HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-03-18_COW_Website Agenda Package
Committee of the Whole AGENDA
March 18, 2021
Chester Municipal Council Chambers / Facebook Live
151 King Street, Chester, NS
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS
3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (8:45 A.M. – 9:00 A.M.)
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
4.1 Committee of the Whole – March 4, 2021.
5. MATTERS ARISING
5.1 Village Review Council Update #1 dated March 11, 2021 – Community Development Department.
6. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
6.1 Susan Crocker, Chester Playhouse – Project Update.
7. CORRESPONDENCE
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1 Email from Deputy Warden Shatford regarding request from Mount Marina Road Association regarding the
Administration fee of 10% for collection of funds for the Association through taxes.
8.2 Temporary Borrowing Resolutions (Material to be circulated next week).
8.3 Request for Decision prepared March 12, 2020 – Financial and Information Services - By-Law No. 74 Tax
Exemption for Charitable, Non-Profit Organizations, Municipal Water Utilities and Licensed Day Cares – Addition
of Chester Garden Club to Schedule B.
9. IN CAMERA
10. ADJOURNMENT
APPOINTMENTS
9:00 A.M. Susan Crocker, Chester Playhouse (Item 6.1)
Page 1 of 1 of Agenda Cover Page(s)
87
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Minutes of
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Via Facebook Live from 151 King Street, Chester, NS
On Thursday, March 4, 2021
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:54 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
Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development and Recreation
Greg Jonah, Engineering Technologist
Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS
Amendments/Additions:
Council Grants – Deputy Warden Shatford.
2021-105 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse the Agenda
and Order of Business be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC INPUT
An email was read by the Communications Officer from Richard Fiander thanking Council for
effort in ensuring rural areas have better high speed internet and asking if there was a way that
Council could encourage cell service improvements.
It was noted that there are some issues within the Village regarding cell phone coverage and
Warden Webber directed staff to draft a letter to the providers asking them to address the
concern of lack of cell phone coverage within the Village.
Committee of the Whole (continued) March 4, 2021 88
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
4.1 Committee of the Whole – February 18, 2021.
2021-106 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church, the
minutes of the February 18, 2021 meeting of Committee of the Whole be
approved as circulated. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
MATTERS ARISING
5.1 Request for Decision prepared February 11, 2021 – Recreation & Parks/Infrastructure
and Operations – Gold River Trail Bridge Inspection.
Councillor Veinotte declared conflict of interest and left the room.
The CAO outlined the reason for the Request for Decision to be reviewed by Council and the
reason for sole sourcing the work due to the urgency of having the work completed.
Greg Jonah, Engineering Technologist, reviewed the information included in the February 11,
2021 Request for Decision regarding the Gold River Trail Bridge Inspection.
Warden Webber asked if there were any other local qualified firms and it was indicated that
ABLE was asked for a quote due to the urgency, currently working on other projects, and they
are qualified.
2021-107 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.
Councillor Veinotte returned to the meeting room.
5.2 Quarterly Report – Corporate & Strategic Management.
Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO, reviewed the quarterly report for the Corporate and Strategic
Management Department included in the package.
Councillor Barkhouse asked if accessibility regarding accessing the gazebo was included in the
project and it was indicated that staff would investigate that matter along with the possibility of
grants through the Accessibility Program that closes April 30, 2021.
Committee of the Whole (continued) March 4, 2021 89
Deputy Warden Shatford thanked staff for the update and reminded Council that, going into the
strategic planning session next, to remember how busy staff are.
The CAO indicated that the Province recently announced a property tax rebate program for
businesses as a COVID-19 measure and he will forward the information to Council once he has
an update.
5.3 Healthy Communities Grant – Washroom Facilities.
Gord Tate, Active Living Coordinator, was present in the room and reviewed the March 1, 2021
Request for Decision regarding the application for the Canada Healthy Communities Initiative
which Council reviewed and approved previously. Included in the information provided was
information on the requirement for an increase in the overall budget estimate of costs, i.e.,
electrical, and plumbing upgrades and increased costs of building supplies which makes up a
new total of $163,000 from $148,000.
