if the policy has an aggregate limit, the amount of the aggregate shall be double the required per claim limit. 2.17.6 Before the commencement date of work, the Contractor shall provide to the owner current certificates of insurance or, at the request of the Municipality, a certified copy of the policies, as well as renewal certificates or policies thereafter for the duration of the Agreement, evidencing the required insurance and recording that the Municipality of the District of Chester shall receive 30 days written notice prior to cancellation, and prior to a material change of coverage detrimental to the Municipality. 2.17.7 The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and save harmless Municipality of the District of Chester its elected officials, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims of any nature, actions, causes of action, losses, expenses, fines, costs (including legal costs), interest or damages of every nature and kind whatsoever, including but not limited to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death or to damage to or destruction of tangible property including loss of revenue or incurred expense resulting from disruption of service, arising out of or allegedly attributable to the negligence, acts, errors, omissions, misfeasance, nonfeasance, fraud or willful misconduct of the Contractor, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors, or any of them, in connection with or in any way related to the delivery or performance of this Contract. This indemnity shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any insurance to be provided by the Contractor in accordance with this Contract and shall survive this Contract. 2.17.8 The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the Municipality of the District of Chester from and against any and all claims of any nature, actions, causes of action, losses, expenses, fines, costs (including legal costs), interest or damages of every nature and kind whatsoever arising out of or related to the Contractor’s status with WCB. This indemnity shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any proof of WCB status and compliance to be provided by the Supplier in accordance with this Contract and shall survive this Contract. 2.18 The Contractor will only employ fully qualified, licensed, and experienced labourers and skilled tradespersons. Equipment will be appropriately maintained for the efficient execution of the scope of Work of the Contract. The Owner reserves the right to inspect the Contractor's equipment at any time on the work site and reject the use of equipment at the work site that is not inspected or in any other way inappropriate for the Work, at its sole discretion. The Owner reserves the right to request prior work references, and validation of worker training and qualification, prior to awarding the Contract. Only approved workers will be permitted at the work site. Such approval will be at the Owner’s sole discretion. The Owner reserves the right to inspect labourer and skilled tradesperson qualifications for working or operating equipment at the work site at any time and reject the use of any labourer and skilled tradesperson that is not suitably licensed or qualified for the Work, at its sole discretion. 2.19 The Contractor will maintain the site in a tidy condition free from the accumulation of waste products and debris. All surplus products, tools, machinery and equipment will be removed upon completion of the Work. All waste and debris is to be disposed of promptly. 2.20 The Contractor will provide sufficient notice to the Municipal Engineer for inspection of the Work, in whole or in part, in order to permit inspection by the Municipal Engineer and confirm compliance. The Municipal Engineer will not give final acceptance of the Work until completion of cleanup. 2.21 The Owner may waive minor differences in the quotations provided the differences do NOT violate the bidder’s intent. No term or conditions shall be implied based on any industry trade practice or custom, any practice or policy of the quotation or Owner or otherwise, which is inconsistent or conflicts with provisions contained in this document. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all quotations, not necessarily accept the lowest quote, or to accept any quotation which it may consider to be in its best interest. The Owner also reserves the right to waive formality, informality or technicality in any quotation. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 BACKGROUND - MODC Located in Lunenburg County, the Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) is the gateway to Nova Scotia’s South Shore with close transportation links with Halifax, Bridgewater, and the Annapolis Valley. MODC offers residents, visitors, and businesses alike access to ocean and lakeside waterfront, tracks of farmland and forested areas as well as an abundance of amenities and services. MODC has a land area of 1,128 km2 and a population of 10,310 residents (2016 census). Although primarily a rural municipality with a population density of 9.14 residents per km2, many of MODC’s 7,063 residential civic addresses are concentrated in a number of distinct communities, six of which are served—to varying degrees of serviceable boundaries—by central wastewater systems. MODC maintains the former CNR railway corridors converted to trails including the Aspotogan trail (12km), and the Chester Connection trail (35km) and additional trails in Castle Rock. These trails include 12 bridges. In terms of economic profile, MODC is typical of rural Nova Scotia with light industrial, commercial, tourism, residential, agricultural, and wildland sectors. There are no major hospitals or large multi-tenant high-rise buildings. There is a large ocean coastline and several inhabited offshore islands. The Municipality is crossed by several major highways, namely Highway 103, Highway 12, and Highway 14, and numerous private and secondary connecting routes and private roads within the Municipality. More information about MODC can be found on the Municipal web site at www.chester.ca. 3.2 BACKGROUND – TRAIL BRIDGES The 12 trail bridges in MODC are former rail bridges that were constructed over 100 years ago and designed to support trains. Over the years, some maintenance work has been completed on some of the bridges, and decking to accommodate trail users was added in the early 2000’s. The 12 bridges (from West to East) are as follows:  Barkhouse Bridge  Gold River Bridge  Middle River Bridge  Cooks Branch / Halfway River Bridge  King Street Bridge  Goat Lake #2 Bridge  Goat Lake #1 Bridge  Barry Brook #2 Bridge  Barry’s Brook #1 Bridge  East River Bridge  Little East River Bridge  Fox Brook Bridge 4. PERSONNEL 4.1 All personnel providing service under this contract shall be appropriately licensed and certified to perform the work. All equipment and tools shall be maintained and inspected as per manufacturers instructions and the Nova Scotia Workplace Health and Safety Regulations. Valid certifications and inspection reports must be made available upon request of the Owner. 4.2 The Contractor shall designate a Project Manager, who will be responsible for overall management and coordination of the Work. The Project Manager shall be available at all times during the completion of this project and shall serve as the central point of contact with the Owner. 4.3 If there are any charges to the service standards and regulations implemented by the Provincial Government, the Contractor shall meet these requirements. 4.4 The Contractor at his expense shall provide, full personal protective equipment and accessories to staff and personnel during all hours and conditions of work. 5. SERVICE PROCEDURE 5.1 The performance of this contract shall be based on the following procedure, subject to change at the sole discretion of the Owner. 5.2 The Contractor shall complete the approved work only. Any issues requiring additional work must be brought to the attention of the Owner and approved before work is to proceed. While verbal approval is permitted in this case, it must be followed up in writing along with an estimate cost of repair. 5.3 The Contractor shall submit an invoice along with the completed service request forms to the Owner for each request for review and approval. Owner shall provide payment within 30 days of receiving the invoice. 6. SCOPE OF WORK 6.1 This project includes the provision of all Engineering, labour, equipment, and materials necessary to perform repairs to Barry’s Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2 as follows: 6.1.1 The work of this lump sum item shall include all items required to complete the work except Unit Price Items explicitly listed below. This includes, but is not limited to the following: 6.1.1.1 All mobilization and demobilization to the site, access to the site, temporary utilities, traffic control including physical barriers and signage, construction facilities, including temporary cofferdam(s), dewatering and water controls, temporary barriers and enclosures and access systems such as scaffolding. 6.1.1.2 Testing, inspections and permits from all regulatory agencies and groups required to complete the Work, not specified elsewhere. 6.1.1.3 Erection of Staging and Temporary Shoring 6.1.1.4 Preparation and submission of all submittals, including but not limited to Environmental permits, detailed cleaning and restoration plan, detailed work schedule, health and safety plan, environmental protection plan, bearing repair plan, product data, samples, proof of qualifications, certificates, testing results, preparation of mock-ups. 6.1.1.5 Waste Management and Disposal. 6.1.1.6 Cleaning and reinstatement of the work site. 6.1.2 Reinstall any dislodged granite stones in the abutments complete with dowels 6.1.3 Repair any cracked granite stones 6.1.4 Repoint deteriorated mortar joints between granite stone blocks 6.1.5 Supply and install rip rap as necessary at the base of abutments and embankment walls to protect against scouring 6.1.6 Remove existing bearing pads and supply and install new anchored elastomeric bearing pads (Exact specification to be determined by Contractor and verified by a professional Engineer) 6.1.7 Sand blast and paint structural steel components with a two-coat polyaspartic urethane (PAS) coating system or equivalent. Prior to sand blasting, contractor must investigate to determine if existing paint flakes contain lead. 6.1.8 (Provisional) Additional safety mitigations required due to the presence of lead in the paint flakes 6.1.9 Remove and dispose of existing brace members and supply and install new 70X70X8 painted leg angle bar brace members. 6.1.10 Analyze superstructures to determine residual capacity. 6.1.11 Remove existing rail ties and bridge decks & guiderails 6.1.12 Design, supply and install new decking systems with guiderails matching existing and a clear width of 2.5 meters. Structures to meet the requirements of NS Standards and Guidelines for the Construction of OHV Trail Bridges on Crown land and designed to support a 28 tonne loaded tandem dump truck. 6.1.13 Supply and install four (4) new 2.5m X 3.0 m, 75mm thick asphalt approaches 6.2 The Contractor will be responsible for securing all necessary permits and approvals 6.3 The estimated quantities as per Appendix “A” are estimates only. Actual quantities for payment will be from field measurements and slips. The Municipality does not guarantee a minimum quantity related to this Quotation. 6.4 Traffic control, when required, will be provided by the Municipality. It is the responsibility of the contractor to notify the Municipality a minimum of 24 hours before starting work if Traffic Control is required. Notification is to include location, start time and duration. 6.5 The Contractor will provide sufficient notice to the Municipal Engineer for inspection of the Work, in whole or in part, to confirm compliance. The Municipal Engineer will not give final acceptance of the Work until completion of cleanup. 6.6 The Contract may, at their sole discretion, provide and maintain an alternative to closing the trail through detours and/or temporary bridges for use by trail users. Any temporary facility must be safe and usable to pedestrians, cyclists, and support off highway vehicles. 6.7 On October 2, 2021, the “Ride for Cancer” cycling event has cyclists utilizing the trail for a fundraising event. The trail MUST BE PASSABLE FOR CYCLISTS ON THIS DAY. 6.8 Substantial completion of this project to be achieved by Nov 30, 2021 7. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 7.1 The Work of this Contract including the specified products, materials and methods of construction to be used are according to: 7.1.1 NS Standard Specification available at “https://novascotia.ca/tran/publications/Standard_Specification_Manual_-_2014.pdf” 7.1.2 Standards and Guidelines for the Construction of OHV Trail Bridges on Crown land available at https://novascotia.ca/natr/ohv/pdf/bridge-construction-standards.pdf 7.1.3 Tenderer is responsible for their own assessment and investigations as required to satisfy themselves of the site conditions. With the Owners permission, sought through the Engineer, the Tenderer may attend the site to examine site conditions. Any reliance, interpolation and/or assumption made relative to any previous investigations are the Tenderer's responsibility with no recourse to the Owner. 7.1.4 The site shall be reviewed for potential negative effects related to runoff from the work, including major dewatering activities, and the subsequent restoration. The Tenderer shall recognize that there is an obligation to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that provides effective control for all construction sites. The Tenderer is responsible for erection and maintenance of erosion and sediment control devices as per the Nova Scotia Department of Environment's Sedimentation Handbook, or as directed by the Engineer and to the satisfaction of NSE, DFO and any others having jurisdiction. 7.1.5 Due to the nature of the work (maintenance of existing bridge), a Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) Watercourse Alteration Approval is required. The Successful proponent will be required to submit an application with NSE. The successful proponent will be responsible for completing the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of such Approval, as well as for the design and implementation of all water control measures to allow work in isolation of the flow. The successful Tenderer will be responsible for submitting a plan to the Engineer, outlining the methods to be used for work in isolation of the flow as well as methods for ensuring debris does not enter watercourse, which will be forwarded to and subject to NSE approval. As such, all work must be under the direct supervision of a NSE certified Watercourse Alteration Installer. 7.1.6 The Aspotogan Trail is popular trail with many users enjoying the trail daily. Additionally, Barry Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2 are along the portion of trail that connects the East River Trail Parking area and Castle Rock, a popular destination for Municipal residents and tourists. MOC understands the need for the trail to be closed for some time, however, preference will be given to proponents who minimize the total number of days the trail will be impassable. 8. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 8.1 The Contractor shall adhere to all applicable Federal, Provincial, Municipal and Industry Safety Regulations applicable to the work. 8.2 The Contractor shall be required to adhere to the Nova Scotia occupational Health and Safety Act, Occupational Safety General Regulations 8.3 The Contractor shall provide and maintain a completely equipped first aid kit, as per Occupational Health and Safety First Aid Regulation (Latest edition), in a clean, orderly condition which shall be readily accessible at all times to employees who are properly instructed to be in charge of first aid. At least one such employee shall be available to render first aid at the main point of operation at all times that the work is being carried out. 9. SITE MEETING 9.1 A voluntary site meeting for Proponents regarding this Request for Quotation is scheduled for April 20, 2021. MODC staff will meet prospective bidders at the Castle Rock trail parking lot located on Hwy 329, approximately 200 meters south of the Hwy#329 / Trunk #3 intersection in East River NS at 1:00 PM local time. We will proceed to walk Westerly on the Chester Connection trail to Barry’s Bridge #1 (approximately 1.3 km). Proponent’s will have an opportunity to inspect the bridge, review the scope of work, and ask questions related to the project. We will then walk to Barry’s Brook Bridge#2 (approximately 0.4 km West) and proponents will again have an opportunity to inspect the bridge and ask questions. 10. SUBMISSIONS 10.1 The Quotation closing date and time is May 4, 2021, 3:00 PM, local time. 10.2 The Quotation closing location is the Municipal Administration Building, 151 King Street, Chester, Nova Scotia. 10.3 All sealed and time stamped Quotation will be secured in the Municipal vault. 10.4 Quotations sent by post and courier should be clearly identified as to contents “Repairs to two (2) trail Bridges, Barry’s Brook Bridge #1 and Barry’s Brook Bridge #2, MODC-T-003” and directed to the Attention Pam Myra, Municipal Clerk, 151 King Street, Chester, Nova Scotia, B0J 1J0. Mailed and couriered items must be received prior to May 4, 2021, 3:00 PM, local time. 10.5 Facsimile, e-mail, or telephone responses will not be considered. 10.6 Quotations may be withdrawn by post, courier, or fax, if received prior to the closing. 10.7 Quotations will be binding for 60 calendar days following the opening date. 10.8 Quotations will be publicly opened at the time of closing and location as noted above. Please note that due to the current restrictions due to Covid 19, a virtual format may be implemented for the opening. 10.9 One paper copy, with all required submittals of the Quotation shall be submitted. 10.10 Late Quotations shall be returned unopened. 10.11 Quotations must be signed by those authorized to sign on behalf of the Contractor and to bind the Contractor to statements made in the quotation. 11. COMMUNICATION 11.1 All communications and questions for clarification regarding the contents of this Quotation shall be forwarded by letter, e-mail, or fax to the individual noted below: Procurement Officer, Municipality of Chester Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King Street, Chester, Nova Scotia, B0J 1J0 E-mail: dpittman@chester.ca, Telephone: 902 275-3554 11.2 All requests for clarification must be received in writing at least four (4) working days prior to the closing date to allow written clarification to be issued to all respondents. All requests are to be submitted to the contact above, responses to requests from any other individual shall not be considered an official response from the Owner. Verbal responses are only binding when confirmed by written addenda. 12. If the Municipal Engineer considers that correction, explanation, or interpretation is necessary; the Municipal Engineer will issue a written addendum. All addenda shall form part of the submission and the Contract Documents. 13. All expenses incurred in the preparation and presentations of the response to the Quotation are entirely the responsibility of the Contractor. This includes but is not limited to labour, materials, and the cost of site visits if applicable. 14. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to ensure that their quotation is complete and is delivered to the Owner by the date and time indicated. Accordingly, the Owner may not consider any quotation in which material and information requested is not furnished or where indirect or incomplete information is provided. 15. The Tentative date to consider award of the successful Quotation contract is May 20, 2021. This date is subject to change. 16. QUOTATION CONTENT 16.1 Contractors are expected to include all the information as listed below in their submissions. Quotations should be detailed enough to demonstrate how the Contractor’s expertise, staff, and resources best meets the needs of the Owner as described in this Quotation. 16.1.1 Detailed expertise - When detailing expertise, the Contractors shall reference their expertise as it pertains to the Scope of Work. 16.1.2 A minimum of three (3) references from past three (3) years including details of similar projects completed and contact numbers (maximum 2 pages) 16.1.3 Safety Certification - A copy of Contractor’s current and valid Letter of Good Standing issued by a Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Board approved company 16.1.4 WCB Clearance - A current and valid Clearance Letter/Letter of Good Standing, issued by the Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia 16.1.5 Guarantee of Insurance – Contractors shall guarantee Insurance requirements as per Section 2.17 of this document 16.1.6 Completed Appendix A “QUOTATION” with all blanks filled in including total days requiring trail closure 17. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 17.1 Agreement - By submitting a quotation in response to this Quotation, the Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions outlined in this Quotation. All quotations shall remain irrevocable unless withdrawn in writing prior to the designated closing time. 17.2 Privilege - The Owner reserves the right to: 17.2.1 Accept or reject any quotation whatsoever on whatever basis the Owner deems fit in its complete and unfettered discretion 17.2.2 Consider any quotation whatsoever including non-conforming quotations and to give additional time to any individual Contractor if the Owner deems it to be in the Owner’s best interests to do so 17.2.3 Terminate the Quotation process at any time without choosing a Contractor 17.2.4 Negotiate with any Contractor that the Owner wishes to in its unfettered discretion 17.2.5 Request further information from any, or all, Contractors. 17.2.6 If the Contractor cannot complete the work in an acceptable timeline, the Owner may hire another contractor to complete the work at the Owner’s discretion, and/or b. Terminate the Contract. 17.2.7 Terminate the Contract for any of the following reasons: 17.2.7.1 Documented unsatisfactory performance of Work 17.2.7.2 Conduct detrimental to the Owner 17.2.7.3 Willful and consistent denigration of Council and Staff 17.2.7.4 Evidence of Collusion 17.2.7.5 An existing or recent business or personal relationship which could be perceived as causing a conflict of Interest 17.2.7.6 Becoming insolvent or files or has filed against a Petition in Bankruptcy or makes an Assignment for the benefit or Creditors or a Receiver is appointed for its assets. 17.2.7.7 Blatant disregard of the Owner’s Safety policy, or the NS OHS Act and regulations 17.2.8 To pursue the Contractor for any additional costs incurred in hiring another contractor to provide the specified servicers, where the Contractor failed to provide the requested services. 17.2.9 The Contractor shall have no claim for any compensation of any kind whatsoever if the Owner employs its own forces or employs the services of another Contractor. 18. CONFIDENTIALITY 18.1 This document may not be used for any purpose other than the submission of a quotation. By submitting a Quotation, the Contractor agrees to public disclosure of its contents subject to the provisions of the Municipal Government Act relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. Anything submitted in the Form of a Quotation that the Contractor considers being “personal information” or “confidential information” of a proprietary nature should be marked confidential and will be subject to appropriate consideration of the Municipal Government Act as noted above. 18.2 The work described in this Quotation is being conducted with public funds, and the fees and expenses proposed in the Contractor’s submission will be made public. 19. LAW 19.1 The law applicable to this Quotation and any subsequent agreements shall be the law in force in the Province of Nova Scotia. 19.2 In responding to this Quotation, Contractors warrant their compliance with all appropriate Municipal, Provincial and Federal regulations, laws and orders. Respondents must agree to indemnify the Municipality and its employees if they fail to comply, and the Owner reserves the right to cancel any agreement arising from this Quotation if the Contractor fails to comply with the above. 19.3 The selected Contractor shall indemnify the Owner, its officers and employees against any damage caused to the Owner because of any negligence or unlawful acts of the successful Contractor or its employees. Similarly, the successful Contractors shall agree to indemnify the Owner, its officers and employees against any claims or costs initiated by third parties as a result of any negligence or wrongful acts of the successful Contractor or its employees. 20. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Owner reserves the right to disqualify Contractors if there is an existing or recent business or personal relationship which can be perceived as causing a conflict of interest. 21. MEASUREMENT FOR PAYMENT 21.1 Measurement for the itemized services shall be per the quoted unit prices (in Canadian funds), approved quotation and approved change of work (if required). The unit price shall include all labour, equipment, materials, transportation and overhead necessary to complete the work, as specified by the Owner. 21.2 If necessary, extra work shall be paid only if approved by the owner through a contract Change Order. Extra work is to be negotiated prior to the work being completed wherever possible. 21.3 Payment will be made for items of the Work completed to the satisfaction of the Owner to the Contractor by the Owner within 30 days of submission of an invoice. 22. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES 22.1 Should the awarded proponent close the trail for more days than was provided on Appendix A – the proponent accepts vulnerability to Liquidated Damages of $500 per day exceeding the number of days than was provided on Appendix A 22.2 Should the awarded proponent not achieve substantial completion of the project by Nov 30, 2021, the proponent accepts vulnerability to Liquidated Damages of $500 per day late. 23. SUBCONTRACTORS 23.1 Contractors are responsible for obtaining Owner’s permission prior to hiring a subcontractor. The Owner may, for reasonable cause object to the use of a proposed subcontractor and require the Contractor to employ another subcontractor. 23.2 All subcontractors employed by the Contractor will be subject to the same terms and conditions of the Contract and will be under the supervision and control of the Contractor. Nothing contained in the Contract shall create a contractual relationship between the Owner and subcontractor. 23.3 The Owner will provide for the co-ordination of the work of its own forces and of other contractors with the work of this contract, where such co-ordination is not identified as the responsibility of the Contractor in this Quotation. 24. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Prior to the final selection, Contractors may be required to submit additional information which the Owner may deem necessary to further evaluate the Contractor’s qualifications. 25. CONTRACT 25.1 The successful Contractor shall enter into a contract within 7 days of award. 26. Except as expressly and specifically permitted in these instructions to Contractors, no Contractor shall have any claim for any compensation of any kind whatsoever, as a result of participating in this Quotation and by submitting a quotation, each Contractor shall be deemed to have agreed that it has no claim. 27. EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA 27.1 All submissions received prior to closing will be evaluated according to the procedure outlined in this section. 27.2 Quotations that include all submittals, detailed unit prices and completed similar projects satisfactorily will be considered. The Owner reserves the right to interview any or all Contractors and their references and include its own reference if there is prior experience with the Contractor. 