Discussion was held regarding the project and options for funding amount in the application –
which states funding up to 100%. Staff suggested Council consider a 50% request.
Councillor Veinotte suggested this project should be done regardless of the funding as this is a
sector identified as one to invest to provide a service to residents. He voiced concerns with
respect to estimated costs and suggested more in the budget to get the right technology.
It was agreed to increase the budget as discussed – 50% request, $20,000 per unit to give
flexibility to look at the best technology and $65,000 as an estimate for the Wild Rose Park
project.
2021-108 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.
Gord Tate, Active Living Coordinator, left the meeting.
5.4 Request for Decision prepared February 26, 2021 – Corporate and Strategic
Management – Rural Internet.
Jonathan Meakin, Special Initiatives Coordinator, was present in the room and reviewed the
Request for Decision prepared February 26, 2021 regarding Rural Internet.
Committee of the Whole (continued) March 4, 2021 90
The CAO indicated that if Council wished to review the agreement in detail, a closed “In
Camera” session would be required.
2021-109 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.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT/REVIEW
There were no policy development matters for review.
CORRESPONDENCE
There were no items of correspondence for review.
A break was held from 9:49 a.m. to 10:02 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
Councillor Veinotte declared conflict of interest and left the room.
8.1 Traffic Impact Study/Improvement Plan:
a. Request for Decision prepared December 11, 2020 – Infrastructure and
Operations Department.
b. Requests for Proposals Draft Document.
Greg Jonah, Engineering Technologist, was present in the room to review the Request for
Decision prepared December 11, 2020 regarding Traffic Study/Improvement Plan. He indicated
that staff were now asking Council to identify locations of concern where parking restrictions
may improve safety and traffic flow.
A lengthy discussion was held on areas of concern, types of options, inclusion of Councillors as
stakeholders, the anticipated NS Department of Transportation’s (TIR) policy that will include
street calming, ensuring the consultant is aware of TIR’s policy so recommendations are
consistent with TIR Policy, wording for “designated space” which, in this instance means a
physically designated space for pedestrians/cyclists, impact of one-way streets, and the
inclusion of Bayswater Beach and Fox Point Back Road.
Committee of the Whole (continued) March 4, 2021 91
The Engineering Technician then reviewed the Request for Proposals document. It was clarified
that the traffic counts would be done in the same way as TIR, there is a rationale that is applied,
in this case, the reduction of traffic due to COVID-19.
Councillor Connors reflected that the percentages of the proposal evaluation require
consideration and felt that 20% for “understanding of the project” may be a little high as that
information from the document could be regurgitated – she felt that a higher percentage would
be better served simply for our own information and detail. She also questioned why the
timeline would be rated higher at 20% than the experience which was rated at 15%.
Councillor Church, Deputy Warden Shatford, and Warden Webber commented that they had no
issues with the evaluation criteria as presented.
2021-110 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.
Councillor Veinotte returned to the meeting room.
8.2 Barry’s Brook Trail Bridges Repairs:
a. Request for Decision prepared January 6, 2021 – Recreation & Parks/Infrastructure
and Operations.
b. Requests for Quotation Draft Document.
c. Trail Bridge Inspection Report – Barry’s Brook Bridge #1.
d. Trail Bridge Inspection Report – Barry’s Brook Bridge #2.
Greg Jonah, Engineering Technologist, was present in the meeting and reviewed the
recommended repairs to the bridges, commenting on the financial implications, i.e., currently
there are no funds in the capital budget for these repairs. If Council approves, the Capital
Investment Plan will be revised.
The CAO noted that prior to the meeting Staff identified additional evaluation criteria that we
could add to this document and bring back to Council next week. One of the issues raised
before the meeting was that this document is for price only but there are some other factors
that need to be considered. For example, if receive equal bids and a bridge is closed for one
month in one submission and closed for three months in another submission, Council may want
to consider the impact on service. This advice is not included in this draft of the RFP so if
Committee agreed, staff would bring the revised document back next week and highlight any
additional criteria.