27.3 The Municipality will evaluate the submission. The municipality, at their sole discretion, will determine if, based on evaluation of the submission, interviews, and reference checks if a proponent is qualified to complete the project. The qualified proponent with the submission that receives that most points as per the table below will be awarded the project subject to Municipal Council approval and budget availability. Description Available Points Total Cost – The proponent with the lowest cost will receive the maximum available points. Remaining proponents will receive points based on this formula ( Available Points X lowest cost / proponents cost ) 40 Total days of trail closure – The proponent with the lowest total number of days requiring trail closure will be receive the maximum available points. Remaining proponents will receive points based on this formula ( Available Points X fewest days requiring trail closure / proponents proposed days of trail closure ) 30 Experience and Qualifications 20 References 10 Total 100 27.4 When comparing the rates, the Owner will consider in its review Section 7.0 Fair Treatment for Nova Scotia Suppliers, summarized below, which is contained in its Procurement Policy (P-04). “Section 7.0 Fair Treatment for Nova Scotia Suppliers - The preference is to give preference to local (our Municipality) unless otherwise directed by council for Low Value Procurement (up to and including $50,000 total estimated contract value). Preference will be given by applying a 5% bonus to Contractors located within the Municipality. This preference will be clearly communicated as part of each procurement procedure.” APPENDIX A – QUOTATION Company Name __________________________________________________ Company Address __________________________________________________ Telephone No. __________________________________________________ Fax No. __________________________________________________ Email __________________________________________________ Item # Description Units Estimated Quantity Unit price Total price 6.1.1 Lump Sum Item as per sect. 6.1.1 of this document L.S. 1 6.1.2 Reinstall dislodged granite stones in the abutments STONES 1 6.1.3 Repair cracked granite stones STONES 1 6.1.4 Repoint mortar joints between granite blocks RE METER 90 6.1.5 Supply and install rip rap at thee base of abutments and embankment walls tonne 20 6.1.6 Replace bearing pads L.S. 1 6.1.7 Sand blast and paint structural steel L.S. 1 6.1.8 (Provisional) Additional safety mitigations required due to lead in paint L.S. 1 6.1.9 Replace brace members L.S. 1 6.1.10 Analyze superstructures to determine residual capacity. L.S. 1 6.1.11 Remove existing rail ties and bridge decks & guiderails L.S. 1 6.1.12 Design, supply and install new decking systems L.S. 1 6.1.13 asphalt paving (including all prep work) Square meter 30 Sub-total HST Total Total number of days requiring trail closure _____________________ days DATED THIS DAY OF , 20 . _________________ ________________________________ Witness Signature of Authorized Signing Officer ________________________________ Name and Title (Printed) Municipality of the District of Chester Community Development Department Staff Report #1 Prepared for: Municipal Council Submitted by: Garth Sturtevant, MCIP, LPP, Senior Planner Date: March 11, 2021 Subject: Watercourse Setback Relief Options APPLICANT Council Initiated PROPOSAL Direction originating from a COW Agenda Item from November 19th, 2020 that staff provide options for relief from Watercourse Setbacks under the Municipal Land Use By-law. LOCATION Not Applicable. General Amendment. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION Not required for amendments which affect the entire plan. At minimum, the standard Public Engagement practice will be followed. Council has also expressed interest in additional public engagement on this topic and staff have therefore prepared some additional options for consideration. Recommendation For consideration and discussion. Background The current Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law, adopted in January 2020, introduced new setbacks from watercourses, wetlands and waterbodies, in addition to the Lakefront Overlay which impacts only identified lakes on Schedule B of the Land Use By-law. These protective regulations were introduced in response to public input and submissions to council by a variety of resident associations and groups. The aim of the regulations is to provide separation distance between development and watercourses, waterbodies and wetlands to slow, limit and filter surface runoff as it flows overland into these water features. The reference data for some of the regulations derives from the Nova Scotia Provincial 1:10,000 topographic dataset, which is publicly available and updated regularly. Since these setbacks regulations were introduced in January 2020, Council passed an amendment to provide relief in instances where the 1:10,000 dataset can be demonstrated to be incorrect through a report submitted by a qualified professional. Staff Report #1 Page 2 Watercourse Setback Relief Options March 11, 2021 Recently, at a Committee of the Whole meeting, an Agenda item was raised, and direction provided by Council asking staff to research potential options to provide relief from watercourse setbacks under several circumstances, including:  Allowing a reduction of setbacks in cases where it would otherwise be impossible to site a main building on an existing (in existence prior to the effective date of the regulations) lot.  Allowing a reduction of setbacks to a defined minimum below 20m in cases where the applicant supplies documentation from a qualified professional. The documentation must confirm that mitigation controls will be in place to ensure the intent of the regulations, to protect water quality, is met. Jurisdictional Scan As background information for this report, staff have conducted a jurisdictional scan of six Nova Scotian Municipalities. A summary of the regulations for each Municipality follows and excerpts from the documents are attached as Appendix A: Central Colchester Land Use By-law (2002) No setbacks for watercourses. East Hants Land Use By-law (2016) Setback determined by size and type of water feature: 0.5m or less and seasonal watercourses require a 6m setback. Watercourses greater than 0.5m in width require a 20m setback. In the case of existing, undersized lots, and existing structures this can be reduced to no less than 15m. Lakes require a 30m setback, can be reduced to 15m under same circumstances. In addition to setbacks, vegetated buffers must be maintained or replaced with landscaped buffers within the setback with a 10% allowance for clearing. This can be increased with the submission of an environmental study with terms outlined in the Land Use By-law. Halifax Regional Municipality – Chebucto Peninsula Land Use By-law (2018) Setback is 20m around all watercourses. In cases with steep slopes, the buffer is increased according to a slope formula. Within the buffer, no infill, vegetation removal or alterations except that one accessory structure or attached deck no more than 20m2. Allowance for existing structures to enlarge and lots approved prior to 2006 where no main building may be located due to the setback. In this case the setback may be reduced to allow construction while maintaining the greatest possible separation distances. Kings County Land Use By-law (2020) Staff Report #1 Page 3 Watercourse Setback Relief Options March 11, 2021 Permitted buildings in all zones shall have a separation distances of 50 feet from the edge of the bank of any watercourse. Livestock operations must be setback 100 feet. No reduction mechanism, except for public drainage systems. Regions of Queens Municipality Land Use By-law (2009) Only “significant watercourses” identified in Schedule B have setback protections. 15.24m setback required in these cases. Within the setback removal of vegetation is only permitted to 25% of the total area, if too much is removed it must be replanted/reinstated. No excavation or infill within the vegetated buffer. Boardwalks, walkways, and trails with a width less than 3m are permitted within the buffer. For lots which were created prior to the date of the MPS, the setback may be reduced to permit construction while maintaining the greatest possible separation. Variance (not used in the traditional sense, this is a Council decision not Development Officer) – detailed study by a qualified person confirming the development is 2.44m in elevation above the ordinary high water mark, the development is a minimum of 7.62m from the ordinary high water mark, and that the reduction in setback and buffer does not increase the hazard posed by shoreline erosion and the land is not subject to seasonal flooding. West Hants Land Use By-law (2019) 15.24m setback for all structures other than marine uses, water distribution, irrigation, drainage and flood controls. Discussion – Considerations Existing Regulations The existing regulations within the Municipal Land Use By-law are contained within the General Provisions Section at 4.28. The regulations are further divided between 4.28.1 Lakefront Overlay and 4.28.2 Watercourses, Water Bodies, and Wetlands. In both cases, a 20m setback between most developments is required as follows: Staff Report #1 Page 4 Watercourse Setback Relief Options March 11, 2021 The intent behind the existing regulations, as outlined in the Municipal Planning Strategy is to maintain distance between new development and watercourses to protect water quality. Setbacks and vegetated buffers help to slow and filter runoff water as it moves overland and collects in watercourses wetlands and water bodies. While only required for larger developments approved by Site Plan Approval or through a Development Agreement, vegetated buffers between development and watercourses are the preferred option to protect water quality. Staff Report #1 Page 5 Watercourse Setback Relief Options March 11, 2021 Vegetated buffers were proposed to be more widely required during the reVISION Plan Review but were subsequently scaled back to only be required for large-scale developments. If a reduction to the 20m setback is considered, Council should also consider whether vegetated buffers or other protective mechanisms should be required. Any proposed changes to the existing regulations must be clear as to whether they apply to both the Lakefront Overlay and the Watercourses, Waterbodies and Wetlands setbacks, or whether the changes should only apply to one set of regulations. Summary of Jurisdictional Review Findings As evidenced above, the approach to watercourse protection varies across the province. Most Municipalities, both rural and urban, require a minimum setback distance between new main buildings and watercourses and lakes. There is greater variation in the regulations and setbacks required for wetlands. The setback distances vary between 15m and 30m (with one Municipality having no setback) from the by- laws reviewed in the jurisdictional scan. Most by-laws have a list of exempted structures such as water systems, drainage, and in some cases, small accessory structures, walkways, and detached decks are permitted within the setback. Many by-laws do have an allowance or exception for lots created prior to the date of the by-law which allows construction of a main building and a reduction of the setback, so long as the separation distance between the structure and the water feature is maximized. In most cases, a report from a qualified professional is required to confirm that the development will not negatively be impacted by flooding and erosion and to confirm that the impact on the water feature will be mitigated. In combination with the setback, most by-laws also require the retention or replacement of a vegetated buffer within the setback. This vegetated buffer means no removal of natural vegetation, infill or excavation may occur. There is typically a percentage outlined in the by-law to allow for removal of 10- 25% of the vegetated buffer to allow for views and access to the water. Options for Relief The existing regulations in the Chester Municipal Land Use By-law fall within the range of protections reviewed in the jurisdictional scan. The Chester By-law does include an allowance where a report may be submitted to prove that a watercourse showing on the 1:10,000 topographic database, does not exist on the ground which allows development to occur. The Chester By-law does not have an allowance to assist existing undersized lots which were created prior to the effective date of the Land Use By-law. Subsequently there may be a small number of lots which would not be permitted to construct a main building due to the 20m setback. This possibility was Staff Report #1 Page 6 Watercourse Setback Relief Options March 11, 2021 discussed with Council during Plan Review. To date no instances of an undevelopable lot, created prior to the date of the By-law have been documented. One case has arisen where an error in the 1:10,000 database was documented, but the relief mechanism already in place accommodated the property owner in this instance and allowed construction to proceed. Council has heard from residents who could not locate their main structure in their preferred location on the lot, but this is substantially different from a lot which is truly unable to support a new main structure in any location. Staff present the following options for consideration: 1) Add relief mechanism - Existing Lots: Staff will prepare and draft amendments to the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy to outline a relief mechanism for existing lots, created prior to the Land Use By-law, which are unable to accommodate a main building. Staff would draft criteria and controls to ensure that the intent of the setbacks, to protect water quality, continues to be met. The overall effect of this option is arguable, while it will create more equity and prevent a situation where a lot cannot be developed with a main structure, this may also be viewed as weakening existing protections. Absent a professional report and additional mitigation measures to ensure the intended effect of the 20m setback, it is expected that allowing construction closer to a water feature will have a negative impact on water quality. It should also be noted that most Municipalities that offer a relief option, have additional requirements that vegetated buffers be retained or reinstated when disturbed during development. These vegetated buffers are required even in cases where relief from the setback is not being sought. MOC regulations do not currently require a vegetated buffer, except for larger development approved through Site Plan Approval or a Development Agreement. This was a conscious decision of Council during the recent reVISION Plan Review. Council determined that the heavily debated 20m setback would be applicable across the Municipality but requiring vegetated buffers was too far-reaching. Allowing a reduction in setbacks without additional requirements such as vegetated buffers should be carefully weighed against the overall goal of protecting water quality. 2) Add a general relief mechanism: If this option is selected, staff will draft amendments to the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy to outline the circumstances and requirements for receiving relief from the 20m setback. The requirements may include the submission of a professional report, confirming impact on the water feature will not be worsened by developing within the 20m setback. In addition, it is likely that a minimum setback will still be provided beyond which the relief mechanism would not apply (ie. 15m). This option Staff Report #1 Page 7 Watercourse Setback Relief Options March 11, 2021 could address the issue of Existing Lots above, or there could be different relief mechanisms depending on whether it is an existing lot or simply a desire to build closer to the water. As with option 1, requiring vegetated buffers, at a minimum in cases where the setback is reduced, should be seriously considered. 3) Draft new water quality regulations that will replace the Lakefront Overlay and Watercourses, Water Bodies and Wetlands regulations: This option would involve a comprehensive review and rewrite of the existing Watercourse, Waterbody and Wetland regulations in addition to the Lakefront Overlay regulations. Staff would review the existing regulations and provide new draft regulations back to Council. This approach would involve a significant amount of staff time and is likely to have wide ranging impacts on the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law adopted in 2020. Widespread public engagement would be advisable to ensure residents are aware of the potential change to the recently adopted land use regulations. It would be unusual to initiate such a substantial change after recently debating and approving the existing regulations. Staff will require clear direction and goals around which to draft the new regulations. Priorities will need to be identified and agreed to, as there are many conflicting views related to watercourse setbacks. 4) Maintain Existing Regulations: This option would confirm that Council is satisfied with the current protections and relief mechanisms contained in the planning documents. This option is justified by the extensive public consultation process undertaken from 2014-2019 during the reVISION Plan Review. Additionally, there have been no instances brought to Council where a property owner has been prevented from constructing a main building on a lot due to the existing setbacks. The sole example which did arise was alleviated through existing provisions in the Land Use By-law. In that case, the error was with the Provincial 1:10,000 database and the location of the watercourse was shown to be incorrect. Once this information was submitted, the development was permitted to proceed. Policy Analysis A review of existing Municipal Planning Strategy policies was conducted by staff in preparing this report. The overall policy goal of the Lakefront Overlay and Watercourses, Water Bodies and Wetlands setbacks is to protect water quality from the negative impacts of development. Policies surrounding vegetated buffers are already in place within the MPS and could be altered to apply to most new development. Vegetated buffers should be strongly considered if reductions in the current setbacks proceed. Staff Report #1 Page 8 Watercourse Setback Relief Options March 11, 2021 Depending on the direction received from Council, staff will conduct further policy analysis and draft new or revised policies if necessary, to support any changes to the existing setbacks. Public Information Meeting To date, there has not been a Public Information Meeting scheduled for this file. If Council provides direction for staff to proceed with drafting amendments, a Public Information Meeting will occur before the draft amendments are brought to the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee for a recommendation. This approach is in keeping with the standard procedure for public engagement for an amendment to the Municipal Planning Strategy. Recommendation of Municipal Planning Advisory Committee This report was considered and discussed by the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee at a meeting held February 17, 2021. There was brief discussion on a reduction in the setback for all properties subject to maintaining a vegetated buffer or providing an engineered solution. Other members commented that they felt maintaining the existing regulations was preferable. Following discussion, the following motion was passed: MOVED by Hugh Harper, SECONDED by Danielle Barkhouse to recommend to Council to direct staff to maintain the existing regulations and make no changes. Motion Carried. Options 1) Direct staff to prepare draft amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law to provide a relief mechanism for existing lots, created prior to the date of the Land use By-law, to allow for a reduction of the existing 20m setback. 2) Direct staff to prepare draft amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law to provide a general relief mechanism available to all lots. 3) Direct staff to prepare new water quality regulations intended to replace the Lakefront Overlay and Watercourses, Water Bodies and Wetlands regulations, and which shall include a relief mechanism. 4) Direct staff to maintain existing regulations and make no changes to the Lakefront Overlay and Watercourses, Water Bodies and Wetlands setbacks. Page 3-10 PART 3 - GENERAL PROVISIONS Window Bays Any Yard 0.9 m Fire Escapes and Exterior Staircases Rear and Side Yards 1.2 m and a maximum width of 3.1 m Balconies and Attached Decks Front, Rear and Flankage Yards for Single Family, Semi-detached, Duplex, and Small Multiplex (Fourplex) Dwellings 1.2 m Verandah (not exceeding 1 storey in height)Front and Rear Yards 2.4 m including eaves and cornices Uncovered terraces Flankage Yards 1.2 m Carports Rear Yard and Side Yard 1.2 m b) These provisions shall not restrict the locating of ornamental planting or landscaping in any yard unless otherwise indicated in this Bylaw. c) These provisions shall not apply in cases where the front yard setback would be reduced to less than 5 m. 3.23. Building to be Erected on a Lot No person shall erect any building that straddles lot lines, unless otherwise permitted under this Bylaw. 3.24. Natural Hazards and Yard Requirement Where, in this Bylaw any yard is required, and part of the area of the lot is usually covered by water or marsh, or is between the top and toe of a cliff or embankment having a slope of 15% or more from the horizontal, then the required yard shall be measured from the nearest main wall of the main building, or structure on the lot, to the edge of said area covered by, or to the top of said cliff or embankment if said area is closer than the lot line. 3.25. Public Uses Permitted Municipal offices, buildings, and infrastructure shall be permitted in any zone and do not have to conform to zone requirements. 3.26. Setback from Watercourses a) The following setback distances shall be required for any structure to be located near a watercourse, and such setbacks shall be in accordance with the following standards: Watercourse Type Setback 0.5 m or greater in widthA 20 m 0.5 m or less in width 6 m Intermittent or seasonal 6 m A Watercourse Greenbelt (WG) Zone applies to all major watercourses in this Bylaw b) Where the setback from the watercourse, noted in the table above, cannot be met for existing structures and for existing undersized lots due to topography or the placement of an on-site disposal system, the setback may be reduced to no less than 15 m where all other requirements under the Land Use Bylaw are met. c) Setback from Lakeshore - a 30 m setback shall be required from the high water mark of all lakes and the Page 3-11 LAND USE BYLAW - EAST HANTS OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN nearest wall of any permanent structure. Where the 30 m setback cannot be met for existing structures and for existing undersized lots due to topography or the placement of an on-site disposal system, the setback may be reduced to no less than 15 m where all other requirements under the Land Use Bylaw are met. d) No significant alteration of topography, being the cutting or filling of more than 10% of the land area within the setback or 93 m2 of area within the setback, whichever is less, shall be permitted with the exception of: i) Instances where an environmental study, as outlined in Appendix D of the Land Use Bylaw, has been conducted determining that there will be no deleterious environmental impacts or impacts on adjacent properties as a result of an impairment of stormwater drainage or storage. Under no circumstances shall a significant alteration of lands in excess of 50% within the setback area, be permitted. e) To permit the control and management of subsurface and surface runoff, sedimentation and erosion lands within the watercourse setback shall be maintained with existing vegetation. Where it is not practicable to maintain existing vegetation, a landscaped buffer shall be substituted. An environmental study completed by a qualified professional must demonstrate the ability of the buffer to provide for sedimentation and erosion control and management of subsurface and surface runoff. f) With the exception of the subsection dealing with the significant alteration of topography, the regulations for setbacks from watercourses above do not apply to fire fighting impoundments and related structures to water systems, or where otherwise permitted under the Land Use Bylaw. 3.27. Daylighting Triangles Notwithstanding landscaping requirements and provisions for directional signs on a corner lot, no fence, sign, tree, or other vegetation shall be constructed or permitted to grow to a height greater than 0.6 m above the grade of the abutting streets within the daylighting triangle as outlined in the definition section of this Bylaw. 3.28. Multiple Uses Where any land or building is used for more than one purpose, all provisions of this Bylaw with respect to each use shall be satisfied. Where there are conflicting requirements the more stringent standard shall apply. 3.29. Illumination No person shall erect any illuminated object or otherwise, in an area outside any building unless such illumination is directed away from adjoining properties and any adjacent streets, and is low voltage. 3.30. Side Yards on Corner Lots Notwithstanding all other applicable provisions under this Bylaw, no part of a building on a corner lot shall be erected closer than 5 m to the lot line of the flanking street. 3.31. Change in Use of Buildings on Undersized Lots Notwithstanding all other provisions under this Bylaw, the use of a building on an existing undersized lot may be changed to another use permitted in that zone where the lot width and/or area required is less than the zone requirements, and provided all other applicable requirements under this Bylaw are met. 3.32. Variances The Development Officer may grant a variance to the requirements under the Land Use Bylaw, as provided for in the Municipal Government Act, and shall be limited to the following: a) Up to a 25% variance for the size of front and rear yards, a variance shall not permit a setback to be reduced less then 5 m from the front lot line; b) Up to a 15% variance for number of parking spaces and loading spaces; Planning District 5 (Chebucto Peninsula) Land Use By-law Page 22 stations, police stations, public works facilities, cemeteries, historic sites and monuments, and recreational trails where no rock crusher shall be located or used within three (3) metres of any property boundary. (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, a temporary rock crusher accessory to construction in progress shall not be used to process material for export to another site nor to process material imported to the site. (g) A temporary rock crusher may be used as an accessory to demolition in progress to process demolished material for export to another site subject to disposal in accordance with the requirements of this By-law and the C&D Materials Recycling and Disposal License By-law. 4.16 VEHICLE BODIES No truck, bus, coach or streetcar body, nor a structure of any kind, other than a dwelling unit erected and used in accordance with this and all other By-laws of the Municipality, shall be used for human habitation, and no unlicensed vehicle body shall be used as a commercial building. 4.17 RESTORATION TO A SAFE CONDITION Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any building or structure, provided that in the case of a non-conforming use, the provisions of Sections 83 to 87 of the Planning Act shall prevail. 4.18 BUILDING TO BE MOVED No person shall move a building, residential or otherwise, within or into the area covered by this By-law without obtaining a development permit from the Development Officer. 4.19 HEIGHT REGULATIONS The height regulations of this By-law shall not apply to church spires, water tanks, elevator enclosures, silos, flagpoles, television or radio antennae, ventilators, skylights, barns, chimneys, clock towers, windmills (RC-Aug 16/11;E-Oct 29/11) or solar collectors. 4.20 WATERCOURSE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS (RC-Jun 25/14;E-Oct 18/14) (1) (a) No development permit shall be issued for any development within 20m of the ordinary highwater mark of any watercourse. (b) Where the average positive slopes within the 20m buffer are greater than 20%, the buffer shall be increased by 1 metre for each additional 2% of slope, to a maximum of 60m. (c) Within the required buffer pursuant to clauses (a) and (b), no excavation, infilling, tree, stump and other vegetation removal or any alteration of any kind shall be permitted in relation to a development. (d) Within the required buffer pursuant to clauses (a) and (b), activity shall be limited to the placement of one accessory structure or one attached deck not exceeding a footprint of 20 m2 or a combination of an accessory structure and Planning District 5 (Chebucto Peninsula) Land Use By-law Page 23 attached deck not exceeding 20 m2 , fences, boardwalks, walkways and trails not exceeding 3 metres in width, wharfs, boat ramps, marine dependent uses, fisheries uses, conservation uses, parks on public lands, historic sites and monuments, and public road crossings, driveway crossings and wastewater, storm and water infrastructure, and water control structures. (e) Notwithstanding clause (a), the required buffer for construction and demolition operations shall be as specified under the applicable CD Zone. (f) Within the buffer required pursuant to clause (f), no excavation, infilling, tree, stump and other vegetation removal or any alteration of any kind shall be permitted in relation to a development. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any existing building within the buffer distance may be permitted to be enlarged, renovated or repaired subject to the provisions of section 4.8 of this By-law. (WRCC-Oct 22/07;E-Oct 27/07) (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an existing residential main building is located within the required buffer, accessory structures, subject to meeting other requirements of this by-law, shall be permitted provided they are located no closer to the watercourse than the existing main building. (4) Where the configuration of any existing lot, including lots approved as a result of completed tentative and final subdivisions applications on file prior to August 26, 2006 is such that no main building could be located on the lot, the buffer distance shall be reduced in a manner which would provide the greatest possible separation from a watercourse having regard to other yard requirements. (5) Notwithstanding clause 1(a), the required minimum buffer shall be 30.48 metres within the Herring Cove Community. (WRCC-Oct 22/07;E-Oct 27/07) (6) Within the Herring Cove Community and notwithstanding subsection (1), (4), and (5), a reduction of the required buffer to 15.24 metres for lots in existence on May 5, 2001 may be permitted by the Development Officer if the full requirement is prohibitive due to resulting insufficient site area for development. (WRCC-Oct 22/07;E-Oct 27/07) (7) Notwithstanding subsection (1), nothing in this by-law shall prohibit the removal of windblown, diseased or dead trees, deemed to be hazardous or unsafe. (8) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the selective removal of vegetation to maintain the overall health of the buffer may be authorized by the Development Officer where a management plan is submitted by a qualified arborist, landscape architect, forester or forestry technician. (9) Every application for a development permit for a building or structure to be erected pursuant to this section, shall be accompanied by plans drawn to an appropriate scale showing the required buffers, existing vegetation limits and contours and other information including professional opinions, as the Development Officer may require, to determine that the proposed building or structure will meet the requirements of this section. By-law #106 – Land Use By-law Section 14: General Regulations 14.1-1 Section 14 - GENERAL REGULATIONS 14.1 WATERCOURSE PROTECTION (a) All permitted buildings in all zones shall have a separation distance of at least 50 feet from the edge of the bank of any watercourse, in accordance with policies 2.4.8 and 2.4.9 of the Municipal Planning Strategy. (b) Notwithstanding clause (a) above, the watercourse separation distance shall be reduced to 30 feet along the north side of the Cornwallis River between Terry’s Creek and the Port Williams Sewer Lagoon Road and south of Kars Street and Belcher Street. (c) Notwithstanding clause (a) above, livestock operation buildings or manure storage facilities shall have a separation distance of at least 100 feet from the edge of the bank of any watercourse. (d) Clauses (a), (b) and (c), above, shall not apply to an approved public drainage system. (e) Lands covered by watercourses shall be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Constraints (O1) Zone. Region of Queens Municipality Land Use Bylaw 2009 STREET LINE STREET LINE @ coven vsio TRcLe Watercourse Setback and Vegetative Buffer R1, R2, R3, R4, RS, R6, R7, C1, C2, C3, CS, M1, M2, M3, P1, 11 01 Zones B", l a gific s h "Schedule B",the u gi 1524 (50 )h iry g b x 25%u fr 47 Region of Queens Municipality Land Use Bylaw 2009 lwys ril 305 m (10 fe)ptt g buffe .,,rem f gio d d ry r n cro n d rol u ry hll pmtt We x g w e g ffe , u ll 48 Region of Queens Municipality Land Use Bylaw 2009 (20 fee)in heigh shall be ptt z a my mound or tt g uure. 639 Wi u gs ()prittd in h ,1 ,sj following criri a: a. No i t sg e g q particular zone, the total wind u g x 0 98 m s (200 feet). 49 Land Use By‐law Municipality of the District of West Hants Page 27 5.45 Notwithstanding anything else in this By-law, on a through lot, a building may be erected facing either street and, for the purpose of determining yard standards, the front yard standard shall apply on both streets. Truck, Bus and Coach Bodies 5.46 No truck, bus, coach or structure of any kind other than a dwelling unit erected and used in accordance with this and all other By-laws of the Municipality shall be used for human habitation in excess of 60 days, whether or not same is mounted on wheels. Utilities 5.47 Notwithstanding anything else in this By-law, public and private utilities less than 100 ft2 (9.29 m2) in floor area shall be permitted in any zone and no yard requirement shall apply. Variance 5.48 (a) Notwithstanding the general requirements set out for each zone in this By-law, the Development Officer may grant a variance from one or more of the following subject to the requirements of the Municipal Government Act: (i) minimum lot area and frontage; (ii) minimum yard dimensions; (iii) percentage of land that may be built upon; (iv) number of parking and loading spaces required; (v) height of a structure; (vi) floor area occupied by a home-based business; and (vii) height and area of a sign. (b) The Development Officer may also grant a variance in a development agreement for the items specified in subsection (a) where the development agreement clearly provides for the granting of a variance. (c) Where a variance is granted or refused, the appeal and the notice provisions of the Municipal Government Act shall be complied with and the applicant shall pay the Municipal Clerk the cost of notifying affected property owners. Visibility at Street Intersections 5.49 On a corner lot, within a triangular area 20 ft (6.10 m) back from the intersecting corner lot lines, no building, structure or vegetation of any kind shall be erected or permitted to grow to a height greater than 2 ft (0.61 m) above the grade of the abutting streets. Watercourses Land Use By‐law Municipality of the District of West Hants Page 28 5.50 With the exception of marine uses, structures required for water distribution or irrigation, water and sewage treatment uses and buildings and structures necessary for the prevention of floods, erosion or to facilitate drainage, no structure shall be located closer than 50 ft (15.24 m) from a watercourse. 5.51 Notwithstanding anything else in this By-law, where part of an unserviced lot is within 75 ft (22.86 m) of a watercourse, the minimum lot area shall be no less than 40,000 ft2 (3,716.00 m2). Wind Turbines 5.52 Small wind turbines shall be permitted subject to the following: (a) not more than one turbine shall be permitted per lot except where the lot is at least 2 acres (0.81 ha) in area; (b) turbines with towers under 50 ft (15.24 m) in height shall be permitted in any zone provided the lot is at least 0.5 acres (0.20 ha) in area; (c) turbines with towers 50 ft (15.24 m) in height or greater shall be permitted only in zones outside the Growth Centre designation provided the lot is at least 1 acre (0.40 ha) in area; (d) the minimum setback from any lot line for the tower shall be the greater of: (i) the minimum yard requirement for a main building; or (ii) the height of the tower plus the distance from the top of the tower to the highest extended tip of the rotor blades; (e) the minimum setback for the tower from any dwelling on the same lot shall be the height of the tower plus the distance from the top of the tower to the highest extended tip of the rotor blades; (f) the minimum setback for the tower from any dwelling on an adjacent lot shall be 200 ft (60.96 m); (g) no ladder or permanent tower access device shall be located less than 12 ft (3.66 m) above grade; (h) there shall be no restriction on the height of the tower provided the property owner has received Aeronautical Clearance approval from Transport Canada. 5.53 For the purposes of Section 5.52 (b) and (c), height shall be measured as the distance above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine itself. 5.54 The erection of a single large wind turbine for exploration or test purposes shall be permitted subject to the following: (a) the turbine shall not remain in place for more than two years; (b) turbines shall be permitted only in zones outside the Growth Centre, Village and Hamlet designations provided the lot is at least 10 acres (4.05 ha) in area; and Chester Municipal Council February 25th, 2021 186 Central Street Chester, NS B0J 1J0 Re: Tim Horton’s #101588 – 3811 Hwy #3 – Request for Sign Bylaw Amendment To whom it may concern, Please accept the following in addition to the provided drawings in support of the proposed Sign Bylaw Amendment for the Tim Horton’s site located at 3811 Hwy #3. Tim Horton’s is proposing to replace the existing drive-thru signage with new electronic signs which feature electronic changeable copy. This site currently has one pre-sell board, and one menu board which serves the existing single lane drive thru. Proposal: The existing signs will be removed, and we will be adding one (1) Pre-Sell Board along with one (1) Menu Board (with COD). The signs are proposed to replace the existing signs. The menu-board sign features a triple display (single sided) and is intended to show the current menu offerings, as well as images of the products available at this location. The menu-board sign also features some motion, as images of varying products may phase in and out in different areas of the display screen, along with change in the varying components of the menu. Portions of the content could change as frequently as every 8-10 seconds. The menu-board sign also features an order confirmation screen which will display text confirming the order to the patron in real time as it is entered. The pre-sell sign features a single display (single sided), and is intended to show varying promotions and specials such as Camp Day, new promotions etc. Like the menu-board sign, the pre-sell sign is electronic and allows the content to change every 8-10 seconds and could feature motion as part of the content. Sign #1: Drawing reference: OM46F Single Display – Single sided Pre-sell Menu Board • Overall Height: 1.847m • Overall Area: 0.621m2 • Electronic Ground Sign Sign #2: Drawing reference: OM46F Triple Display – Single sided Triple Menu Order Board • Overall Height: 1.847m • Overall Area: 2.00m2 • Electronic Ground Sign Summary of Relief Requested • To permit one (1) electronic changeable copy pre-sell sign, with a total display area of 0.62m2 and one (1) electronic changeable copy drive-thru menu-board sign, with a total display area of 2.00m2 for existing drive-thru. The Land Use Bylaw does not permit internally lit signs. Proposed pre-sell board sign (left) and menu board sign (right) Site Location: The subject lands are located along the south side of Lighthouse Route. The property is generally surrounded by various commercial businesses and residential located south of the property. The site is currently developed with a one storey Tim Horton’s Restaurant with a single lane drive thru. Site location outlined in red Background: Tim Horton’s is currently undergoing a national rollout of their new drive-thru menu boards. The signs are state of the art and are intended to enhance user experience and lower wait times associated with the drive-thru lanes. The signage reflects Tim Horton’s ongoing commitment to innovation and excellence in the service industry. As part of a National Campaign, Tim Horton’s proposes to replace the existing drive-thru signage for their sites across Canada. These modern signs allow for a more compact and streamlined design, are fully controllable relating to the messaging and content, and allow for complete control of the brightness. The signs are advantageous for the restaurant as they allow the menu’s to be changed automatically based on the corresponding time of day, to reflect their current menu offerings. The signs also represent a safety improvement, as they do not require staff to manually change the signs in areas of vehicular traffic or during inclement weather. Rationale: Tim Horton’s is a permitted commercial use for this lot, and as such the drive-thru operates legally from 5am to 11pm seven days a week. Part of their business includes the existing drive thru. In order to effectively serve patrons, the signage needs to be illuminated and be visible during business hours. The sign is completely controllable in terms of brightness and includes a built in ambient light sensor so that the brightness can be controlled above the ambient light levels at varying times of the day. The signs are internal to the site and are not intended to create light spill outside of the site. Tim Horton’s is happy to work with Village of Chester on illumination levels for the proposed signs. The signs require content change to effectively promote Tim Horton’s promotions and menu offerings to their patrons in a timely fashion. The pre-sell boards are intended to show varying specials and promotions and may change as frequently as 8 seconds between advertisements to their patrons in the drive-thru lane. The menu boards show the varying menu offerings, as well as images of products which may change in portions of the screen. The menu board also has an order confirmation display, which allows patrons to view their orders as they are entered as a means of confirmation and quality control. As the drive-thru is designed to provide for efficient service, the content of the signage is required to change more quickly so it is visible to the patrons during their limited exposure to the sign. The signs are incidental to the operation of the drive-thru and are not legible from the street. The signs are located at the rear of the building and are oriented to address the existing drive-thru lane only. The menu board content is designed to allow patrons to view the entire menu and current promotions that the store is offering. The signs are appropriate in scale to the development and are of a size which allows for legible text to the patrons. The signs provide the menu and promotional offerings of the business and are displayed in an organized and clear layout with accompanying graphic information which is universal in nature for individuals who may have difficulty with the English language. The proposed sign locations will not have a detrimental impact to the surrounding area. The proposal results in a reduction of sign area on site and does not jeopardize the compatibility of the site to the surrounding land uses. The proposed signs are replacing existing illuminated signs, and the electronic signs feature an ambient light sensor and will dim automatically based on the light levels corresponding with the time of day. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised mainly of built-up commercial developments with associated signage, and the screens are oriented internal to the site. Based on the foregoing, the signs will not alter the existing character of the area and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed content of the menu-board sign does not feature constant motion or flashing illumination. The content is intended simply to display the menu offerings as well as images of the products which are available on-site and will change periodically to show the offerings and specials of the restaurant. The sign displays are setback substantially from sensitive land uses. The proposal will not present any compatibility issues with the surrounding neighbourhood. Existing drive thru signs to be replaced with the proposed. Safety: The sign locations are sited for visibility from the internal drive-thru lane only. Due to the drive- through being located at the rear of the building and sign displays facing internal to the drive-thru, the signs will not be visible from off site. The signs as proposed will not create a hazardous situation for pedestrians or motorists as they are not oriented to address off-site traffic. The content is static text and images, with a portion of the display changing to new text or images every 8-10 seconds. There is an illusion of motion as some images may slide into place while another image slides out, however this only occurs during an image transition. There is no video or constant motion proposed. Tim Horton’s requires more frequent content changes to show their entire menu and promotional offerings to patrons while they are stopped in the drive-thru lane awaiting their turn to order. The sign locations also ensure sightlines are retained through the site. The signage does not impact the functionality or layout of the site. The existing drive-thru is established away from areas of pedestrian movement. The signage also eliminates the need for staff to manually change the signs to the corresponding menu, which further alleviates safety concerns. Based on the foregoing, the signs will not create a distraction or safety hazard for pedestrians or motorists. Example of a completed site from a recent installation. Conclusion: Pride Signs Ltd formally requests your support and approval of this application. The signage program represents a significant investment into the site and enhances the on-site experience for patrons while increasing business for the restaurant. Overall, with the added menu board, the sign area is still a reduction from the existing drive-thru signs and the overall aesthetics are improved significantly. Through dimming measures and reduced illuminated sign area relative to the existing, Tim Horton’s will mitigate impact to the night sky. The restaurant requires operational signage during its business hours, and not permitting such would prove to be detrimental to their business. We thank the Village of Chester for their consideration of this proposal, and should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Thank you, Donna Thomson Permit Coordinator T: 877-551-5529 ext. 213 E: dthomson@pridesigns.com REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date March 01, 2021 Reviewed By: Date Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date March 2, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION In keeping with Municipal Council’s prescribed protocol, reports on three proposed telecommunications towers have been received from Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS). Under the protocol prescribed by Municipal Planning Strategy policy G-23, CRINS is responsible for conducting a siting review and public consultation when new telecommunications towers are proposed in the Municipality. CRINS submits a Land Use Authority Recommendation Report for Council’s review. If Council is satisfied that the proper procedure, including public engagement has been undertaken, the reports will be accepted, and Council will authorize staff to issue a Notice of Completion. This is done by signing and returning the Land Use Authority Recommendation Report to CRINS. The notice confirms that the role prescribed for local governments by Industry Canada has been carried out and is complete. This report includes three telecommunications towers which have been proposed by TNC Wireless Ltd. The CRINS Land Use Authority Recommendation Reports attached include:  Appendix A – TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-SF New Ross: CRINS-SINRC# 1907-0509-1202  Appendix B – TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-CTR: CRINS-SINRC# 1907-3111-4314  Appendix C – TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-NML: CRINS-SINRC# 1907-3112-3004 RECOMMENDATION That Municipal Council receive the attached Land Use Authority Reports prepared by CRINS in response to the application by TNC Wireless Ltd. for three proposed telecommunications towers and further, authorize staff to issue a Notice of Completion by signing each report. BACKGROUND The Municipality has partnered with CRINS to receive applications from proponents of telecommunications towers. Under the agreement with the Municipality, CRINS is responsible to facilitate the required public engagement with surrounding landowners, conduct a siting review and prepare a report for Council to summarize these processes. REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Community Development & Recreation DATE: March 11, 2021 SUBJECT: Three (3) Telecommunication Tower Reports Prepared by C.R.I.N.S. ORIGIN: 2 Request for Decision Council considers the report and if satisfied, directs staff to sign the report, thereby providing Municipal concurrence. A Notice of Completion is required by the tower proponent under Industry Canada regulations. DISCUSSION The Municipality acknowledges its limited role as Land Use Authority in the case of telecommunication towers which are governed by Federal regulations produced by Industry Canada. There are very few circumstances where a local government may object to the siting or placement of a telecommunications tower. In most cases, the placement and location are based on topography and demand. This is reiterated in the Municipal Planning Strategy as follows: The three proposed towers have been reviewed by CRINS staff and the findings are included in the attached reports. In addition, CRINS undertook the required public consultation and has presented information on the responses received. OPTIONS In order for the proposed tower applications to proceed, confirmation from the Municipality is required. This confirmation will affirm that a public engagement process was carried out and further that the Municipality does not object to the siting or location of the proposed towers. 1) That Municipal Council receive the attached Land Use Authority Reports prepared by CRINS in response to the application by TNC Wireless Ltd. for three proposed telecommunications towers and further, authorize staff to issue a Notice of Completion by signing each report. 2) That Municipal Council reject the attached Land Use Authority Reports prepared by CRINS and not sign the Notice of Completion. Figure 1 - Policy from Municipal Planning Strategy 3 Request for Decision 3) Deny approval of the reports, pending additional information from staff, CRINS or TNC Wireless Ltd. When the requested information is received, this report will be updated and will be brought back to Council. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A – TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-SF New Ross: CRINS-SINRC# 1907-0509-1202 Appendix B – TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-CTR: CRINS-SINRC# 1907-3111-4314 Appendix C – TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-NML: CRINS-SINRC# 1907-3112-3004 Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 1    Municipality of Chester Land Use Authority Recommendation Report For TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-SF New Ross September 19, 2020 Revised January 8, 2021 CRINS-SINRC# 1907-0509-1202  Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 2  Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Subject Property ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Justification Statement by Proponent .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Statement on Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1. Community Sensitive Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2. Zoning and Compatibility with Existing Plans ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.3. Fire Routing and Access – National Fire Code ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4. Health Canada Safety Code 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.5. Structural Review – National Building Code ............................................................................................................................. 8 4. Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) Review .................................................................................................. 9 4.1. Design Targets ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2. Design Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 5. Compliance with General Design Requirements ..................................................................................................... 13 6. Siting of Facility Relative to Existing Use................................................................................................................. 13 7. Statement of Concurrence ....................................................................................................................................... 14 8. Public Consultation .................................................................................................................................................. 14 8.1 Consultation Participation Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 14 8.2 Stakeholder Survey Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 15 8.3 Public Survey Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 8.3 Public Comments Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 8.3 CRINS-SINRC Reporting Statement ......................................................................................................................................... 18 8.4 Statement by Council ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 8.5 Justification for Concurrence Statement .................................................................................................................................... 19 9. LUA Confirmation of Report and Conditions............................................................................................................ 20   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 3  1. Introduction The purpose of the Land Use Authority Recommendation Report is to detail the review process conducted for an application submitted through CRINS-SINRC to a participating Land Use Authority (LUA) for the siting and construction of an antenna system, as well as defining the participating LUA’s expectations relating to the location and design of radiocommunications facilities. This report is a deliverable resulting from the LUA’s adoption of the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol, Issue 5 (2020) which applies to any proponent planning to install a new or modify an existing radiocommunications facility regardless of the type of installation or service. This includes, but not limited to: • Personal Communications Services (PCS); • Cellular operators; • Fixed wireless operators; • Broadcasting operators; • Land-mobile operators; • License-exempt operators; and, • Amateur radio operators. All new radiocommunications facilities are expected to follow this process to obtain either a Notice of Facility Exemption or a Notice of Completion relating to the consultation and the corresponding Land Use Authority (LUA) Recommendations Report. Revisions October 18. 