Committee of the Whole (continued) March 4, 2021 92
The Engineering Technologist also indicated that staff is waiting on confirmation from Frank
Cowan Insurance and that information is subject to change based on the insurer. He indicated
that engineer professional liability insurance would be required as well. For this project, it is
proposed that the evaluation criteria be 40% on cost, 30% based on schedule (how long bridge
closed) and will include comment that trail be open on October 2 for the Cancer Ride, 20%
based on experience, and 10% on reference checks.
2021-111 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.
DISCUSSION
Councillor Veinotte reviewed the criteria and commented that experience and
reference checks are similar.
Councillor Veinotte also noted that the budget was discussed 2.5 months previously
and now this is being raised to bring forward outside of the normal budget process.
This could have been postponed and fit into the Capital budget and not dealt with
in isolation.
ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
8.3 Council District Grants – Deputy Warden Shatford
Deputy Warden Shatford indicated that currently each Councillor has a $5,000 Council District
Grant for their district. He asked if a report could be provided by Staff if the Council District
Grants were increased to $10,00 and the impact on Council, Recreation, and Tourism Grants.
Councillor Veinotte voiced his mixed emotions on district specific grants issued at the pleasure
of the Councillor; they are not based on merit of the project or overall benefit to the
municipality as a whole and is at the political will of the Councillor. He was ok with a report
from staff but does not think increasing the Council District Grant was an appropriate action and
is too political.
Councillor Connors echoed Councillor Veinotte’s comments noting that when the original
discussion took place, she was the lone Councillor voting against it and she voted against it
when it was increased to $5,000. She would like to see the impact on those other amounts for
projects coming forward and new ones we may not be aware of.
Deputy Warden Shatford indicated he was asking for a report because he feels the current
system is unfair; when one community puts in only one request but gets a lower amount if a
percentage is applied across the board.
Committee of the Whole (continued) March 4, 2021 93
Councillor Connors did not feel that grants from Council, tourism, recreation, or major projects
were geographic based – it was her understanding they were merit based.
Councillor Veinotte would like to see a report on how we can improve grant process and apply
fairness without missing any groups but if it is being framed as just doing something based on
geographic area and autonomy without being merit based, he is not in agreement.
2021-112 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. FIVE IN FAVOUR. TWO OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIED.
IN CAMERA
9.1 Section 22(2)(e) of the Municipal Government Act – Contract Negotiations.
An In Camera Session was not required.
ADJOURNMENT
2021-113 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the meeting
adjourn. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. (11:02 a.m.)
___________________________ ___________________________
Allen Webber Pamela Myra
Warden Municipal Clerk
Municipality of the District of Chester
Community Development Department
Village Review Council Update #1
Prepared for: Municipal Council
Submitted by: Garth Sturtevant, MCIP, LPP, Senior Planner
Date: March 11, 2021
Subject: Village Review Council Check-in
Background
The process of reviewing and updating the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By-
law officially began in January 2020, following the adoption and implementation of the new Municipal
Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law.
The first action taken was an amendment to reduce the area governed by the Chester Village Secondary
Planning Strategy. This change was required to complete the adoption of the new Municipal Planning
Strategy, with the resulting Chester Village Planning Area directly matching the Chester Village boundary.
The purpose of this change was to provide clarity for residents on the applicable planning documents and
regulations for their properties.
The Planning Advisory Committee structure was changed following the adoption of the new Municipal
Planning Strategy. From this change, two new committees; the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee
and the Village Planning Advisory Committee were formed. The Village Planning Advisory Committee is
responsible to oversee the review of the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By-
law and to make recommendations to Council on policy and content.
Village Planning Advisory Committee
The Village Planning Advisory Committee began holding meetings in early 2020 and continues to meet
monthly to guide the review and provide recommendations to Council on planning matters affecting
Chester Village. The Committee is comprised of citizen members, a representative from the Chester
Village Commission, the chair of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee and the Councillor for
District 3. The Committee met a total of 13 times in the 2020 calendar year. Committee members
determined their preferred approach for the review is to reflect on and update the existing planning
documents. The revised Secondary Planning Strategy will match the style and format introduced in the
new Municipal Planning Strategy but rather than starting from scratch, staff and the Committee have
reviewed each policy within the existing Secondary Planning Strategy to identify clauses for removal as
well as those which should remain.