2019 First Draft  November 8. 2019 Reassessment of Transport Canada lighting  December 4, 2019 ASDF re‐evaluation based on field / site visit of  November 23, 2019  January 18, 2020 Spectrum Analysis / coverage view plan analysis.  February 6, 2020 Environmental Review complete under Canadian  Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)  August 8, 2020 Second Draft  September 19, 2020 Third Draft – new “coronavirus” procedures.  January 8, 2021 Final Draft – Edits from Municipal Staff.  Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 4  2. Subject Property The proposed installation is located at coordinates 44° 41' 1.680" N, 64° 25' 18.14" W on parcel [PID 60134178] (3451 Highway 12 , Severnville ) and is designed as a 40m Slim Monopole structure, with Ground Cabinet to house the Proponents equipment. Figure 1 ‐ Location Overview  2.1 Justification Statement by Proponent   This is a broadband / wireless internet site being introduced under the federal CTI project. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 5    Figure 2‐ Example of Slim Monopole (Type SP)   The Proponent is seeking a Notice of Completion for the installation.   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 6  3. Statement on Land Use The LUA considers all proposals in the context of its existing Land Use Plans, as well as its mandate for ensuring the safety and security of persons and property which may be affected by a proposed development. The proposed radiocommunications site has been reviewed and the following sections represent the LUA’s assessment of the proposed site relative to existing land use practices. 3.1. Community Sensitive Locations   While antenna systems have become common infrastructure in the public realm, some areas of a municipality may contain cultural, natural or historical assets which may be diminished by the introduction of antenna systems. ISEDC provides for exclusions from consultation for proposals which are deemed low impact in nature, or related to maintenance of existing structures. While in general terms, such exclusions are reasonable, there exists individual instances where such exclusions may have a disproportionate negative impact on the public realms. The LUA will generally recognize an exclusion provided that the site is not located in a Community Sensitive Location. If a proposed site is located in a Community Sensitive Location, the Proponent may be asked to proceed with a Public Consultation due to the sensitive nature of the site, even though it may otherwise qualify for exempt status. The LUA will advise both the Proponent, as well as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as to its concerns in these situations. If a proposed site is a non-exempt facility and is located in a Community Sensitive Location, public consultation will be required in all cases, and the proponent should expect that a community sensitive location will invoke a “High” degree of visual change under ASDF Criteria. A Community Sensitive Location is defined as being: 1) on or near a designated Heritage Property; 2) located in an area of Architectural Significance; 3) located in an area of Archeological Significance; or, 4) in a Natural Conservation Area. In the case of the current proposal, we advise the Minister that the proposed antenna system: is not believed to have any adverse effects on a Community Sensitive Location according to the Protocol. may impact an area deemed to be architecturally significant whether or not each of the individual properties/assets have received a federal, provincial or municipal Designation. may impact properties that have received a federal, provincial or municipal Designation(s), and are registered in the Canadian Register of Historic Places. may impact an area deemed to be a Natural Conservation area or park. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 7  3.2. Zoning and Compatibility with Existing Plans   The proposed site utilizes a General Basic (GB) zone. Based on the allowable uses and in reference to the current proposal we advise the Minister that the proposed antenna system: is proposed in an area in which the current zoning by-laws of the Land Use Authority allow for industrial or commercial enterprises which have the potential for light, noise or other emissions. As such, an antenna system is consistent in nature with the allowable uses of the zone – even if not explicitly declared. is proposed in a commercial, or other zoned area that does not include any residential uses. is proposed in a mixed-use area with both commercial and residential uses. is proposed within a residential, environmentally protected, or nature area. 3.3. Fire Routing and Access – National Fire Code We advise the Minister that the site layout for the proposed antenna system, per the submitted site plan: satisfies the needs of the Land Use Authority to provide emergency services to the site, including the protection of adjacent structures on the same property, or any adjacent properties. requires modification to the site design to conform to the requirements of the Land Use Authority to be able to provide emergency services to adjacent structures on the same property, or adjacent properties does not allow for the provision of emergency services including the protection of adjacent structures or properties. 3.4. Health Canada Safety Code 6 All radiocommunication facilities, irrespective of the nature of the antenna system, or physical form is required to operate within the limits specified in the Health Canada guidelines for electromagnetic radiation emissions – Safety Code 6 - which has been adopted by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada for use with all radiocommunications facilities. To that end, a Proponent is required to provide a statement attesting to the Proponent’s understanding and commitment to operate within the limits of Safety Code 6, and to identify a Professional Engineer who, either as a employee of the Proponent or as a service provider under contract to the Proponent, has agree to take responsibility for ensuring compliance of the antenna system. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 8  With respect to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the Proponent provided an attestation from a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the site is proposed affirming that the antenna system will operate below the thresholds specified in Health Canada Safety Code 6. the Proponent has provided a Statement of Liability and Insurance in the form required by CRINS and the Land Use Authority in lieu of an attestation. the agent of the Proponent provided an attestation that the proposed antenna system will operate below the thresholds specified in Health Canada Safety Code 6. As the agent is not a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the antenna system is proposed, the Land Use Authority’s concurrence with the proposal is subject to the Proponent engaging a licensed Professional Engineer to confirm compliance with Safety Code 6 prior to construction. the Proponent has made no attestation that the proposed antenna system is compliant with Safety Code 6. 3.5. Structural Review – National Building Code Radiocommunications facilities are constructed under the authority of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. As such, these structures are deemed a federal undertaking, requiring Proponents to uphold the standards which apply to the construction of buildings and other infrastructure as if it were being constructed on behalf of the Government of Canada. As such, the Minister of Labour has adopted the National Building Code (NBC) amongst many other federal standards in relation to any structure built under enabling federal legislation. Part II of the Canada Labour Code ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/ ) and the regulations made there under, set out the rules that apply to all federal undertakings, or workers enabled as a result of their work on such undertakings, including, but not limited to broadcasters and telecommunication carriers. The obligations include ensuring that all permanent and temporary buildings and structures meet the prescribed standards in the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations which apply to any federal undertaking. Section 2.2 (1) of the aforementioned regulations, reference the National Building Code as the applicable code to be used as the reference. Also included is the requirement for broadcasters and telecommunication carriers, when constructing towers, to follow the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, Division II, Section 2.19, which refers to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard CAN/CSA-S37-94, entitled “Antennas, Towers, and Antenna-Supporting Structures”. Legislation under HRSDC (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada) enforced by the Minister of Labour (who is one of the Ministers under the HRSDC portfolio) is responsible to enforce the provisions of the NBC and the CSA Standard, along with provincial legislation relating to the practice of professional engineering in each province. In reference to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the Proponent provided an attestation from a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the site is proposed affirming that the antenna system will be constructed according to the National Building Code, and CAN/CSA S37-18 as amended from time-to-time. the Proponent has provided a Statement of Liability and Insurance in the form required by CRINS and the Land Use Authority in lieu of an attestation. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 9  the agent of the Proponent provided an attestation that the proposed antenna system will be constructed according to the National Building Code, and CAN/CSA S37-18 as amended from time-to-time. As the agent is not a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the antenna system is proposed, the Land Use Authority’s concurrence with the proposal is subject to the Proponent engaging a licensed Professional Engineer to confirm compliance with the National Building Code and CAN/CSA S37-18 prior to construction. the Proponent has made no attestation that the proposed antenna system is compliant with the National Building Code, or CAN/CSA S37-18 4. Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) Review The Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) is a quantitative scoring mechanism which assesses proposed installations by considering their design relative to the surrounding visual landscape. This results in 3 specific metrics:  A Visibility Score which provides a measurement of how visible the site is within the surrounding landscape (scored out of a possible 24 points).  A Design Compatibility percentage which scores the proposed site design in terms of its visual elements (structure type, antenna mounts, equipment shelters, antennas and cables) relative to the surrounding landscape.  A Degree of Visual Change calculation which assesses the visual effect of the site on the surrounding landscape. The Degree of Visual Change is utilized to assess the level of public consultation required for Non-Exempt facilities. For Exempt facilities, the Degree of Visual Change along with the design recommendations of the ASDF tool are provided to assist the Proponent to consider design choices which will improve the site’s compatibility with the surrounding landscape and uses. For the current proposal, the following score has been assigned to this site design: Design Compatibility/ Site Visibility 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 24 76 - 100% Low Low Low Medium Medium 51 - 75% Low Low Medium Medium High 26 - 50% Low Low Medium High High 0 - 25% Low Medium High High High Visibility 15 Compatibility (%) 89.3 Low Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 10  4.1. Design Targets The following table outlines the relevant design targets for the proposed site. Key design targets are highlighted below: Land Use Residential Use slim pole profiles and limit vertical extensions relative to the surrounding built form. Avoid lattice towers and head frames. Reduce the impact on street frontages. Avoid cross bracing and support wires. Set antenna mounts back from street frontages. Limit size of structural members and ensure mounts are proportional to the built form. Capitalise on rear lanes or less public locations. Match the colour, built form and materiality to reduce the visual impact. Maintain uniform antennas positions that respond to the construction of the pole or antenna mount. Develop consistent cable connections and shroud cables. Topography Undulating Locate poles and towers in areas where the greatest topographic variations occur. Use topographic variations to offset height of pole relative to surrounding landscape. Develop simple support structures that respond to the landscape character. Avoid elevated areas. Locate units on level low lying ground ensuring that the foundation pad design is level with minimal stepping. Maintain regular antennas and cables positions. Built form Small scale / Low density Select narrow profile poles and avoid lattice towers to limit the vertical visual effect. Pole or tower height should respond to single storey build form (10 to 15m) or a ratio of 1:1.3-1.5. Use simple support structures and avoid complex cross bracing support configurations. Mounts and panels should be flush mounted or shrouded to achieve a uniform profile. Capitalise on the existing utility areas and service lanes for cabin locations. Ensure that concrete foundation pads respond to the small-scale built form (avoid steps in the pad in excess of 150 to 200mm). Antennas should be proportional to the built form, not exceeding a ratio of 1: 1.3 of the building heights. Increase set back of antenna to allow for increased antenna height. Cable trays should be located to the rear or side facades. Sky lining Uniform Reduce the vertical profile of poles and towers to reduce the impact on the skyline. Select monopoles and avoid lattice towers with tension cables to limit both the vertical and horizontal effects. Develop a consistent rectangular antenna mount and headframe design. Avoided angled cross bracing. Maintain uniform structural member sizes, connections and positions that do not contrast the uniform skyline. Locate cabins with adequate setbacks to avoid any skylining in relation to prominent facades and viewpoints. Consider co-locations with more visible rooftop equipment or develop ground-based site. Uniformly position antennas to reduce the visual impact and establish a consistent alignment and height. Avoid significant vertical projections. Ensure a consistent alignment for cables, connections and cable trays. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 11  Containment Fragmented boundaries Capitalise on the existing containment or consider increased setbacks to provide additional screening of the pole or tower. Avoid major view corridors. Maintain a consistent vertical profile to reduce the visual complexity of the tower. Capitalise on the existing containment to provide additional screening or back screening. Avoid highly visible or open areas where containment is limited. Design and locate outdoor base units that respond to the existing containment. Develop a compatible form, scale and materiality in relation to the surrounding enclosure. Limit the impact of cables on the surrounding containment. Align cable runs and avoid complex directional changes. Locate with other service runs and ensure that cables do not project over the edge of the containment and/or building parapet. Vegetation Tree groups Assess the tree height and design responses relative to the canopy of the trees. Avoid vertical extensions that exceed a ration of 1:1.2 relative to the adjacent trees. Select locations that capitalise on tree screening. Use screening from tree groups. Avoid locations that impact on the tree canopy, structure or root plate. Locate antennas, cables and cable runs to capitalise on screening potential of surrounding trees. Existing Telcom- equipment (adjacent to site) Isolated items Respond to existing height of infrastructure. Avoid significant variation in form and height. Select pole or tower with reference to the ASDF recommendations. Maintain a consistent height and form in relation to existing infrastructure. Establish a consistent location and positional relationship with existing equipment cabins. Cluster and position antennas as well as align and co-location cables with reference to existing infrastructure. Colour Mixed (complimentary) Identify prominent colours, colour match or select neutral colours to minimise of visual effect. Identify prominent colours of roofscape or surrounding area and colour match or select neutral colours to maintain consistency in relation surrounding built form. Colour match through applied paint finishes all surfaces in response to dominant colours of adjacent land use. Colour match to surrounding landscape and built form. Select neutral colours if antennas or cables are elevated or sky lining. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 12  4.2. Design Recommendations Based on the design targets outlined above, the Municipality of Chester requests that TNC Wireless Ltd. consider the following design recommendations prior to construction: No recommendations as proposed. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 13  5. Compliance with General Design Requirements With respect to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the design of the proposed site is compliant with the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol as amended. the design of the proposed site demonstrates some deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. However, the deviation(s) are deemed reasonable based on the specifics of the proposal and under the circumstances. the design of the proposed site demonstrates some deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. The Proponent has been asked to bring their proposal into compliance. the design of the proposed site demonstrates substantive deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. These deviations are not deemed reasonable by the Land Use Authority, and concurrence shall be withheld on that basis pending re-design by the Proponent. 6. Siting of Facility Relative to Existing Use   The following requirements apply to antenna systems seeking concurrence: The placement of any parking space or any component of an antenna system shall not create or cause a situation of non-compliance with any LUA Zoning By-law for any other use, building, or structure on the host or adjacent properties. In the case of the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: The design of the proposed site does not create a situation of non-compliance with any LUA zoning by-law for any other use, building, or structure on the host and adjacent properties. The design of the proposed site causes a situation of non-compliance with one or more LUA zoning by-laws for the current uses, buildings, or structures on the host property. The design of the proposed site a situation of non-compliance with one or more LUA zoning by-laws for the current and or future uses, buildings, or structures on an adjacent property. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 14  7. Statement of Concurrence The Municipality of Chester requests that the Proponent – TNC Wireless Ltd. – comply with the design targets where possible as presented in Section 4. No further Development or Planning approvals are required however the Proponent is required to comply with any and all conditions outlined in Section 9 as a requirement of obtaining and maintaining concurrence from the Land Use Authority. Failure to comply with the conditions as outlined in Section 9 shall render concurrence with the proposal null and void. Where an undertaking from the proponent is required as part of the concurrence conditions, no work on the structure shall begin until the undertaking is received by CRINS-SINRC and the Land Use Authority. Overall, the Land Use Authority position with regards to the proposal is that: The Land Use Authority concurs with the proposed antenna system, subject to any conditions outlined in Section 9. The Land Use Authority requests an extension to the consultation period due to unresolved concerns after 120 days, as outlined in Section 8.5 The Land Use Authority requests the Minister instruct the Proponent to undergo a public consultation, even though the proposed antenna system is excluded from consultation under Section 6 of CPC 2-0-03, as it is our opinion that the proposed antenna system may damage the public realm, or is contrary to the public good and requires further review. The Land Use Authority rejects (non-concurrence) the proposed antenna system as presented, for the reasons outlined in Section 8.5. 8. Public Consultation 8.1 Consultation Participation Summary   Category # % Total number of adjacent landowners notified: 9 100 Total number of adjacent landowners who had no comments after receiving the consultation information: 9 100 Total number of responses received: 2 100 Total number of adjacent landowners who provided comments: 0 28 Total number of public responses (if applicable): 2 n/a   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 15  8.2 Stakeholder Survey Summary   Question Yes No Did not Answer Is the subject property adjacent to your primary residence (Q5)? Do you rent, lease or otherwise occupy the property, but are not the legal owner of it (Q6)? Does the proposed access route to the site impair or otherwise interfere with your use of your property (Q8)? Are you aware of any environmental concerns such as flooding, buried chemicals, man-made debris, or other obstacles to the access route as proposed (Q9)? Are you aware of any water sources that may be impacted by the proposed access route to the site (Q10)? Does the proposed access route impair or interfere with any current community use of the site or surrounding properties (recreational trail, park, water course, ATV road, shared right-of-way, etc.) either on the site itself, or directly adjacent (Q11)? Does the location of the proposed compound for the tower or mast on the site impair or otherwise interfere with physical use of your property (Q12)? Does the proposed utility right-of-way impair or interfere with your use or access to your property (Q13)? Are you aware of any endangered flora or fauna on the proposed site, on your property, or adjacent properties (Q14)? As a general comment, how comfortable are you with the radiocommunications facility as proposed [Scale of 0 to 8 - 0="Not Satisfied At All", 4="Not Sure, I Guess it was OK", 8="Completely Satisfied"] (Q16)? Do you have any health and safety concerns not addressed by the information provided (Q19)? Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 16  8.3 Public Survey Summary Question Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree or Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6) Did not Answer Please rate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements on a scale of one (1) to six (6): (Q20) In my opinion, the proposed site negatively impacts a community view / landscape which is a tourist attraction? 1 1 In my opinion, the proposed site negatively impacts a scenic view from a community use area such as a park, recreational facility, historic /cultural site or public facility? 2 In my opinion, the proposed site impairs or interferes with a community use area such as a park, recreational facility, historic /cultural site or public facility? 2 The proposed site negatively impacts the view from my primary residence? 1 1 Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 17  8.3 Public Comments Summary   In addition to the questions posed in the survey, both priority stakeholders and the general public were provided an opportunity to provide free form comments. The following summarizes the themes that were represented in the comments: There were no instances identified of the tower directly impacting public or private interests or use of adjacent properties outside of the visual amenity aspects.    Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 18    8.3 CRINS-SINRC Reporting Statement   CRINS-SINRC reviews each application for a proposed antenna system according to the guidelines set out by the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development (ISED) and identifies matters which the Minister has identified as relevant to the federal purpose pursuant to S. 5(1)(f) of the Radiocommunications Act. As the designated representative of the Land Use Authority, overseeing the consultation process, CRINS-SINRC presents the opinions of both the public and/or elected body as well as the evidence-based land use guidance of the planning and development staff in each Land Use Authority, as provided for in the procedures set out in the Client Procedures Circulars (CPCs) to inform the decision of the Minister. Where there is non-concurrence between the public opinion and/or the elected body of a Land Use Authority regarding a proposed antenna system and the satisfactory compliance of a proponent proposal with the technical, planning and procedural requirements set out by the Minister, CRINS-SINRC maintains a fiduciary role to provide any information which ISEDC may request such that the Minister may make a final determination regarding a proposal taking into regard to the objectives of the Canadian telecommunications policy set out in Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act. Where a proposal receives a non-concurrence statement, CRINS-SINRC shall identify for the Minister the matters which resulted in the statement of non-concurrence, and may provide independent narrative on those matters according to the criteria which the Minister has articulated in the policies and procedures which flow from the implementation of the Act(s). Where such narrative is required, CRINS-SINRC shall issue a Reporting Statement for the Minister’s consideration which, when provided, shall be attached to this report as Schedule ‘A’. CRINS-SINRC has not deemed it necessary to include a Reporting Statement for the Minister’s review. CRINS-SINRC has included a Reporting Statement as Schedule ‘A’ for the Minister’s consideration. 8.4 Statement by Council   Notwithstanding the technical and planning review by CRINS and LUA staff requested by the Minister, Council may deem it appropriate to issue a statement for the Minister’s consideration which, when provided, shall be attached to this report as Schedule ‘B’. Council has not deemed it necessary to include a statement for the Minister’s consideration. Council has provided a statement as Schedule ‘B’ for the Minister’s consideration. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 19  8.5 Justification for Concurrence Statement The Proponent has addressed all relevant concerns of the public, and the Land Use Authority has no further concerns about the proposal, subject to the Proponent’s compliance with all conditions as may be set forth in Section 9. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202 20  9. LUA Confirmation of Report and Conditions We hereby advise that the attached report accurately reflects the position of the Municipality of Chester with respect to the radiocommunications facility proposed by TNC Wireless Ltd., designated TNC-SF New Ross (CRINS-SINRC # 1907-0509-1202). Our position with respect to the proposal is based on the following conditions being met: 1) Confirmation by CRINS‐SINRC that the Proponent has addressed all relevant concerns of the public according  to the Protocol and that the above conditions have been met such that a Notice of Completion is warranted.   2) Application made for, and receipt of, all necessary permits prior to construction of the foundation of the  tower and building to house proponent’s equipment.   3) Submission of “as‐built” drawings to CRINS‐SINRC no later than 30 days after the completion of construction.   4) Receipt of the Safety Code 6 report by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province which confirms  compliance with Safety Code 6 prior to the commissioning of the tower.   5) Receipt of an attestation or stamped drawings by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province which  confirms compliance with the National Building Code and CSA S37‐18 Standard prior to construction.   6) Receipt of NAV Canada approval for the construction of the site.                          DATED this ______ day of _________, 20___ ________________________________ Chad Haughn Director of Community Development Municipality of Chester Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 1    Municipality of Chester Land Use Authority Recommendation Report For TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-CTR September 19, 2020 Revised January 9, 2021 CRINS-SINRC# 1907-3111-4314  Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 2  Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Subject Property ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Justification Statement by Proponent .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Statement on Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1. Community Sensitive Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2. Zoning and Compatibility with Existing Plans ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.3. Fire Routing and Access – National Fire Code ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4. Health Canada Safety Code 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.5. Structural Review – National Building Code ............................................................................................................................. 8 4. Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) Review .................................................................................................. 9 4.1. Design Targets ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2. Design Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 5. Compliance with General Design Requirements ..................................................................................................... 13 6. Siting of Facility Relative to Existing Use................................................................................................................. 13 7. Statement of Concurrence ....................................................................................................................................... 14 8. Public Consultation .................................................................................................................................................. 14 8.1 Consultation Participation Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 14 8.2 Stakeholder Survey Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 15 8.3 Public Survey Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 8.3 Public Comments Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 8.3 CRINS-SINRC Reporting Statement ......................................................................................................................................... 18 8.4 Statement by Council ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 8.5 Justification for Concurrence Statement .................................................................................................................................... 19 9. LUA Confirmation of Report and Conditions............................................................................................................ 20   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 3  1. Introduction The purpose of the Land Use Authority Recommendation Report is to detail the review process conducted for an application submitted through CRINS-SINRC to a participating Land Use Authority (LUA) for the siting and construction of an antenna system, as well as defining the participating LUA’s expectations relating to the location and design of radiocommunications facilities. This report is a deliverable resulting from the LUA’s adoption of the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol, Issue 5 (2020) which applies to any proponent planning to install a new or modify an existing radiocommunications facility regardless of the type of installation or service. This includes, but not limited to: • Personal Communications Services (PCS); • Cellular operators; • Fixed wireless operators; • Broadcasting operators; • Land-mobile operators; • License-exempt operators; and, • Amateur radio operators. All new radiocommunications facilities are expected to follow this process to obtain either a Notice of Facility Exemption or a Notice of Completion relating to the consultation and the corresponding Land Use Authority (LUA) Recommendations Report. Revisions October 18. 2019 First Draft  November 8. 2019 Reassessment of Transport Canada lighting  December 4, 2019 ASDF re‐evaluation based on field / site visit of  November 23, 2019  January 18, 2020 Spectrum Analysis / coverage view plan analysis.  February 6, 2020 Environmental Review complete under Canadian  Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)  August 8, 2020 Second Draft  September 19, 2020 Third Draft – new “coronavirus” procedures.  January 9, 2021 Edits from Municipal Staff  Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 4  2. Subject Property The proposed installation is located at coordinates 44° 36' 2.120" N, 64° 19' 34.820" W. on parcel PID 60100963 (899 Highway 12, Chester Grant).   Figure 1 ‐ Location Overview  2.1 Justification Statement by Proponent   This is a broadband / wireless internet site being introduced under the federal CTI project. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 5    Figure 2‐ Example of Slim Monopole (Type SP)   The Proponent is seeking a Notice of Completion for the installation.   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 6  3. Statement on Land Use The LUA considers all proposals in the context of its existing Land Use Plans, as well as its mandate for ensuring the safety and security of persons and property which may be affected by a proposed development. The proposed radiocommunications site has been reviewed and the following sections represent the LUA’s assessment of the proposed site relative to existing land use practices. 3.1. Community Sensitive Locations   While antenna systems have become common infrastructure in the public realm, some areas of a municipality may contain cultural, natural or historical assets which may be diminished by the introduction of antenna systems. ISEDC provides for exclusions from consultation for proposals which are deemed low impact in nature, or related to maintenance of existing structures. While in general terms, such exclusions are reasonable, there exists individual instances where such exclusions may have a disproportionate negative impact on the public realms. The LUA will generally recognize an exclusion provided that the site is not located in a Community Sensitive Location. If a proposed site is located in a Community Sensitive Location, the Proponent may be asked to proceed with a Public Consultation due to the sensitive nature of the site, even though it may otherwise qualify for exempt status. The LUA will advise both the Proponent, as well as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as to its concerns in these situations. If a proposed site is a non-exempt facility and is located in a Community Sensitive Location, public consultation will be required in all cases, and the proponent should expect that a community sensitive location will invoke a “High” degree of visual change under ASDF Criteria. A Community Sensitive Location is defined as being: 1) on or near a designated Heritage Property; 2) located in an area of Architectural Significance; 3) located in an area of Archeological Significance; or, 4) in a Natural Conservation Area. In the case of the current proposal, we advise the Minister that the proposed antenna system: is not believed to have any adverse effects on a Community Sensitive Location according to the Protocol. may impact an area deemed to be architecturally significant whether or not each of the individual properties/assets have received a federal, provincial or municipal Designation. may impact properties that have received a federal, provincial or municipal Designation(s), and are registered in the Canadian Register of Historic Places. may impact an area deemed to be a Natural Conservation area or park. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 7  3.2. Zoning and Compatibility with Existing Plans   The proposed site utilizes a General Basic (GB) zone. Based on the allowable uses and in reference to the current proposal we advise the Minister that the proposed antenna system: is proposed in an area in which the current zoning by-laws of the Land Use Authority allow for industrial or commercial enterprises which have the potential for light, noise or other emissions. As such, an antenna system is consistent in nature with the allowable uses of the zone – even if not explicitly declared. is proposed in a commercial, or other zoned area that does not include any residential uses. is proposed in a mixed-use area with both commercial and residential uses. is proposed within a residential, environmentally protected, or nature area. 3.3. Fire Routing and Access – National Fire Code We advise the Minister that the site layout for the proposed antenna system, per the submitted site plan: satisfies the needs of the Land Use Authority to provide emergency services to the site, including the protection of adjacent structures on the same property, or any adjacent properties. requires modification to the site design to conform to the requirements of the Land Use Authority to be able to provide emergency services to adjacent structures on the same property, or adjacent properties does not allow for the provision of emergency services including the protection of adjacent structures or properties. 3.4. Health Canada Safety Code 6 All radiocommunication facilities, irrespective of the nature of the antenna system, or physical form is required to operate within the limits specified in the Health Canada guidelines for electromagnetic radiation emissions – Safety Code 6 - which has been adopted by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada for use with all radiocommunications facilities. To that end, a Proponent is required to provide a statement attesting to the Proponent’s understanding and commitment to operate within the limits of Safety Code 6, and to identify a Professional Engineer who, either as a employee of the Proponent or as a service provider under contract to the Proponent, has agree to take responsibility for ensuring compliance of the antenna system. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 8  With respect to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the Proponent provided an attestation from a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the site is proposed affirming that the antenna system will operate below the thresholds specified in Health Canada Safety Code 6. the Proponent has provided a Statement of Liability and Insurance in the form required by CRINS and the Land Use Authority in lieu of an attestation. the agent of the Proponent provided an attestation that the proposed antenna system will operate below the thresholds specified in Health Canada Safety Code 6. As the agent is not a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the antenna system is proposed, the Land Use Authority’s concurrence with the proposal is subject to the Proponent engaging a licensed Professional Engineer to confirm compliance with Safety Code 6 prior to construction. the Proponent has made no attestation that the proposed antenna system is compliant with Safety Code 6. 3.5. Structural Review – National Building Code Radiocommunications facilities are constructed under the authority of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. As such, these structures are deemed a federal undertaking, requiring Proponents to uphold the standards which apply to the construction of buildings and other infrastructure as if it were being constructed on behalf of the Government of Canada. As such, the Minister of Labour has adopted the National Building Code (NBC) amongst many other federal standards in relation to any structure built under enabling federal legislation. Part II of the Canada Labour Code ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/ ) and the regulations made there under, set out the rules that apply to all federal undertakings, or workers enabled as a result of their work on such undertakings, including, but not limited to broadcasters and telecommunication carriers. The obligations include ensuring that all permanent and temporary buildings and structures meet the prescribed standards in the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations which apply to any federal undertaking. Section 2.2 (1) of the aforementioned regulations, reference the National Building Code as the applicable code to be used as the reference. Also included is the requirement for broadcasters and telecommunication carriers, when constructing towers, to follow the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, Division II, Section 2.19, which refers to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard CAN/CSA-S37-94, entitled “Antennas, Towers, and Antenna-Supporting Structures”. Legislation under HRSDC (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada) enforced by the Minister of Labour (who is one of the Ministers under the HRSDC portfolio) is responsible to enforce the provisions of the NBC and the CSA Standard, along with provincial legislation relating to the practice of professional engineering in each province. In reference to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the Proponent provided an attestation from a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the site is proposed affirming that the antenna system will be constructed according to the National Building Code, and CAN/CSA S37-18 as amended from time-to-time. the Proponent has provided a Statement of Liability and Insurance in the form required by CRINS and the Land Use Authority in lieu of an attestation. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 9  the agent of the Proponent provided an attestation that the proposed antenna system will be constructed according to the National Building Code, and CAN/CSA S37-18 as amended from time-to-time. As the agent is not a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the antenna system is proposed, the Land Use Authority’s concurrence with the proposal is subject to the Proponent engaging a licensed Professional Engineer to confirm compliance with the National Building Code and CAN/CSA S37-18 prior to construction. the Proponent has made no attestation that the proposed antenna system is compliant with the National Building Code, or CAN/CSA S37-18 4. Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) Review The Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) is a quantitative scoring mechanism which assesses proposed installations by considering their design relative to the surrounding visual landscape. This results in 3 specific metrics:  A Visibility Score which provides a measurement of how visible the site is within the surrounding landscape (scored out of a possible 24 points).  A Design Compatibility percentage which scores the proposed site design in terms of its visual elements (structure type, antenna mounts, equipment shelters, antennas and cables) relative to the surrounding landscape.  A Degree of Visual Change calculation which assesses the visual effect of the site on the surrounding landscape. The Degree of Visual Change is utilized to assess the level of public consultation required for Non-Exempt facilities. For Exempt facilities, the Degree of Visual Change along with the design recommendations of the ASDF tool are provided to assist the Proponent to consider design choices which will improve the site’s compatibility with the surrounding landscape and uses. For the current proposal, the following score has been assigned to this site design: Design Compatibility/ Site Visibility 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 24 76 - 100% Low Low Low Medium Medium 51 - 75% Low Low Medium Medium High 26 - 50% Low Low Medium High High 0 - 25% Low Medium High High High Visibility 15 Compatibility (%) 95.3 Low Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 10  4.1. Design Targets The following table outlines the relevant design targets for the proposed site. Key design targets are highlighted below: Land Use Natural Select poles with a uniform vertical profile. Limit visual contrast by eliminating horizontal elements. Respond to pole design as required. Avoid head frames or complex configurations. Located in close proximity to pole to reduce the impact and development footprint on the surrounding landscape. Maintain uniform antenna panels positions. Conceal all cables. Topography Undulating Locate poles and towers in areas where the greatest topographic variations occur. Use topographic variations to offset height of pole relative to surrounding landscape. Develop simple support structures that respond to the landscape character. Avoid elevated areas. Locate units on level low lying ground ensuring that the foundation pad design is level with minimal stepping. Maintain regular antennas and cables positions. Built form Small scale / Low density Select narrow profile poles and avoid lattice towers to limit the vertical visual effect. Pole or tower height should respond to single storey build form (10 to 15m) or a ratio of 1:1.3-1.5. Use simple support structures and avoid complex cross bracing support configurations. Mounts and panels should be flush mounted or shrouded to achieve a uniform profile. Capitalise on the existing utility areas and service lanes for cabin locations. Ensure that concrete foundation pads respond to the small-scale built form (avoid steps in the pad in excess of 150 to 200mm). Antennas should be proportional to the built form, not exceeding a ratio of 1: 1.3 of the building heights. Increase set back of antenna to allow for increased antenna height. Cable trays should be located to the rear or side facades. Sky lining Uniform Reduce the vertical profile of poles and towers to reduce the impact on the skyline. Select monopoles and avoid lattice towers with tension cables to limit both the vertical and horizontal effects. Develop a consistent rectangular antenna mount and headframe design. Avoided angled cross bracing. Maintain uniform structural member sizes, connections and positions that do not contrast the uniform skyline. Locate cabins with adequate setbacks to avoid any skylining in relation to prominent facades and viewpoints. Consider co-locations with more visible rooftop equipment or develop ground-based site. Uniformly position antennas to reduce the visual impact and establish a consistent alignment and height. Avoid significant vertical projections. Ensure a consistent alignment for cables, connections and cable trays. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 11  Containment Enclosed Develop a uniform profile for the pole or tower in response to contained visual character. Avoid visual clutter or contrast with surrounding containment. Minimise visual complexity of the pole or tower. Develop simple support structures and avoid cross bracing or complex support configurations. Antennas should be flush mounted or shrouded to minimise the visual effect on surrounding enclosure. Design and locate equipment cabins that respond to the existing containment. Develop a compatible form, scale and materiality in relation to the surrounding enclosure. Avoid impact of cables on the surrounding containment. Locate with other service runs and ensure that cables do not project over the edge of the containment and/or building parapet. Vegetation Tree groups Assess the tree height and design responses relative to the canopy of the trees. Avoid vertical extensions that exceed a ration of 1:1.2 relative to the adjacent trees. Select locations that capitalise on tree screening. Use screening from tree groups. Avoid locations that impact on the tree canopy, structure or root plate. Locate antennas, cables and cable runs to capitalise on screening potential of surrounding trees. Existing Telcom- equipment (adjacent to site) Isolated items Respond to existing height of infrastructure. Avoid significant variation in form and height. Select pole or tower with reference to the ASDF recommendations. Maintain a consistent height and form in relation to existing infrastructure. Establish a consistent location and positional relationship with existing equipment cabins. Cluster and position antennas as well as align and co-location cables with reference to existing infrastructure. Colour Mixed (complimentary) Identify prominent colours, colour match or select neutral colours to minimise of visual effect. Identify prominent colours of roofscape or surrounding area and colour match or select neutral colours to maintain consistency in relation surrounding built form. Colour match through applied paint finishes all surfaces in response to dominant colours of adjacent land use. Colour match to surrounding landscape and built form. Select neutral colours if antennas or cables are elevated or sky lining. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 12  4.2. Design Recommendations Based on the design targets outlined above, the Municipality of Chester requests that TNC Wireless Ltd. consider the following design recommendations prior to construction: No recommendations as proposed. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 13  5. Compliance with General Design Requirements With respect to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the design of the proposed site is compliant with the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol as amended. the design of the proposed site demonstrates some deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. However, the deviation(s) are deemed reasonable based on the specifics of the proposal and under the circumstances. the design of the proposed site demonstrates some deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. The Proponent has been asked to bring their proposal into compliance. the design of the proposed site demonstrates substantive deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. These deviations are not deemed reasonable by the Land Use Authority, and concurrence shall be withheld on that basis pending re-design by the Proponent. 6. Siting of Facility Relative to Existing Use   The following requirements apply to antenna systems seeking concurrence: The placement of any parking space or any component of an antenna system shall not create or cause a situation of non-compliance with any LUA Zoning By-law for any other use, building, or structure on the host or adjacent properties. In the case of the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: The design of the proposed site does not create a situation of non-compliance with any LUA zoning by-law for any other use, building, or structure on the host and adjacent properties. The design of the proposed site causes a situation of non-compliance with one or more LUA zoning by-laws for the current uses, buildings, or structures on the host property. The design of the proposed site a situation of non-compliance with one or more LUA zoning by-laws for the current and or future uses, buildings, or structures on an adjacent property. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 14  7. Statement of Concurrence The Municipality of Chester requests that the Proponent – TNC Wireless Ltd. – comply with the design targets where possible as presented in Section 4. No further Development or Planning approvals are required however the Proponent is required to comply with any and all conditions outlined in Section 9 as a requirement of obtaining and maintaining concurrence from the Land Use Authority. Failure to comply with the conditions as outlined in Section 9 shall render concurrence with the proposal null and void. Where an undertaking from the proponent is required as part of the concurrence conditions, no work on the structure shall begin until the undertaking is received by CRINS-SINRC and the Land Use Authority. Overall, the Land Use Authority position with regards to the proposal is that: The Land Use Authority concurs with the proposed antenna system, subject to any conditions outlined in Section 9. The Land Use Authority requests an extension to the consultation period due to unresolved concerns after 120 days, as outlined in Section 8.5 The Land Use Authority requests the Minister instruct the Proponent to undergo a public consultation, even though the proposed antenna system is excluded from consultation under Section 6 of CPC 2-0-03, as it is our opinion that the proposed antenna system may damage the public realm, or is contrary to the public good and requires further review. The Land Use Authority rejects (non-concurrence) the proposed antenna system as presented, for the reasons outlined in Section 8.5. 8. Public Consultation 8.1 Consultation Participation Summary   Category # % Total number of adjacent landowners notified: 2 100 Total number of adjacent landowners who had no comments after receiving the consultation information: 2 100 Total number of responses received: 1 100 Total number of adjacent landowners who provided comments: 0 0 Total number of public responses (if applicable): 1 n/a   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 15  8.2 Stakeholder Survey Summary   Question Yes No Did not Answer Is the subject property adjacent to your primary residence (Q5)? Do you rent, lease or otherwise occupy the property, but are not the legal owner of it (Q6)? Does the proposed access route to the site impair or otherwise interfere with your use of your property (Q8)? Are you aware of any environmental concerns such as flooding, buried chemicals, man-made debris, or other obstacles to the access route as proposed (Q9)? Are you aware of any water sources that may be impacted by the proposed access route to the site (Q10)? Does the proposed access route impair or interfere with any current community use of the site or surrounding properties (recreational trail, park, water course, ATV road, shared right-of-way, etc.) either on the site itself, or directly adjacent (Q11)? Does the location of the proposed compound for the tower or mast on the site impair or otherwise interfere with physical use of your property (Q12)? Does the proposed utility right-of-way impair or interfere with your use or access to your property (Q13)? Are you aware of any endangered flora or fauna on the proposed site, on your property, or adjacent properties (Q14)? As a general comment, how comfortable are you with the radiocommunications facility as proposed [Scale of 0 to 8 - 0="Not Satisfied At All", 4="Not Sure, I Guess it was OK", 8="Completely Satisfied"] (Q16)? Do you have any health and safety concerns not addressed by the information provided (Q19)? Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 16  8.3 Public Survey Summary Question Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree or Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6) Did not Answer Please rate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements on a scale of one (1) to six (6): (Q20) In my opinion, the proposed site negatively impacts a community view / landscape which is a tourist attraction? 