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 2
March 4, 2021
The line-by-line policy review also sparked discussions and comments on several topics that have been
identified and documented. In many cases, further study, discussion, public input, and information is
required before a path forward is determined. This list of “priority topics” will be addressed by the
Committee over the coming year. The list currently includes topics including secondary suites, affordable
housing, ocean setbacks, architectural controls, and heritage protection. These discussions will coincide
with a shift in focus from high-level policy statements and goals to drafting and reviewing specific zone
regulations and where they will apply. Further discussion of the priority topics list is included below.
Public Engagement Round 1
Crucial to any successful plan review is engagement with of members of the community to solicit ideas
and comments as new policies and regulations are discussed. The original plan for public engagement
included a mix of online, in person events and outreach to engage a wide variety of community members.
This plan was impacted, but not drastically altered by the COVID-19 pandemic and related public health
guidelines. Focus was shifted to online engagement using the project website
voicesandchoices.ca/villagereview. This site provided information and tools including videos, surveys, and
polls to solicit feedback and responses on a variety of planning matters.
Online Engagement:
The tables below provide information on the number and type of visitors to the voices and choices
website since launch. Activity peaked during the summer months, but the site has maintained active with
users posting responses to surveys and polls. As more information is added and the draft Secondary
Planning Strategy becomes more complete, it is expected that another peak in activity will occur.
Promotion of the project site is done via the municipal website, printed posters, written materials
prepared by staff, the Municipal Newsletter and word of mouth by VPAC members and other members in
the community.
Table 1 - Voices and Choices Statistics to February 11, 2021
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 3
March 4, 2021
Table 2 - Summary of Website Participants by Category
In-Person Engagement:
Staff were able to hold several “pop-
up” in-person engagement sessions,
including two evenings at Picnic in
the Park and the “Playhouse on
Pleasant” event hosted by the
Chester Playhouse. With the
generous assistance of these groups,
staff were able to setup a small
display and speak with members of
the public as they arrived or left
these events. Additional in person
events were not feasible due to
restrictions on gathering limits and
public health guidelines. The more
common open house and town hall
style meetings were not possible but
are being planned for 2021 pending
the lifting of indoor gathering limits.
Staff were able to meet with several “stakeholder” groups, including the Chester Merchants, Chester
Heritage Society and VOCTADA. Staff will continue to seek out and make themselves available to any
other groups who wish to meet and discuss their concerns or interests as they relate to planning in
Chester Village.
This revised engagement schedule will coincide well with the work done to date by the Committee. Staff
hope to have preliminary drafts of the Secondary Planning Strategy available for comment and review by
early summer. If gathering limits allow, this will provide opportunities to present the policies and high-
level concepts envisioned for the new plan to members of the public at in person events. Comments and
Voices and Choices Participant Category: Number of Participants:
Engaged – indicates a user who contributed to forums, participated in surveys
or quick polls or asked a question. 45
Informed - indicates a user who viewed a video, downloaded a document,
visited FAQ page or visited multiple project pages. 207
Aware - indicates a user who visited at least one page. 436
Total: 654
2020 Engagement Activities
Stakeholder
Meetings
Voices and
Choices
(project
website)
Pop-up
engagement
sessions
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 4
March 4, 2021
feedback received will help staff, the Committee and Council determine where changes to policy are
required before beginning to finalize a draft of the new Chester Village Land Use By-law.
Priority Topics for the Village Review
The Chester Village Planning Advisory Committee and staff have created a list of “priority topics” for
discussion and consideration. Several topics have been discussed and debated at Committee meetings,
while others are slated for discussion in the coming year. The table below includes the topics identified
and, if determined, the general direction or approach that will be pursued. The topics below are
recommendations from the Committee and Council has the final decision on policy and regulations
before adopting the new Village planning documents.
This initial check-in aims to provide Council with a preview of the topics discussed and an early
opportunity to provide feedback or comments. Council may wish to advise staff on specific topic areas to
pursue, or alternatively may advise against changing, studying, or altering a specific policy area. This input
will assist staff and the Committee in using time efficiently and avoiding topics that Council is unwilling to
consider.
Topic: Key Considerations: Discussed
by VPAC?
Remove Water Access Zone
and Policies
Current zone serves little purpose and creates
impression of Municipal authority beyond the Ordinary
High Water Mark.
Yes
Highway 3 Streetscape Area
Very detailed architectural controls currently in place
for this area. Confirm the desired outcome for this area
and incorporate architectural controls into as of right
development.
No
Rezone small section of RU
Zone near Trunk 3 to match
surrounding LR Zone
The change to the Village Planning Area resulted in a
small “island” of Rural Zoning within the Village. This
will be rezoned to match surrounding Low Density
Residential.
Yes
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 5
March 4, 2021
Architectural Controls,
Heritage Protection & Height
Seeking funding approval for Architectural Study to
provide advice. Objective is a set of regulations to
preserve character in new construction and when
renovating existing structures. Advice on potential
options like a Heritage Conservation District is also
being sought.
Yes
Rezone Golf Course & Yacht
Club to Institutional
Both currently meet the criteria of the Institutional
Zone as private clubs or organizations. If rezoned, the
change will be made to the new zoning map.
Alternative to make changes to Institutional Zone to
remove “private clubs” from the uses permitted in the
zone. More discussion needed.
No
Waterfront Residential Zone
– prohibit new dwellings?
Needs discussion with Committee. Provisions will be
updated to restrict new development and only allow
reconstruction and repair of existing structures on
same footprint. Zone already has a 50 foot setback
from water which makes siting new dwellings difficult if
possible on many lots. This change would support the
acknowledgement and desire to protect property from
the impending effects of climate change.
No
Extend current 50ft ocean
setback in WR Zone to all
zones abutting the ocean
Discussed briefly with the Committee. General support.
This setback exists in the WR Zone which currently
occupies much of the waterfront. A 25 foot setback
exists in the ER Zone which covers another significant
portion of the waterfront. While awaiting the much-
delayed Provincial Coastal Protection Act Regulations,
this change would acknowledge the impacts of climate
change and be a proactive step to protect people and
property.
Yes
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 6
March 4, 2021
Accessory Structures:
• Remove optional 2 ft
setback
• No human habitation
• Boathouses
• No plumbing, unless it
meets main building setbacks
These changes would align better with the building
code. If built to 2 feet, there are additional
requirements for fire separation and construction
materials. Preventing plumbing in accessory structures
that do not meet the main building setbacks will assist
in preventing boathouses and other accessory
structures, which benefit from lessened setbacks, from
being converted to dwellings after permits are issued.
No
Secondary Suites for all
residential zones
Replace existing allowances for two-unit dwellings with
language to allow a secondary suite (self-contained
unit, with entrance at side or rear) in all residential
zones. This provides equity as current formula is first
come first served in some zones, promotes creation of
new dwelling units. Also helps protect Village character
by implementing regulations to maintain the
appearance of the single unit dwelling when viewed
from the street.
Yes
Adopt Watercourses,
Waterbodies, and Wetlands
setbacks.
Agreed to adopt Municipal regulations but desire to
add requirement to maintain vegetated buffers and to
limit impermeable surfaces within the setback. Further
discussion needed on width of vegetated buffer and
limiting impermeable surfaces.
Yes
Remove on-site parking
requirements for the Central
Commercial Zone (excludes
Residential uses)
Video posted to Voices and Choices to outline the
proposal. Current regulations exempt parking for the
first 1000 square feet of floor area in existing
structures. All new structures or uses in existing
structures beyond 1000 square feet require on-site or
off-site parking. This creates inequity and promotes
small commercial spaces only in existing structures.
Results in unused space in structures and lack of
incentive to redevelop. Proposal will remove parking
requirements for Commercial uses. Exceptions may be
made for Hotel/Inns. Residential uses in the
Commercial Zone will still require dedicated on-site
parking.
No
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 7
March 4, 2021
Require ground floor
commercial use in mixed use
buildings within the Central
Commercial Zone
Will not move forward, Council and Committee
soundly rejected this idea. Yes
Street Tree By-law
Trees play an important part in the feel and character
of the Village. The Land Use By-law presents limited
options on vegetation retention of specific trees.