1 In my opinion, the proposed site negatively impacts a scenic view from a community use area such as a park, recreational facility, historic /cultural site or public facility? 1 In my opinion, the proposed site impairs or interferes with a community use area such as a park, recreational facility, historic /cultural site or public facility? 1 The proposed site negatively impacts the view from my primary residence? 1 Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 17  8.3 Public Comments Summary   In addition to the questions posed in the survey, both priority stakeholders and the general public were provided an opportunity to provide free form comments. The following summarizes the themes that were represented in the comments: Public comments were generally of the view that the tower impacted the visual amenity of the area. This was balanced by comments that improved service and wireless data speeds would be beneficial to general economic and lifestyle interests. There were no instances identified of the tower directly impacting public or private interests or use of adjacent properties outside of the visual amenity aspects.    Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 18    8.3 CRINS-SINRC Reporting Statement   CRINS-SINRC reviews each application for a proposed antenna system according to the guidelines set out by the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development (ISED) and identifies matters which the Minister has identified as relevant to the federal purpose pursuant to S. 5(1)(f) of the Radiocommunications Act. As the designated representative of the Land Use Authority, overseeing the consultation process, CRINS-SINRC presents the opinions of both the public and/or elected body as well as the evidence-based land use guidance of the planning and development staff in each Land Use Authority, as provided for in the procedures set out in the Client Procedures Circulars (CPCs) to inform the decision of the Minister. Where there is non-concurrence between the public opinion and/or the elected body of a Land Use Authority regarding a proposed antenna system and the satisfactory compliance of a proponent proposal with the technical, planning and procedural requirements set out by the Minister, CRINS-SINRC maintains a fiduciary role to provide any information which ISEDC may request such that the Minister may make a final determination regarding a proposal taking into regard to the objectives of the Canadian telecommunications policy set out in Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act. Where a proposal receives a non-concurrence statement, CRINS-SINRC shall identify for the Minister the matters which resulted in the statement of non-concurrence, and may provide independent narrative on those matters according to the criteria which the Minister has articulated in the policies and procedures which flow from the implementation of the Act(s). Where such narrative is required, CRINS-SINRC shall issue a Reporting Statement for the Minister’s consideration which, when provided, shall be attached to this report as Schedule ‘A’. CRINS-SINRC has not deemed it necessary to include a Reporting Statement for the Minister’s review. CRINS-SINRC has included a Reporting Statement as Schedule ‘A’ for the Minister’s consideration. 8.4 Statement by Council   Notwithstanding the technical and planning review by CRINS and LUA staff requested by the Minister, Council may deem it appropriate to issue a statement for the Minister’s consideration which, when provided, shall be attached to this report as Schedule ‘B’. Council has not deemed it necessary to include a statement for the Minister’s consideration. Council has provided a statement as Schedule ‘B’ for the Minister’s consideration. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 19  8.5 Justification for Concurrence Statement The Proponent has addressed all relevant concerns of the public, and the Land Use Authority has no further concerns about the proposal, subject to the Proponent’s compliance with all conditions as may be set forth in Section 9. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314 20  9. LUA Confirmation of Report and Conditions We hereby advise that the attached report accurately reflects the position of the Municipality of Chester with respect to the radiocommunications facility proposed by TNC Wireless Ltd., designated TNC-CTR (CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3111-4314). Our position with respect to the proposal is based on the following conditions being met: 1) Confirmation by CRINS‐SINRC that the Proponent has addressed all relevant concerns of the public according  to the Protocol and that the above conditions have been met such that a Notice of Completion is warranted.   2) Application made for, and receipt of, all necessary permits prior to construction of the foundation of the  tower and building to house proponent’s equipment.   3) Submission of “as‐built” drawings to CRINS‐SINRC no later than 30 days after the completion of construction.   4) Receipt of the Safety Code 6 report by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province which confirms  compliance with Safety Code 6 prior to the commissioning of the tower.   5) Receipt of an attestation or stamped drawings by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province which  confirms compliance with the National Building Code and CSA S37‐18 Standard prior to construction.   6) Receipt of NAV Canada approval for the construction of the site.                          DATED this ______ day of _________, 20___ ________________________________ Chad Haughn Director of Community Development Municipality of Chester Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 1    Municipality of Chester Land Use Authority Recommendation Report For TNC Wireless Ltd. Site TNC-NML September 19, 2020 Revised January 8, 2021 CRINS-SINRC# 1907-3112-3004  Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 2  Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Subject Property ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Justification Statement by Proponent .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Statement on Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1. Community Sensitive Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2. Zoning and Compatibility with Existing Plans ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.3. Fire Routing and Access – National Fire Code ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4. Health Canada Safety Code 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.5. Structural Review – National Building Code ............................................................................................................................. 8 4. Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) Review .................................................................................................. 9 4.1. Design Targets ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2. Design Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 5. Compliance with General Design Requirements ..................................................................................................... 13 6. Siting of Facility Relative to Existing Use................................................................................................................. 13 7. Statement of Concurrence ....................................................................................................................................... 14 8. Public Consultation .................................................................................................................................................. 14 8.1 Consultation Participation Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 14 8.2 Stakeholder Survey Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 15 8.3 Public Survey Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 8.3 Public Comments Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 8.3 CRINS-SINRC Reporting Statement ......................................................................................................................................... 18 8.4 Statement by Council ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 8.5 Justification for Concurrence Statement .................................................................................................................................... 19 9. LUA Confirmation of Report and Conditions............................................................................................................ 20   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 3  1. Introduction The purpose of the Land Use Authority Recommendation Report is to detail the review process conducted for an application submitted through CRINS-SINRC to a participating Land Use Authority (LUA) for the siting and construction of an antenna system, as well as defining the participating LUA’s expectations relating to the location and design of radiocommunications facilities. This report is a deliverable resulting from the LUA’s adoption of the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol, Issue 5 (2020) which applies to any proponent planning to install a new or modify an existing radiocommunications facility regardless of the type of installation or service. This includes, but not limited to: • Personal Communications Services (PCS); • Cellular operators; • Fixed wireless operators; • Broadcasting operators; • Land-mobile operators; • License-exempt operators; and, • Amateur radio operators. All new radiocommunications facilities are expected to follow this process to obtain either a Notice of Facility Exemption or a Notice of Completion relating to the consultation and the corresponding Land Use Authority (LUA) Recommendations Report. Revisions October 18. 2019 First Draft  November 8. 2019 Reassessment of Transport Canada lighting  December 4, 2019 ASDF re‐evaluation based on field / site visit of  November 23, 2019  January 18, 2020 Spectrum Analysis / coverage view plan analysis.  February 6, 2020 Environmental Review complete under Canadian  Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)  August 8, 2020 Second Draft  September 19, 2020 Third Draft – new “coronavirus” procedures.  January 8, 2021 Edits from Municipal Staff  Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 4  2. Subject Property The proposed installation is located at coordinates 44° 40' 54.95" N, 64° 17' 24.33" W. on parcel PID 60145745 (2812 Highway 14, Windsor Road, NS).   Figure 1 ‐ Location Overview  2.1 Justification Statement by Proponent   This is a broadband / wireless internet site being introduced under the federal CTI project. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 5    Figure 2‐ Example of Slim Monopole (Type SP)   The Proponent is seeking a Notice of Completion for the installation.   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 6  3. Statement on Land Use The LUA considers all proposals in the context of its existing Land Use Plans, as well as its mandate for ensuring the safety and security of persons and property which may be affected by a proposed development. The proposed radiocommunications site has been reviewed and the following sections represent the LUA’s assessment of the proposed site relative to existing land use practices. 3.1. Community Sensitive Locations   While antenna systems have become common infrastructure in the public realm, some areas of a municipality may contain cultural, natural or historical assets which may be diminished by the introduction of antenna systems. ISEDC provides for exclusions from consultation for proposals which are deemed low impact in nature, or related to maintenance of existing structures. While in general terms, such exclusions are reasonable, there exists individual instances where such exclusions may have a disproportionate negative impact on the public realms. The LUA will generally recognize an exclusion provided that the site is not located in a Community Sensitive Location. If a proposed site is located in a Community Sensitive Location, the Proponent may be asked to proceed with a Public Consultation due to the sensitive nature of the site, even though it may otherwise qualify for exempt status. The LUA will advise both the Proponent, as well as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as to its concerns in these situations. If a proposed site is a non-exempt facility and is located in a Community Sensitive Location, public consultation will be required in all cases, and the proponent should expect that a community sensitive location will invoke a “High” degree of visual change under ASDF Criteria. A Community Sensitive Location is defined as being: 1) on or near a designated Heritage Property; 2) located in an area of Architectural Significance; 3) located in an area of Archeological Significance; or, 4) in a Natural Conservation Area. In the case of the current proposal, we advise the Minister that the proposed antenna system: is not believed to have any adverse effects on a Community Sensitive Location according to the Protocol. may impact an area deemed to be architecturally significant whether or not each of the individual properties/assets have received a federal, provincial or municipal Designation. may impact properties that have received a federal, provincial or municipal Designation(s), and are registered in the Canadian Register of Historic Places. may impact an area deemed to be a Natural Conservation area or park. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 7  3.2. Zoning and Compatibility with Existing Plans   The proposed site utilizes a General Basic (GB) zone. Based on the allowable uses and in reference to the current proposal we advise the Minister that the proposed antenna system: is proposed in an area in which the current zoning by-laws of the Land Use Authority allow for industrial or commercial enterprises which have the potential for light, noise or other emissions. As such, an antenna system is consistent in nature with the allowable uses of the zone – even if not explicitly declared. is proposed in a commercial, or other zoned area that does not include any residential uses. is proposed in a mixed-use area with both commercial and residential uses. is proposed within a residential, environmentally protected, or nature area. 3.3. Fire Routing and Access – National Fire Code We advise the Minister that the site layout for the proposed antenna system, per the submitted site plan: satisfies the needs of the Land Use Authority to provide emergency services to the site, including the protection of adjacent structures on the same property, or any adjacent properties. requires modification to the site design to conform to the requirements of the Land Use Authority to be able to provide emergency services to adjacent structures on the same property, or adjacent properties does not allow for the provision of emergency services including the protection of adjacent structures or properties. 3.4. Health Canada Safety Code 6 All radiocommunication facilities, irrespective of the nature of the antenna system, or physical form is required to operate within the limits specified in the Health Canada guidelines for electromagnetic radiation emissions – Safety Code 6 - which has been adopted by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada for use with all radiocommunications facilities. To that end, a Proponent is required to provide a statement attesting to the Proponent’s understanding and commitment to operate within the limits of Safety Code 6, and to identify a Professional Engineer who, either as a employee of the Proponent or as a service provider under contract to the Proponent, has agree to take responsibility for ensuring compliance of the antenna system. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 8  With respect to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the Proponent provided an attestation from a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the site is proposed affirming that the antenna system will operate below the thresholds specified in Health Canada Safety Code 6. the Proponent has provided a Statement of Liability and Insurance in the form required by CRINS and the Land Use Authority in lieu of an attestation. the agent of the Proponent provided an attestation that the proposed antenna system will operate below the thresholds specified in Health Canada Safety Code 6. As the agent is not a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the antenna system is proposed, the Land Use Authority’s concurrence with the proposal is subject to the Proponent engaging a licensed Professional Engineer to confirm compliance with Safety Code 6 prior to construction. the Proponent has made no attestation that the proposed antenna system is compliant with Safety Code 6. 3.5. Structural Review – National Building Code Radiocommunications facilities are constructed under the authority of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. As such, these structures are deemed a federal undertaking, requiring Proponents to uphold the standards which apply to the construction of buildings and other infrastructure as if it were being constructed on behalf of the Government of Canada. As such, the Minister of Labour has adopted the National Building Code (NBC) amongst many other federal standards in relation to any structure built under enabling federal legislation. Part II of the Canada Labour Code ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/ ) and the regulations made there under, set out the rules that apply to all federal undertakings, or workers enabled as a result of their work on such undertakings, including, but not limited to broadcasters and telecommunication carriers. The obligations include ensuring that all permanent and temporary buildings and structures meet the prescribed standards in the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations which apply to any federal undertaking. Section 2.2 (1) of the aforementioned regulations, reference the National Building Code as the applicable code to be used as the reference. Also included is the requirement for broadcasters and telecommunication carriers, when constructing towers, to follow the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, Division II, Section 2.19, which refers to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard CAN/CSA-S37-94, entitled “Antennas, Towers, and Antenna-Supporting Structures”. Legislation under HRSDC (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada) enforced by the Minister of Labour (who is one of the Ministers under the HRSDC portfolio) is responsible to enforce the provisions of the NBC and the CSA Standard, along with provincial legislation relating to the practice of professional engineering in each province. In reference to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the Proponent provided an attestation from a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the site is proposed affirming that the antenna system will be constructed according to the National Building Code, and CAN/CSA S37-18 as amended from time-to-time. the Proponent has provided a Statement of Liability and Insurance in the form required by CRINS and the Land Use Authority in lieu of an attestation. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 9  the agent of the Proponent provided an attestation that the proposed antenna system will be constructed according to the National Building Code, and CAN/CSA S37-18 as amended from time-to-time. As the agent is not a Professional Engineer licensed in the province in which the antenna system is proposed, the Land Use Authority’s concurrence with the proposal is subject to the Proponent engaging a licensed Professional Engineer to confirm compliance with the National Building Code and CAN/CSA S37-18 prior to construction. the Proponent has made no attestation that the proposed antenna system is compliant with the National Building Code, or CAN/CSA S37-18 4. Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) Review The Antenna Siting Design Framework (ASDF) is a quantitative scoring mechanism which assesses proposed installations by considering their design relative to the surrounding visual landscape. This results in 3 specific metrics:  A Visibility Score which provides a measurement of how visible the site is within the surrounding landscape (scored out of a possible 24 points).  A Design Compatibility percentage which scores the proposed site design in terms of its visual elements (structure type, antenna mounts, equipment shelters, antennas and cables) relative to the surrounding landscape.  A Degree of Visual Change calculation which assesses the visual effect of the site on the surrounding landscape. The Degree of Visual Change is utilized to assess the level of public consultation required for Non-Exempt facilities. For Exempt facilities, the Degree of Visual Change along with the design recommendations of the ASDF tool are provided to assist the Proponent to consider design choices which will improve the site’s compatibility with the surrounding landscape and uses. For the current proposal, the following score has been assigned to this site design: Design Compatibility/ Site Visibility 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 24 76 - 100% Low Low Low Medium Medium 51 - 75% Low Low Medium Medium High 26 - 50% Low Low Medium High High 0 - 25% Low Medium High High High Visibility 14 Compatibility (%) 93.8 Low Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 10  4.1. Design Targets The following table outlines the relevant design targets for the proposed site. Key design targets are highlighted below: Land Use Residential Use slim pole profiles and limit vertical extensions relative to the surrounding built form. Avoid lattice towers and head frames. Reduce the impact on street frontages. Avoid cross bracing and support wires. Set antenna mounts back from street frontages. Limit size of structural members and ensure mounts are proportional to the built form. Capitalise on rear lanes or less public locations. Match the colour, built form and materiality to reduce the visual impact. Maintain uniform antennas positions that respond to the construction of the pole or antenna mount. Develop consistent cable connections and shroud cables. Topography Undulating Locate poles and towers in areas where the greatest topographic variations occur. Use topographic variations to offset height of pole relative to surrounding landscape. Develop simple support structures that respond to the landscape character. Avoid elevated areas. Locate units on level low lying ground ensuring that the foundation pad design is level with minimal stepping. Maintain regular antennas and cables positions. Built form Small scale / Low density Select narrow profile poles and avoid lattice towers to limit the vertical visual effect. Pole or tower height should respond to single storey build form (10 to 15m) or a ratio of 1:1.3-1.5. Use simple support structures and avoid complex cross bracing support configurations. Mounts and panels should be flush mounted or shrouded to achieve a uniform profile. Capitalise on the existing utility areas and service lanes for cabin locations. Ensure that concrete foundation pads respond to the small-scale built form (avoid steps in the pad in excess of 150 to 200mm). Antennas should be proportional to the built form, not exceeding a ratio of 1: 1.3 of the building heights. Increase set back of antenna to allow for increased antenna height. Cable trays should be located to the rear or side facades. Sky lining Uniform Reduce the vertical profile of poles and towers to reduce the impact on the skyline. Select monopoles and avoid lattice towers with tension cables to limit both the vertical and horizontal effects. Develop a consistent rectangular antenna mount and headframe design. Avoided angled cross bracing. Maintain uniform structural member sizes, connections and positions that do not contrast the uniform skyline. Locate cabins with adequate setbacks to avoid any skylining in relation to prominent facades and viewpoints. Consider co-locations with more visible rooftop equipment or develop ground-based site. Uniformly position antennas to reduce the visual impact and establish a consistent alignment and height. Avoid significant vertical projections. Ensure a consistent alignment for cables, connections and cable trays. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 11  Containment Fragmented boundaries Capitalise on the existing containment or consider increased setbacks to provide additional screening of the pole or tower. Avoid major view corridors. Maintain a consistent vertical profile to reduce the visual complexity of the tower. Capitalise on the existing containment to provide additional screening or back screening. Avoid highly visible or open areas where containment is limited. Design and locate outdoor base units that respond to the existing containment. Develop a compatible form, scale and materiality in relation to the surrounding enclosure. Limit the impact of cables on the surrounding containment. Align cable runs and avoid complex directional changes. Locate with other service runs and ensure that cables do not project over the edge of the containment and/or building parapet. Vegetation Tree groups Assess the tree height and design responses relative to the canopy of the trees. Avoid vertical extensions that exceed a ration of 1:1.2 relative to the adjacent trees. Select locations that capitalise on tree screening. Use screening from tree groups. Avoid locations that impact on the tree canopy, structure or root plate. Locate antennas, cables and cable runs to capitalise on screening potential of surrounding trees. Existing Telcom- equipment (adjacent to site) Isolated items Respond to existing height of infrastructure. Avoid significant variation in form and height. Select pole or tower with reference to the ASDF recommendations. Maintain a consistent height and form in relation to existing infrastructure. Establish a consistent location and positional relationship with existing equipment cabins. Cluster and position antennas as well as align and co-location cables with reference to existing infrastructure. Colour Mixed (complimentary) Identify prominent colours, colour match or select neutral colours to minimise of visual effect. Identify prominent colours of roofscape or surrounding area and colour match or select neutral colours to maintain consistency in relation surrounding built form. Colour match through applied paint finishes all surfaces in response to dominant colours of adjacent land use. Colour match to surrounding landscape and built form. Select neutral colours if antennas or cables are elevated or sky lining. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 12  4.2. Design Recommendations Based on the design targets outlined above, the Municipality of Chester requests that TNC Wireless Ltd. consider the following design recommendations prior to construction: No recommendations as proposed. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 13  5. Compliance with General Design Requirements With respect to the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: the design of the proposed site is compliant with the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol as amended. the design of the proposed site demonstrates some deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. However, the deviation(s) are deemed reasonable based on the specifics of the proposal and under the circumstances. the design of the proposed site demonstrates some deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. The Proponent has been asked to bring their proposal into compliance. the design of the proposed site demonstrates substantive deviation(s) from the general design requirements as outlined in the CRINS-SINRC Reference Protocol. These deviations are not deemed reasonable by the Land Use Authority, and concurrence shall be withheld on that basis pending re-design by the Proponent. 