Council and the Village may be better served by a
stand-alone By-law to address and identify important
street trees and regulate their removal and
replacement.
No
Planning Approvals
(Development Agreement,
Site Plan, Development
Permit)
There is currently an aversion to the use of
Development Agreements in Chester Village. The
existing documents make virtually no use of this
planning tool while promoting the use of Site Plan
Approval as a preferred approach.
A thorough and honest discussion is required to
discuss the merits and limitations of each planning
approval process. No one approval tool is perfect, and
each has its place. The success of a particular project or
approval ultimately depends on the policies and uses
outlined in the Secondary Planning Strategy and Land
Use By-law.
No
Farm Animal Regulations
During the Municipal reVISION Plan Review, it was
decided that no new regulations on Farm Animals
would be implemented outside of Chester Village. The
Village documents currently allow 19 chickens to be
kept on a property. A discussion around keeping Farm
Animals in the Village is needed to determine the
appropriate level of regulation and whether different
areas should have differing rules.
No
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 8
March 4, 2021
Adding policies to support
granting/rejecting variance
requests
In cases where the Land Use By-law allows a property
owner to apply for a Variance, the Development Officer
may review and evaluate Secondary Planning Strategy
policies in making a decision. The current documents
do not provide much guiding policy in these cases.
Additional policies could be added to provide
guidance or limitations to the Development Officer in
issuing Variances to the Land Use By-law.
Yes
Prohibit new lots via Private
Road
Towns and urban areas generally prohibit the creation
of Private Roads and require all lots to front on a public
street. This is beneficial for public infrastructure, snow
removal and avoids disputes and issues which can arise
from Private Roads shared between property owners.
The Development Officer will attend a Committee
meeting to assist with this discussion.
No
Architectural Regulations, Height Measurement & Heritage Protection
One of the most discussed topics at both Committee meetings and during discussions with members of
the public, is the appropriate level of regulations governing architectural controls and heritage protection.
Existing protections within the Chester Village planning documents focus on a small number of criteria
and have allowed for construction and development which does not fit with the existing character of the
Village. The current height limit is one such example, and discussions at the Committee and previous
discussions with Council have become stalled with no resulting change.
The desire to protect existing character and heritage value must be balanced against conflicting priorities
such as supporting efforts to create affordable housing. Implementing an extensive and detailed list of
architectural controls and regulations could inadvertently increase the cost to construct or renovate
structures which has negative impacts on the very limited existing supply of affordable and/or rental units.
Staff and Committee members have grappled with various ideas and potential regulations around the
issue of height measurement. It has now been agreed that outside expertise and assistance is likely
required to provide recommendations on a set of key regulations which will provide balance between
affordability and protection of character.
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 9
March 4, 2021
Below is a description of the desired services which have been reviewed and agreed to in principle by the
Chester Village Planning Advisory Committee. If Council is in favour of proceeding with a formal Request
for Proposals, this description will form the basis of the Scope of Work. Staff have done some preliminary
investigations into the potential costs of such a study and believe that $30,000 is an appropriate amount
to budget. This scope of work can be accommodated with the funds already allocated to the Village
Review budget.
Proposed Scope of Work for Architectural Study
The Municipality of Chester is seeking the services of a qualified individual or firm to conduct a detailed
inventory and study of the architectural form and character of existing structures in Chester Village. The
data collection and analysis will result in a set of recommended land use controls to preserve and enhance
existing and new structures. This may include recommendations on form, style, height, building materials,
building ratios, maximum footprints, or other regulations such as a heritage conservation districts,
authorized through the Municipal Government Act, to preserve existing character.
The “Chester look” has become a common turn of phrase in describing the eclectic mix of style, age, and
scale of structures which comprise Chester Village. Residents of the Village generally agree on what fits
within the “Chester look” but struggle to clearly define the limits and key elements that contribute to this
accepted character.