6. Siting of Facility Relative to Existing Use   The following requirements apply to antenna systems seeking concurrence: The placement of any parking space or any component of an antenna system shall not create or cause a situation of non-compliance with any LUA Zoning By-law for any other use, building, or structure on the host or adjacent properties. In the case of the current proposal, we advise the Minister that: The design of the proposed site does not create a situation of non-compliance with any LUA zoning by-law for any other use, building, or structure on the host and adjacent properties. The design of the proposed site causes a situation of non-compliance with one or more LUA zoning by-laws for the current uses, buildings, or structures on the host property. The design of the proposed site a situation of non-compliance with one or more LUA zoning by-laws for the current and or future uses, buildings, or structures on an adjacent property. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 14  7. Statement of Concurrence The Municipality of Chester requests that the Proponent – TNC Wireless Ltd. – comply with the design targets where possible as presented in Section 4. No further Development or Planning approvals are required however the Proponent is required to comply with any and all conditions outlined in Section 9 as a requirement of obtaining and maintaining concurrence from the Land Use Authority. Failure to comply with the conditions as outlined in Section 9 shall render concurrence with the proposal null and void. Where an undertaking from the proponent is required as part of the concurrence conditions, no work on the structure shall begin until the undertaking is received by CRINS-SINRC and the Land Use Authority. Overall, the Land Use Authority position with regards to the proposal is that: The Land Use Authority concurs with the proposed antenna system, subject to any conditions outlined in Section 9. The Land Use Authority requests an extension to the consultation period due to unresolved concerns after 120 days, as outlined in Section 8.5 The Land Use Authority requests the Minister instruct the Proponent to undergo a public consultation, even though the proposed antenna system is excluded from consultation under Section 6 of CPC 2-0-03, as it is our opinion that the proposed antenna system may damage the public realm, or is contrary to the public good and requires further review. The Land Use Authority rejects (non-concurrence) the proposed antenna system as presented, for the reasons outlined in Section 8.5. 8. Public Consultation 8.1 Consultation Participation Summary   Category # % Total number of adjacent landowners notified: 7 100 Total number of adjacent landowners who had no comments after receiving the consultation information: 5 100 Total number of responses received: 2 100 Total number of adjacent landowners who provided comments: 2 28 Total number of public responses (if applicable): 6 n/a   Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 15  8.2 Stakeholder Survey Summary   Question Yes No Did not Answer Is the subject property adjacent to your primary residence (Q5)? 2 Do you rent, lease or otherwise occupy the property, but are not the legal owner of it (Q6)? 2 Does the proposed access route to the site impair or otherwise interfere with your use of your property (Q8)? 2 Are you aware of any environmental concerns such as flooding, buried chemicals, man-made debris, or other obstacles to the access route as proposed (Q9)? 2 Are you aware of any water sources that may be impacted by the proposed access route to the site (Q10)? 2 Does the proposed access route impair or interfere with any current community use of the site or surrounding properties (recreational trail, park, water course, ATV road, shared right-of-way, etc.) either on the site itself, or directly adjacent (Q11)? 2 Does the location of the proposed compound for the tower or mast on the site impair or otherwise interfere with physical use of your property (Q12)? 2 Does the proposed utility right-of-way impair or interfere with your use or access to your property (Q13)? 2 Are you aware of any endangered flora or fauna on the proposed site, on your property, or adjacent properties (Q14)? 2 As a general comment, how comfortable are you with the radiocommunications facility as proposed [Scale of 0 to 8 - 0="Not Satisfied At All", 4="Not Sure, I Guess it was OK", 8="Completely Satisfied"] (Q16)? 2@ Score 7 Do you have any health and safety concerns not addressed by the information provided (Q19)? 2 Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 16  8.3 Public Survey Summary Question Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree or Disagree (3) Somewhat Agree (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree (6) Did not Answer Please rate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements on a scale of one (1) to six (6): (Q20) In my opinion, the proposed site negatively impacts a community view / landscape which is a tourist attraction? 5 1 In my opinion, the proposed site negatively impacts a scenic view from a community use area such as a park, recreational facility, historic /cultural site or public facility? 6 In my opinion, the proposed site impairs or interferes with a community use area such as a park, recreational facility, historic /cultural site or public facility? 6 The proposed site negatively impacts the view from my primary residence? 6 Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 17  8.3 Public Comments Summary   In addition to the questions posed in the survey, both priority stakeholders and the general public were provided an opportunity to provide free form comments. The following summarizes the themes that were represented in the comments: Public comments were generally of the view that the tower impacted the visual amenity of the area. This was balanced by comments that improved service and wireless data speeds would be beneficial to general economic and lifestyle interests. There were no instances identified of the tower directly impacting public or private interests or use of adjacent properties outside of the visual amenity aspects.    Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 18    8.3 CRINS-SINRC Reporting Statement   CRINS-SINRC reviews each application for a proposed antenna system according to the guidelines set out by the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development (ISED) and identifies matters which the Minister has identified as relevant to the federal purpose pursuant to S. 5(1)(f) of the Radiocommunications Act. As the designated representative of the Land Use Authority, overseeing the consultation process, CRINS-SINRC presents the opinions of both the public and/or elected body as well as the evidence-based land use guidance of the planning and development staff in each Land Use Authority, as provided for in the procedures set out in the Client Procedures Circulars (CPCs) to inform the decision of the Minister. Where there is non-concurrence between the public opinion and/or the elected body of a Land Use Authority regarding a proposed antenna system and the satisfactory compliance of a proponent proposal with the technical, planning and procedural requirements set out by the Minister, CRINS-SINRC maintains a fiduciary role to provide any information which ISEDC may request such that the Minister may make a final determination regarding a proposal taking into regard to the objectives of the Canadian telecommunications policy set out in Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act. Where a proposal receives a non-concurrence statement, CRINS-SINRC shall identify for the Minister the matters which resulted in the statement of non-concurrence, and may provide independent narrative on those matters according to the criteria which the Minister has articulated in the policies and procedures which flow from the implementation of the Act(s). Where such narrative is required, CRINS-SINRC shall issue a Reporting Statement for the Minister’s consideration which, when provided, shall be attached to this report as Schedule ‘A’. CRINS-SINRC has not deemed it necessary to include a Reporting Statement for the Minister’s review. CRINS-SINRC has included a Reporting Statement as Schedule ‘A’ for the Minister’s consideration. 8.4 Statement by Council   Notwithstanding the technical and planning review by CRINS and LUA staff requested by the Minister, Council may deem it appropriate to issue a statement for the Minister’s consideration which, when provided, shall be attached to this report as Schedule ‘B’. Council has not deemed it necessary to include a statement for the Minister’s consideration. Council has provided a statement as Schedule ‘B’ for the Minister’s consideration. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 19  8.5 Justification for Concurrence Statement The Proponent has addressed all relevant concerns of the public, and the Land Use Authority has no further concerns about the proposal, subject to the Proponent’s compliance with all conditions as may be set forth in Section 9. Land Use Authority Recommendation Report CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004 20  9. LUA Confirmation of Report and Conditions We hereby advise that the attached report accurately reflects the position of the Municipality of Chester with respect to the radiocommunications facility proposed by TNC Wireless Ltd., designated TNC-NML (CRINS-SINRC # 1907-3112-3004). Our position with respect to the proposal is based on the following conditions being met: 1) Confirmation by CRINS‐SINRC that the Proponent has addressed all relevant concerns of the public according  to the Protocol and that the above conditions have been met such that a Notice of Completion is warranted.   2) Application made for, and receipt of, all necessary permits prior to construction of the foundation of the  tower and building to house proponent’s equipment.   3) Submission of “as‐built” drawings to CRINS‐SINRC no later than 30 days after the completion of construction.   4) Receipt of the Safety Code 6 report by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province which confirms  compliance with Safety Code 6 prior to the commissioning of the tower.   5) Receipt of an attestation or stamped drawings by a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province which  confirms compliance with the National Building Code and CSA S37‐18 Standard prior to construction.   6) Receipt of NAV Canada approval for the construction of the site.                          DATED this ______ day of _________, 20___ ________________________________ Chad Haughn Director of Community Development Municipality of Chester Cos H District Council Grants 2020 - 2021 Updated March 3, 2021 Requested Approved Chester Art Centre: Open Studio Outreach Program 500.00$ 500.00$ FHCS: Grad Event Support 200.00$ 200.00$ Heritage Handwork: Facility Rental 500.00$ 500.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 1,200.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 3,800.00$ Aspotogan Heritage Trust (& Through the Years)1,200.00$ Hubbards Area Lions Club: Pumping of Oil Tank 600.00$ 600.00$ Hubbards Community Waterfront Association: Washrooms 500.00$ 500.00$ FHCS: Grad Event Support 200.00$ 200.00$ Through The Years Daycare: Operating Costs During Pandemic 500.00$ 500.00$ Hubbards Area Lions Club: Christmas with Santa 300.00$ 300.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 2,100.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 2,900.00$ Chester Art Centre: Open Studio Outreach Program 500.00$ 500.00$ Chester Castaways: 2020-21 Season 500.00$ 500.00$ Chester Merchants Association: Christmas in the Village Event 500.00$ 500.00$ Chester Playhouse: Christmas in the Village Event 500.00$ 500.00$ Church Memorial Park: Community Garden 750.00$ 750.00$ FHCS: Grad Event Support 200.00$ 200.00$ St. Stephens Parish (Musical Friends): Purchase Instruments 500.00$ 500.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 3,450.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 1,550.00$ Chester Basin Fire Department: Laptop & DNR Gear 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ FHCS: Grad Event Support 200.00$ 200.00$ South Shore Pipes & Drums Association: Instructors 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Basin Rec Park: Facility Upgrades 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 3,700.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 1,300.00$ Together We Can: Halloween & Christmas Events 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ Western Shore & District Fire Department: Halloween Event 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ FHCS: Grad Event Support 200.00$ 200.00$ Western Shore & Area Improvement: Halloween Event 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Western Shore & Area Improvement: Christmas Wreaths 375.00$ 375.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 4,075.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 925.00$ FHCS: Grad Event Support 200.00$ 200.00$ Forties Community Centre: Oktoberfest Event 500.00$ 500.00$ New Ross Community Care Centre 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 1,700.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 3,300.00$ Chester Art Centre: Open Studio Outreach Program 500.00$ 500.00$ Chester Castaways: 2020-21 Season 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Church Memorial Park: Community Garden 750.00$ 750.00$ FHCS: Grad Event Support 200.00$ 200.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 2,450.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 2,550.00$ Total Funds Approved 18,675.00$ Total District Grant Budget 35,000.00$ Remaining Funds 16,325.00$ District 7 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By: Pam Myra, Municipal Clerk Date March 1, 2021 Reviewed By: Malcolm Pitman, Dir of Finance Date March 2, 2021 Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date CURRENT SITUATION Presently salaries are determined using the 2020/21 Salary Band Schedule approved by Council on March 19, 2020 (2020-103/122). RECOMMENDATION Information – refer to options. BACKGROUND Annually Council considers applying the previous year’s Consumer Price Index Rate (All Items for Nova Scotia) to salaries. This approval has traditionally been approved prior to the beginning of the April 1 Fiscal Year to ensure a smooth transition for payroll calculations (reducing the need for Payroll Staff to determine wages/salaries for hours incurred from April 1 to the approval date). DISCUSSION IMPLICATIONS Policy Policy P-09 Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden, and Councillors (Section D). Policy P-55 Personnel Policy (Section 5.3.1) Financial/Budgetary  Approval of the CPI will result in an increase in annual staff salaries of 0.3% over the current 2020/21 Employee Salaries, equating to approximately $9,600 from the fiscal year ending 2020/21 (March 31, 2021) to the fiscal year 2021/22. This calculation does not include part-time wages, retirements, new hires, annual salary increases, or impacts REPORT TO Committee of the Whole SUBMITTED BY Corporate and Strategic Management DATE OF MEETING March 11, 2021 SUBJECT Cost of Living Adjustment (Consumer Price Index) ORIGIN Annual Consideration Request For Decision 2 on benefits. NOTE: Benefit renewal information received from Morneau Shepell has not been received for the 2021/22 fiscal year.  Approval of the CPI will result in an increase in Council Remuneration of 0.3% over the 2020/21 Remuneration equating to approximately $560 in total for all Councillors (this does not include remuneration of Committee Members). Environmental Not applicable. Strategic Plan Not applicable. Work Program Implications Approval of the CPI prior to April 1 will reduce the need for additional staff time required to calculate CPI for regular and overtime salaries/wages incurred from April 1 to a later approval date. OPTIONS 1. Approve CPI at 0.3% by:  Approving the Draft 2021/22 Employee Salary Bands - Approve the Cost of Living increase by the Consumer Price Index – All Items for Nova Scotia 2020 by 0.3% Effective April 1, 2021.  Recommend the amendment to Policy P-09 Warden, Deputy Warden, and Councillors Salaries - Give Notice of Intention to Amend Policy P-09 Sections A, B, and C to increase annual remuneration Cost of Living by the Consumer Price Index – All Items for Nova Scotia 2020 by 0.3% Effective April 1, 2021. OR 2. Not Approve the Cost of Living increase for Employee Salary Bands or Policy P-09 by the 2020 Consumer Price Index of 0.3%. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of information from Province of Nova Scotia’s website. 2. Draft copy of Amended Policy P-09 Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden, and Councillors. 3. Copy of Policy P-55 Personnel Policy (Section 5.3.1). 4. Calculations – Impact of CPI for Council/Staff. 5. Draft 2021/22 Employee Salary Band Schedule showing 0.3% increase in salary bands. Request For Decision 3 6. History of Consumer Price Index 2015 to 2021. COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) Not applicable. Pam Myra From:Malcolm Pitman, CPA, CA Sent:January 22, 2021 11:53 AM To:Pam Myra Subject:RE: CPI Attachments:CPI for 2020 - Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics.pdf Pam, The attached is from the Province’s web site. It shows the NS CPI for all items for the calendar year 2020 was 0.3%. Malcolm MALCOLM PITMAN, CPA, CA Director of Financial & Information Services Office: 902-275-4115 Cell: 902-277-2957 Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? From: Malcolm Pitman, CPA, CA Sent: January 18, 2021 1:46 PM To: Pam Myra <pmyra@chester.ca> Subject: RE: CPI Pam, The stats for December 2020 are not out yet. Will check on it later. You will probably be using 2%, because inflation for the year ended November 2020 was only 0.2% for Nova scotia. Malcolm 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 1/18 Finance and Treasury Board Contact Us Economics and Statistics Taxation Budget Financial Services Insurance Investor Relations Publications News About Finance Economics and Statistics Daily Stats Archived Daily Releases Subscribe to DailyStats Use the Services Directory to quickly access information on all of the services provided by the NS Department of Finance. Home > Economics and Statistics > Popular Topics > Consumer Price Index Consumer Price Index The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is an indicator of changes in consumer prices experienced by Canadians. It is obtained by comparing, over time, the cost of a fixed basket of goods and services purchased by consumers. Since the basket contains goods and services of unchanging or equivalent quantity and quality, the index reflects only pure price change. The CPI is widely used as an indicator of the change in the general level of consumer prices or the rate of inflation. Since the purchasing power of money is affected by changes in prices, the CPI is useful to virtually all Canadians. Consumers can compare movements in the CPI to changes in their personal income to monitor and evaluate changes in their financial situation. For the latest information and historical data, please contact the individual listed below: Mike Milloy Planning and Development Officer Tel:902-424-8800 Email: Mike.Milloy@novascotia.ca To view previous releases, select one from the dropdown box: View Version Currently displaying information released on: January, 2021 ANALYSIS OF NOVA SCOTIA'S CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ANNUAL 2020 CPI inflation in Nova Scotia increased 0.3% in 2020 following strong gains over the last two years (2.2% in 2018 and 1.6% in 2019). Nova Scotia’s annual inflation in 2020 was lower compared to the national rate of 0.7%, which slowed compared to the 1.9% increase in 2019. Nationally, this was the slowest pace since 2009 as strict social distancing measures introduced to limit the spread of COVID-19 had caused a significant decline in consumer spending. The slowdown in the price growth in consumer goods and services reflected Canadians changing spending patterns as most people adopted to staying home, travelling less and buying more of certain items and fewer of others. The main contributor to the slower CPI growth in 2020 was the decline in prices for non-durable goods because of lower gasoline prices. Food prices increased 2.3% posting the highest increase among major components of the CPI. Meat prices increased 4.5% in 2020 as temporary closures and reduced operating capacities at several large beef processing plants contributed to notable growth in beef prices in early to mid-2020. Impacts of COVID-19 on Consumer Price Index The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), both in terms of the shifts in consumer spending patterns and in terms of the special imputation treatments introduced to address missing or unavailable products and prices in 2020. Goods and 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 2/18 services in the CPI that were not available to consumers throughout most of 2020 because of COVID-19 restrictions received special treatments, effectively removing their impact on the calculation of the monthly and annual average CPI. Statistics Canada’s Technical Supplement documents which have been released with the CPI data on a monthly basis are available in the Prices Analytical Series detailing the imputations used to compile the monthly CPI in 2020. Average annual prices rose at a slower pace in every province in 2020 compared with a year earlier. Prices rose slowest in Atlantic Canada reflecting the lower price of furnace fuel oil. Alberta (+1.1%) posted the largest inflation growth among all provinces in 2020 while prices remained unchanged in Prince Edward Island. The CPI excluding food and energy increased 1.3% in Nova Scotia, higher than the national average of 1.1% in 2020. Nova Scotia along with Prince Edward Island and Quebec had the largest increase for the CPI excluding food and energy while the smallest increase was in Newfoundland and Labrador (+0.8%). Average annual price increase excluding food and energy was slower in every province in 2020 compared to last year. 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 3/18 Major Components for 2020 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 4/18 For Nova Scotia, prices increased in four of the eight major components of the consumer price index in 2020 with the largest increase seen in food prices (+2.7%). The increase in Nova Scotia’s food prices was similar to the growth seen in 2019 (+2.8%). The price growth for health and personal care increased to 2.0% in 2020 in Nova Scotia, up from 0.2% in 2019. Prices of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products increased faster in 2020 (+2.1%) than in 2019 (+1.7%) in Nova Scotia. Clothing and footwear prices declined 1.3% annually in Nova Scotia in 2020 following a 0.6% gain recorded in 2019. Nationally, clothing and footwear prices were down 1.8% in 2020, posting the largest annual average decline since 2010. Lower prices in 2020 also reflected the large discounts that many retailers offered to online prices as in-person shopping was suspended in most provinces throughout April and May 2020. Alberta (+0.8%) was the only province registering an increase in clothing and footwear prices in 2020. Recreation, education and reading prices in Nova Scotia declined 1.0% in 2020 following a 1.4% gain seen in 2019. 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 5/18 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 6/18 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 7/18 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 8/18 Energy prices declined in every province in 2020 with Prince Edward Island posting the largest decline (-14.2%). Nationally, energy prices were down 7.6% in 2020 with Alberta (-3.7%) posting the lowest decline. Source: Statistics Canada. Table 18-10-0005-01 Consumer Price Index, annual average, not seasonally adjusted ANALYSIS OF NOVA SCOTIA'S CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR DECEMBER 2020 TRENDS – DECEMBER 2020 In Nova Scotia, year-over-year growth for the All-Items Consumer Price Index was 0.6%, below the national average of 0.7% in December 2020. Monthly consumer prices were unchanged in Nova Scotia, and down 0.2% nationally. The national CPI increased 0.7% on a year-over-year basis in December following a 1.0% growth in November 2020. The drivers behind December’s inflation was mainly lower air transportation prices (-14.5%) and slow growth in food prices (+1.1%). Prices rose in six of the eight major components on a year-over-year basis in December. 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 9/18 Statistics Canada also noted that the price movements in December reflected a very uncertain environment shaped by the highest consumer confidence since the onset of the pandemic and increased job uncertainties due to the second round of lockdowns in several provinces. Shelter prices increased 1.6% in Canada reflecting the higher costs of the homeowners’ replacement index (+5.5%). Historically low interest rates coupled with a shift in preferences towards larger dwellings has increased demand for single-family homes. Higher building material costs and low inventory of homes for sale in some markets also contributed to rising new home prices. Mortgage interest cost index was down 3.1% year-over-year. Gasoline prices increased 3.3% month-over-month in December, marking the first monthly increase since July 2020. Despite the monthly gain, gasoline prices were 8.5% lower compared to a year ago. Impact of COVID-19 on the Consumer Price Index Statistics Canada continued special CPI program measures for December 2020. Due to COVID-19 impact on product availability, select sub-components of the CPI received temporary special imputations. The sub-indexes for travel tours, components of spectator entertainment, recreational services, and some components of use of recreational facilities and services in some areas were imputed from the monthly change in the all-items index - effectively removing the impact of these goods and services on the CPI. Due to new restrictions, the price indexes for beer served in licensed establishments, wine served in licensed establishments and liquor served in licensed establishments were imputed in Quebec. Air transportation that was purchased but cancelled is excluded from calculations. Additional details can be found in the technical supplement. Year-over-year inflation was highest in Saskatchewan (+0.9%) while Prince Edward Island was the only province with a negative inflation (-0.1%). Nova Scotia's consumer price inflation (year over year growth in CPI) excluding food and energy rose 1.5% in December higher than the national rate of 1.1% and the highest among all provinces. Manitoba (-0.1%) was the only province registering a price level decline for this index in December. On a monthly basis, Nova Scotia's index excluding food and energy was down 0.4 per cent. 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 10/18 The main contributors to the monthly (December 2020 vs. November 2020) NS CPI movement: Gasoline (+5.9%) Fuel oil and other fuels (+7.7%) Women’s clothing (-10.2%) Men’s clothing (-8.7%) The main contributors to the annual (December 2020 vs. November 2019) NS CPI movement Homeowners’ replacement cost (+8.7%) Passenger vehicle and insurance premiums (+8.8%) Gasoline (-14.0%) Fuel oil and other fuels (-17.6%) The CPI for food in Nova Scotia 1.9% year-over-year with a 0.2% decrease month-to-month in December 2020. CPI growth in food (year over year) was up in all provinces this month. Prince Edward Island (+3.2%) showed the highest year over year food price growth. Nationally, food prices increased 1.1%. 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 11/18 The Nova Scotia energy price index declined 9.7% year-over-year in December 2020, higher than the national average of 4.0%. Prince Edward Island posted the largest percentage decline at 12.2% in December. Monthly energy prices increased 3.9% in Nova Scotia, and 1.9% in Canada. Year over year, the consumer price index for shelter increased by 0.3% in Nova Scotia, lower than the national average (+1.6%). Shelter prices were up in every province except Prince Edward Island (-1.7%) and Newfoundland and Labrador (-0.1%). 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 12/18 Nova Scotia's year-over-yearconsumer price inflation excluding energy was 1.6% in December compared to a national rate of 1.1%. This was also the highest increase among all provinces. The lowest gain was registered in Manitoba (+0.1%). Long Run Trends Nova Scotia's annual inflation has mostly been below the Canadian average since mid-2014, with the exception of only a few months. While month to month movements in the indices can be different, over time they generally follow the same overall trend. 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 13/18 Excluding food and energy prices, Nova Scotia's inflation is typically closer to the national average. Bank of Canada's preferred measures of core inflation Compared with December 2019, CPI-Common increased 1.3%, CPI-Median rose 1.8% and CPI-Trim was up 1.6% in Canada. All-items CPI excluding eight of the most volatile components as defined by the Bank of Canada and excluding the effect of changes in indirect taxes (formerly referred to as CPIX), rose 1.5% year over year. 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 14/18 Appendix Tables and Charts 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 15/18 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 16/18 Source: Statistics Canada data portal: Tables 18-10-0004-01 and 18-10-0256-01 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, DECEMBER AND ANNUAL 2020 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 17/18 YEAR-OVER-YEAR (Dec 2020 vs Dec 2019) All items (index 2002=100) Nova Scotia increased 0.6% Canada increased 0.7% Halifax increased 0.9% MONTH-OVER-MONTH (Dec 2020 vs Nov 2020) All items (index 2002=100) Nova Scotia unchanged 0.0% Canada decreased -0.2% Halifax decreased -0.1% Excluding food and energy (index 2002=100) Nova Scotia decreased -0.4% Canada decreased -0.4% ANNUAL (2020 vs 2019) 1/22/2021 Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics https://novascotia.ca/finance/statistics/topic.asp?fto=21u 18/18 In Nova Scotia, the Consumer Price Index (Index 2002=100) increased 0.3%. In Canada, the Consumer Price Index (Index 2002=100) increased 0.7%. In Halifax, the Consumer Price Index (Index 2002=100) increased 0.5%. REFERENCES Statistics Canada. Table 18-10-0004-01 Consumer Price Index, monthly, not seasonally adjusted Statistics Canada. Table 18-10-0005-01 Consumer Price Index, monthly, not seasonally adjusted Privacy | Routine Access Policy Crown copyright © Province of Nova Scotia DRAFT – 1ST NOTICE – AMENDMENT TO REMUNERATION AS PER CPI OF 0.3% Municipality of the District of Chester Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors Policy P-09 Amended Effective: April 1, 2020 April 1, 2021 Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors Policy P-09 2 Notice of Intention to Amend – Committee of the Whole March 4, 2021 First Notice – Council – March 11, 2021 Second/Final Notice – Council – March 25, 2021 Effective Date – April 1, 2021 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER POLICY P-09 REMUNERATION WARDEN, DEPUTY WARDEN AND COUNCILLORS 2020/21 2021/22 BE IT RESOLVED that the remuneration of the Warden and Councillors shall be as follows: A. The Warden shall be paid a base salary of $48,883.16 $49,029.81 (an increase of $12.22 per month) per annum, payable monthly. B. The Deputy Warden shall be paid a base salary of $25,581.53 $25,658.27 (an increase of $6.40 per month) per annum, payable monthly. C. All remaining Councillors shall be paid a base salary of $22,384.48 $22,451.63 (an increase of $5.60 per month) per annum, payable monthly. D. Annually the Municipal Council considers the cost of living increase which has taken place over the previous year and will approve an increase in the level of compensation which is to be payable to all employees of the Municipality under Section 5.3.1. The percentage increase approved for staff will also apply to the remuneration paid to the Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors. E. All Councillors, including the Warden and Deputy Warden, in addition to the payments set forth above, shall be paid an allowance for travel for kilometres travelled once each day for going to and returning from every daily session of the Council or a Committee or attendance at every Board Meeting or other function if this attendance is as a representative of Council. The allowance for travel will be a per km rate reimbursed at the provincial rate. F. A Warden or Deputy Warden and Councillors who miss more than three (3) Council or Committee meetings in any year without leave of Council shall have the sum of $55.00 per missed meeting deducted from any salary paid to such individual. H. This Resolution shall take effect on the 1st day of April 2020 2021. Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors Policy P-09 3 Notice of Intention to Amend – Committee of the Whole March 4, 2021 First Notice – Council – March 11, 2021 Second/Final Notice – Council – March 25, 2021 Effective Date – April 1, 2021 RECORD OF ADOPTION/AMENDMENTS Effective Date Reason for Adoption/Amendment April 1, 2017 2017-135 – Approval of Cost of Living (CPI) of 1.2% approved by Council on March 16, 2017. July 31, 2017 Amendment to change all policies with mileage references to reflect use of provincial mileage rate. April 1, 2018 2018-105/111 - Approval of Cost of Living (CPI) of 1.1% approved by Council on March 8, 2018. January 1, 2019 2018-567/2019-003 - Approval of increase to maintain same net income after elimination of the one-third tax free allowance. April 1, 2019 2019-121/134 – Approval of Cost of Living (Consumer Price Index) by 2.2% approved by Council on March 28, 2019. April 1, 2020 2020-140 – Approval of Cost of Living (Consumer Price Index) by 1.6% approved by Council on April 2, 2020. Notice of Amendment - Committee of the Whole – April 5, 2012 (2012-161) Page 1 of 1 1st Notice - Amended – Council – April 12, 2012 (2012-203) 2nd Notice – April 26, 2012 (2012-239) Effective Date – April 26, 2012 SECTION 5 - CLASSIFICATION AND JOB DESCRIPTIONS 5.1 Purpose The Municipality of the District of Chester wishes to promote a clear and mutual understanding between the employee and the employer of the duties and responsibilities of all positions in the Municipality. Therefore, job descriptions for each position in the Municipality will be developed and maintained by annual review. The CAO will be responsible for the development and maintenance of job descriptions for each position in the Municipality and will work with the respective Department Heads in their annual review of the distribution of duties and responsibilities among the employees so as to ensure the most efficient and effective distribution of duties within each Department. 5.2 Objectives It is the intent of the Municipality of the District of Chester to have established job classifications with salary scales to provide for different rates of compensation for positions requiring varying levels of responsibility, experience, skills and knowledge in order that each person is remunerated according to his or her responsibilities and performance 5.3 Policy 5.3.1 Annually, the Municipal Council of the District of Chester will consider the increase which has taken place in the cost of living over the previous year and will approve a percentage increase in the level of compensation which is to be payable to all employees of the Municipality who are paid a salary. The Salary Scales will be revised each year by the amount of the percentage increase approved by Council. The percentage increase amount will be determined by Council and may be equal to, greater, or less than, the increase in the Consumer Price Index (all items for Nova Scotia) for the previous year. If the Consumer Price Index (all items for Nova Scotia) is determined to be a negative amount, the Salary Scales will remain the same as the previous year, as approved by Council. 5.3.2 Merit increases for employees shall be granted in accordance with the Performance Appraisal Policy of the Municipality (Section 8). 5.3.3 A change in the Salary Range of an employee will only be considered upon a change in the employee=s job description and duties with the approval of the Department Head and CAO. If a change in the duties has occurred the Job Description Review Form will be completed (see Form 5-1). 5.4 Salary Scale Review 5.4.1 A review of the Salary Scale will be carried out in five-year intervals. Consumer Price Index Updates for Salaries Annual Salary Cost New Annual Salary 2020/21 2020 CPI (0.3%)2021/22 2021/22 Council 186,387.09$ 0.003 559.16$ 186,946.25$ Staff *3,192,543.37$ 0.003 9,577.63$ 3,202,121.00$ 10,136.79$ Overall Annual Increase * This does not include the CAO salary as the contract outlines salary increases *This does not include part-time wages, retirements, new hires, annual salary increases, or impacts on benefits. 12345678910123456789101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1075,058.76$ 79,824.39$ 84,590.03$ 87,973.63$ 91,496.14$ 95,152.27$ 98,958.35$ 102,916.68$ 107,033.34$ 111,314.67$ 6.35 5.97 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1061,953.25$ 65,229.63$ 68,506.00$ 71,246.25$ 74,096.10$ 77,059.94$ 80,142.33$ 83,348.02$ 86,681.93$ 90,149.21$ 5.29 5.02 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1050,039.17$ 52,570.91$ 55,102.66$ 57,306.76$ 59,599.03$ 61,983.00$ 64,462.31$ 67,040.79$ 69,722.41$ 72,511.30$ 5.06 4.82 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1040,507.90$ 42,592.86$ 44,677.83$ 46,464.94$ 48,323.54$ 50,256.48$ 52,266.73$ 54,357.29$ 56,531.57$ 58,792.83$ 5.15 4.90 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1038,125.08$ 40,210.05$ 42,295.01$ 43,986.81$ 45,746.29$ 47,576.13$ 49,479.17$ 51,458.33$ 53,516.65$ 55,657.32$ 5.47 5.19 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1030,976.63$ 32,763.74$ 34,550.86$ 35,932.89$ 37,370.21$ 38,865.01$ 40,419.60$ 42,036.38$ 43,717.83$ 45,466.53$ 5.77 5.45 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1025,615.29$ 27,179.01$ 28,742.74$ 29,892.45$ 31,088.14$ 32,331.67$ 33,624.93$ 34,969.92$ 36,368.71$ 37,823.45$ 6.10 5.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CAO - Salary NegotiatedDIRECTORS 1DIRECTORS 2 / SENIOR CONTRIBUTORSMIDDLE MANAGERS/COORDINATORSINDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORSSKILLED LABOURERSADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTSLABOURERSMUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTERDRAFT - SALARY BANDS - 2021/2022 - 0.3% CPIEFFECTIVE DATE - April 1, 2021Council Approval Date: ??MinimumMedianMaximum1st Quartile2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile4th Quartile History of Consumer Price Index FISCAL YEAR CPI APPROVAL DATE 2015/16 1.7% February 26, 2015 2015-40/68 - MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to increase the Salary Bands and Council remuneration as per Policy P-55 Personnel Policy (Section 5) and Policy P-09 Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors by 1.7% (All Items for Nova Scotia 2014) for fiscal year 2015-16. CARRIED. 2016/17 0.4% March 10, 2016 2016-103/107 - “… approve an adjustment to MODC employee’s salaries/salary ranges in an amount equal to the previous year’s Consumer Price Index Rate of 0.4%, with the increase to be effective April 1, 2016.” 2017/18 1.2% March 16, 2017 2017-135 - MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council approve the adjustment to the Municipal Salary Bands and Council Salaries in an amount equal to the previous year’s Consumer Price Index Rate of 1.2%, with the increase to be effective April 1, 2017. CARRIED. 2018/19 1.1% March 8, 2018 2018-105/111 – MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse the recommendations from the March 1, 2018 meeting of the Committee of the Whole be approved as follows: “... approve the Consumer Price Index effective April 1, 2018 by: • Approving the Draft 2018/19 Employee Salary Bands by the Consumer Price Index – All Items for Nova Scotia 2017 - by 1.1%. • Amend Policy P-09 Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden, and Councillors salaries by the Consumer Price Index – All Items for Nova Scotia 2017 - by 1.1%.” 2019/20 2.2% March 28, 2019 2019-121/134 - “… approval of 2.2% Consumer Price Index (cost of living NS) to the Employee Salary Band and to Council Salaries effective April 1, 2019.” 2020/21 1.6% 2020-122 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse that Council approve the following recommendation from the March 19, 2020 Committee of the Whole Meeting: 2020-103 – COST OF LIVING INCREASE FOR 2020/21 “… approve option 1 as outlined approve Option 1 as noted below from the Request for Decision with the Cost of Living increase to be 1.6%: • Approve the Draft 2020/21 Employee Salary Bands - Approve the Cost of Living increase by the Consumer Price Index – All Items for Nova Scotia 2019 by 1.6% Effective April 1, 2020. • Recommend the amendment to Policy P-09 Warden, Deputy Warden, and Councillors Salaries - Give Notice of Intention to Amend Policy P-09 Sections A, B, and C to increase annual remuneration Cost of Living by the Consumer Price Index – All Items for Nova Scotia 2019 by 1.6% Effective April 1, 2020. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2021/22 0.3% REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Date March 4, 2021 Reviewed By: Date Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date March 4, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION On Monday, January 18, the REMO Advisory Committee met and regarding the budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year. A motion was passed to recommend the Council of each participating unit approve the budget for the upcoming Fiscal year 2021-22. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the Municipality of Chester’s portion of the REMO budget for 2021-22 in the amount of $40,825.55. BACKGROUND The approval of the REMO budget is an annual request. Our cost contribution obligations are outlined in an Inter-Municipal Agreement. DISCUSSION The cost sharing for REMO is based on the share of Uniform Assessment (UA) from the previous fiscal year. The partners who share in the cost are the Town of Mahone Bay, the Town of Lunenburg, the Town of Bridgewater, the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, and the Municipality of Chester. In 2020-21 the total budget was $125, 000. MODC’s share was 30.2% (based on UA) which resulted in total contribution of $37,765.53. In 2021-22, the budget proposed by the Advisory Committee is $135, 200. MODC’s share based on their 2019-20 UA is 30.2% for a total of $40,825.55. This is a net increase of $3,060.02. The increase in budget is largely due to an increase of $6,000 in a contingency that would be available to REMO ECC manager to spend according to the policies of REMO in the case that the ECC is activated. There are internal controls in place that would allow expenditures in excess of that, but currently there is a limit of $4000 for a contingency. It was felt that if the ECC is activated, the need would quickly outpace the $4,000 and a proposal was made to increase this amount to $10,000. the other increases are CPI increases for the honorarium and benefit costs as well as an increase of $500 for app that can be used by AECs and CAO to let other members of the team know that there is an emergency situation and to receive basic information regarding response. REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Corporate a& Strategic Management DATE: March 11, 2021 SUBJECT: 2021-22 REMO Budget ORIGIN: REMO Advisory Committee 2 Request For Decision/Direction IMPLICATIONS Financial/Budgetary If approved, this will be incorporated into the 2021-22 budget as a preapproved budget item. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Budget as Recommended. 2. Request Additional Information. ATTACHMENTS 2020-21 REMO proposed budget and workplan REMO Overviewto Advisory Committee January 18, 2020REMO Advisory CommitteeJanuary 18, 2021Item: 6.11 Welcome REMO Advisory Committee (REMAC)ChesterMODLBridgewater Mahone Bay LunenburgAllen Webber Carolyn Bolivar‐Getson David Mitchell David Devenne Matt RisserFloyd Shatford Martin Bell Andrew Tanner Richard Nowe Peter MosherDanielle Barkhouse Michelle Greek Wayne Thorburne Penny Carver n/a2 Why REMO was formed•The Nova Scotia Emergency Management Actstates thatresponsibility for the health and welfare of the public rests with theelected officials of a municipal government. Every municipality mustbe prepared within its own capabilities to meet any threat that mayarise from emergencies or disasters.•REMO –Regional Emergency Management Organization•2005 Inter‐Municipal Service Agreement (Chester, MODL,Bridgewater, Mahone Bay•2017 Town of Lunenburg joined3 Powers & Duties of Municipalities (One Council) •establish and maintain amunicipal emergency by‐law,subject to theapproval of the Minister•establish and maintain a municipal emergency managementorganization•appoint a co‐ordinator of the organization, duties shall include thepreparation and co‐ordination of emergency management plans forthe municipality•appoint a committee consisting of members of the municipal councilto advise it on the development of emergency management plans•prepare and approve emergency management plans.4 The municipality may:•pay the reasonable expensesof members of the organization ormembers of the committee•enter into agreements make payments for services in thedevelopment and implementation of emergency management plans;•enter into an arrangement or agreement with any othermunicipality respecting a common organization, plan or program;5 Duty to Report•Every municipality shall, immediately upon becoming aware of it,inform the Department of any real or anticipated event oremergency that could impact the health, safety or welfare of NovaScotians, their property or the environment.6 State of Local Emergency (SOLE)•Can be declared by Mayor/Warden or Council – valid for seven days•Do everything necessary for protection of property and health or safety•confiscate property•prevent price gouging•require assistance•control/prohibit travel•entry without warrant•order or cause evacuation**Does not need to be declared to receive funding7 REMO Day to Day OperationsMunicipal Council Elected OfficialsRegional Emergency Management Advisory Committee (REMAC)Municipal CAOsRegional Emergency Management CoordinatorMunicipal Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator (AEC)Regional Emergency Management Planning Committee (REMPC)Page 17Elected Officials Guide8 REMO Structure When the ECC is ActivatedPartners/ StakeholdersLiaison OfficerInformation OfficerSafety OfficerMunicipal Council Elected Officials“ECC Manager”(CAO)Municipal Unit CAOFinance /AdminOperationsPlanningLogisticsPage 18Elected Officials Guide9 REMO Workplan Status10 REMO WorkplanHighlights from 2020Goals for 2021Comfort Centres Policy Comfort Centres Site Profiles & MOUsActivation TriggersSheltersCrisis Communications PlanContingency PlansContacts ListCritical Infrastructure Training and Exercises Website & Public Education CampaignsBusiness Continuity Plans Inter‐Municipal Agreements & Bylaws11 Synopsis of 2020Activations (active monitoring, partial, full)16Training8Exercises4Public Education & Outreach 3Articles written 312 Contact Information•Most communication will flow between REMO and Elected Officialsvia the CAO, especially in an emergency•On‐call number is 902‐930‐1085 (answered by Angela or an AEC)•After Hours 902‐543‐8650•emo@modl.caor Angela.Henhoeffer@modl.ca13 Questions•What were the highlights in the presentation?•What topics you would like more information on for future sessions?14 7.1 Comfort Centre Policy•During Hurricane Dorian, the existing policy was tested some changedwere recommended during the debrief•Comfort Centres still decide when to open on their own, let REMOknow when they are opened•Process:•Dorian Debrief, input from CAOs and AECs•Presented to Advisory, taken back to individual Councils•Some Comfort Centres were visited for opinions15 7.2 Elected Officials Guide•To provide clarity to elected officials of their role before and duringand emergency•Process:•Created draft, CAO and AECs reviewed/input•Presented to Advisory•Taken back to Councils, some changes suggestedMotion: “that the Regional Emergency Management Advisory Committee approve the Guide to Emergency Management for Elected Officials dated January 2021, as presented.”16 7.3 Emergency Communications Plan•Following Dorian, to create a Communications plan during an emergencyand roles and responsibilities of the five units•Process:•Communications reps met, drafted a plan based on otherjurisdictions, review/input from Comms reps•Presented to CAOs and AECs for input/changes•Presented to AdvisoryMotion:“that the Regional Emergency Management Advisory Committee approve the Emergency Communications Plan as presented.”17 8.REMO Budget18 8.REMO Budget BreakdownMotion: “that the Regional Emergency Management Advisory Committee recommends a total 2021/22 budget of $135,200 to partner Municipal Units for approval.” 19 Emergency Assistance Fund 2020 - 2021 Updated March 3, 2021 Requested Approved District No 1 Community Centre 1,000$ Hubbards Area Lions Club 1,000$ Royal Canadian Legion Br 79 New Ross 1,000$ Through the Years Day Care & Community Centre 1,000$ COMMUNITY FACILITIES TOTAL 4,000$ -$ Total Funds Requested 4,000$ Total Funds Approved -$ Municipality of the District of Chester EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FUND for COMMUNITY FACILITIES Covid-19 Relief - 2021 – Application Form Name of Organization / Facility: Contact Person: Mailing Address: Email: Phone: Date: Please complete the questions below. If more space is required, please attach a separate sheet. 1. Please check the month(s) that your application covers? January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 2. Please provide a clear description of the revenue lost (i.e. events and activities that have been cancelled, hall rental cancellations, etc.) at your facility as a direct result of the Covid-19 restrictions and/or please describe any increase in operating costs related to Covid -19 (such as new hand sanitizer stations, signage, etc.). Page 1 of 2 3. Please attach copies of financial reports as evidence of financial challenges. For example, a comparison of 2018 and/or 2019 and 2020 financial reports to show the impact of Covid-19 on your organization. 4. Have you applied for or received Covid-19 financial support from any other sources? Yes No If yes, please describe where the funds came from and how much you received. 5. How much Emergency funding are you asking for on this application ? $_____________________________ 6. How do you intend to use the Emergency grant funds received from the Municipality? 7. Any additional comments about your application? Please forward your application by any of the following methods: Submit Online: If you are submitting an online form, click the SUBMIT button. By clicking the button it will generate an email that will automatically attach the form. Before pressing send, you can also attach any additional documents (i.e. financial, supporting, etc.). Email: recreation@chester.ca Fax: 902-275-3630 Mail: Recreation & Parks Services “Emergency Assistance Fund Request” Municipality of the District of Chester 186 Central Street, PO Box 369 Chester NS B0J 1J0 Drop-Off box: Municipal Annex Building Drop-Off box 186 Central Street, Chester Questions? Call Recreation & Parks Services at 902-275-3490. Page 2 of 2 Through The Years Day Care & Community Centre Comparative Income Statement Actual 01/01/2020 to 01/31/2020 Actual 01/01/2021 to 01/31/2021 REVENUE CHILD CARE FEES REVENUE Parent Child Care Fees 43,210.30 33,677.77 Child Care Fee Subsidy Prov of N.S.8,620.72 8,792.01 AHT Subsidy 0.00 0.00 Women Unlimited Child Care Subsidy 0.00 0.00 Net Child Care Fees Revenue 51,831.02 42,469.78 GRANT REVENUE QIG / PSF Grant Prov of NS 10,493.34 10,766.66 ENH Grant Prov of NS 0.00 0.00 WSF Grant Prov of NS 0.00 0.00 ISG (Inclusion Support)3,275.00 3,262.50 II Grant (Infant Incent) Prov of NS 698.66 696.00 United Way Grant 0.00 0.00 Municipality of Chester Grant 0.00 0.00 Summer Student Grant Prov of NS 0.00 0.00 Summer Student Federal 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Grant 24.74 106.45 Net Grant Revenue 14,491.74 14,831.61 ROOM RENTAL REVENUE Motivators 0.00 0.00 40+ Exercise 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Room Rental 0.00 0.00 Net Room Rental Revenue 0.00 0.00 PROGRAM REVENUE Card Games (use 4410)0.00 0.00 Recreation 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Program Revenue 0.00 0.00 Net Program Revenue 0.00 0.00 FUNDRAISING REVENUE Monthly 50/50 Draw 0.00 0.00 Card Games 377.50 47.00 Trunk & Treat 0.00 0.00 Staff Initiatives 0.00 213.03 Parent Cafe 0.00 0.00 Wreaths / Art Show 0.00 0.00 Quilt Tickets 0.00 0.00 Fun Fair 0.00 0.00 Duck Derby 0.00 0.00 Prize Draw Tickets 0.00 40.00 Playdate 0.00 0.00 Sleepover 0.00 0.00 Breakfasts / Suppers 0.00 0.00 Dance 162.00 0.00 Christmas Stocking / Basket 0.00 0.00 Mabel's Labels 0.00 0.00 Haddock Fundraiser 0.00 0.00 Total Fundraising Revenue 539.50 300.03 NEW BUILDING REVENUE Building Grant Revenue 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 Total New Building Revenue 0.00 0.00 OTHER REVENUE Donations 50.00 0.00 Rebates 41.51 0.00 Interest Income 20.15 4.64 Miscellaneous Other Revenue 0.00 0.00 Net Other Revenue 111.66 4.64 TOTAL REVENUE 66,973.92 57,606.06 EXPENSE Payroll Expenses Hourly wages 30,525.87 30,909.38 Wages - QIG / PSF Grant 8,388.99 7,080.59 Wages - ENH Grant 0.00 0.00 Wages - WSF Grant 0.00 0.00 Wages - ISG Grant 4,269.83 4,530.49 Wages - Additional ISG Expense 0.00 0.00 EI Expense 984.49 1,005.32 CPP Expense 2,067.91 2,210.03 Payroll Processing Fees 226.70 210.21 Total Payroll Expense 46,463.79 45,946.02 General & Administrative Expenses Accounting & Legal 0.00 0.00 Advertising & Promotions 13.78 24.00 Accounts Receivable Commissions 0.00 0.00 Bad Debts 0.00 0.00 Business Fees & Licenses 0.00 0.00 Classroom Supplies 844.12 425.94 Classroom Equipment 42.95 709.05 Groceries 3,492.75 3,114.98 Milk 291.38 342.75 Cleaning Supplies 0.00 605.88 Cleaner Contract 2,119.36 2,334.90 Kitchen Equipment/Supplies 128.97 0.00 Building Equipment / Supplies 0.00 0.00 New Building Expenses 0.00 0.00 Credit Union Loan Payment 0.00 0.00 Amortization Expense 0.00 0.00 Mortgage Interest 137.43 131.40 Centre Insurance 358.08 359.73 Officers & Directors Insurance 70.00 73.50 ManuLife Insurance 0.00 0.00 Great West Life Insurance 0.00 0.00 Interest & Bank Charges 61.07 60.00 Credit Union Loan Interest 0.00 0.00 Donations 0.00 0.00 Office Supplies 457.27 392.34 Property Taxes 166.30 0.00 Staff Initiatives Expenses 0.00 213.03 Fundraising Expenses 410.82 41.93 Fundraising Campaign Expenses 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Expenses 0.00 25.00 Miscellaneous Grant Expenses 24.74 106.45 Program Expense 0.00 0.00 Inclusive Materials Expense 120.00 0.00 Professional Development 287.41 155.88 Inclusive Professional Development 0.00 0.00 First Aid 0.00 112.00 Photocopy Lease 71.11 71.11 Photocopy Usage 35.48 41.58 Repair & Maintenance 2,184.58 440.64 Snow Removal 371.78 0.00 Garbage Removal 37.38 135.19 Casual Labour 105.00 270.00 Alarm Monitoring 0.00 0.00 Telephone 138.33 142.81 Travel 0.00 0.00 Propane 1,071.47 1,046.18 Heat 0.00 0.00 Electricity 2,558.96 2,764.10 Memberships 0.00 0.00 Staff Gifts 62.29 120.66 Staff Purchases 0.00 0.00 Water Testing 46.10 0.00 Classroom Entertainment 0.00 0.00 Total General & Admin. Expenses 15,708.91 14,261.03 TOTAL EXPENSE 62,172.70 60,207.05 NET INCOME 4,801.22 -2,600.99 Generated On: 02/16/2021 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday APRIL 2021 1 COW 2 CLOSED – GOOD FRIDAY 3 PPE 4 5 CLOSED – EASTER MONDAY 6 7 8 COUNCIL COW 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 COUNCIL 16 17 PPE 18 19 20 21 22 COW 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 COUNCIL 30