New development that varies significantly from the “Chester look” is considered inappropriate by many
residents. Since introducing planning regulations in the mid-1970’s, efforts have been made to preserve
and protect the “Chester look”. These efforts have been moderately successful, primarily through several
key regulations. An argument may also be made that luck or circumstance has been another crucial piece
in maintaining existing character in most new development. Given that residents of the Village
consistently identify character as a special attribute, leaving decisions on the appearance of new structures
almost entirely in the hands of the property owner presents a significant risk. This fragile balance is under
threat as new developments are proposed. In recent years, existing protections have been pushed to their
limits with developments approved that meet the technical regulations of the Land Use By-law but with
general agreement that they do not fit within the “Chester look”. Staff have heard increasing concerns
regarding large, modern homes with low pitched roofs that often create substantial massing at street level
or when viewed from the ocean.
Next Steps
Review of the Secondary Planning Strategy is now complete; however, additional policies are likely to be
required to support topics which are not currently included in the plan. These additional policies will be
added as the review process continues.
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 10
March 4, 2021
Staff and the Village Planning Advisory Committee members will study and consider the list of priority
topics and will then begin work on drafting the revised Land Use By-law. The timeline below indicates the
work done to date in green, current position in orange and remaining activities in blue:
As opportunities arise, staff are looking to plan a variety of in person public engagement events to seek
input from community members as the new documents take shape. In addition, the project website will
continue to be maintained and updated with new information.
If the architectural study is given authorization to proceed, the results and findings will be reviewed and
incorporated into the new documents before final drafts are produced.
Options
Staff are seeking direction in two areas:
1) Architectural Study Request for Proposals:
a) Direct staff to produce a Request for Proposals for an Architectural Study of Chester Village as
described in this report. Return to Council with the draft RFP for review and authorization to
proceed.
b) Deny the request to prepare a Request for Proposals for an Architectural Study of Chester Village.
Direct staff to work with the Village Planning Advisory Committee to determine the appropriate
level of architectural control and heritage protection.
Architectural
Study
Council
Check-in #1
Public
Engagement
2020
VPAC begins
review and
update of
existing
Secondary
Plan
Village
Planning
Advisory
Committee
(VPAC)
Formed
Amendments
to Village
Planning
Area
Boundary
Adoption of
new SPS &
LUB
Presentation
of draft SPS &
LUB for
consideration
by Council
Final Public
Engagement
- draft LUB &
SPS publicly
available
Council
Check-in #2
Public
Engagement
2021
Begin review
of Village
Land Use By-
law
Figure 1 - Village Review Timeline
February 2021
Late 2021 Late 2022
January 2020
Early 2022
Village Review Council Update #1 Page 11
March 4, 2021
c) Other (please specify).
2) Add or Remove topics from Priority Topics Table (above)
a) No changes needed at this time; additional opportunities will be available to Council to make
changes throughout the Village Review.
b) Add the following topics (please specify).
c) Remove the following topics (please specify).
Chester PlayhouseRestoration and Upgrade ProjectPresentation to the Municipality of ChesterMarch 18, 20211
In March 2020 the Municipality of Chester approved our request for a $100,000 Major Project Grant to support the restoration and update of the Chester Playhouse. At the time we envisioned a $973,000 project that would address the following:1. Building structure and site improvements to protect the Playhouse and meet the structural, safety and environmental standards expected of a public, year-round facility; 2. Reconfiguration of Main Floor access and public spaces to improve patron service and safety including mobility-related accessibility and auditory support; and3. Restoration and upgrades of the interior performance environment to meet required standards for a cultural and community venue.2CHESTER PLAYHOUSEThe Municipal leadership recognized the economic and social benefits of a strong and sustained commitment to the Arts and Culture sector.
The case for supporting the project was strong and we are pleased to report that: •All public Grantors came to the table following the Municipal approval: NSCCH, ACOA and the Department of Heritage•Private donations exceeded all expectations and private foundations responded•Local suppliers contributed goods•Construction work has been able to proceed uninterrupted.We remain on track to re-open to the public by early July, 20213CHESTER PLAYHOUSEThen the world changed with Covid: shuttered theatre doors, complete loss of operating revenue from ticket sales and community rentals and an uncertain environment for securing the public or private fundraising needed for the Restoration.
•Mechanical systems + $75,000•Electrical, including upgrade to 600 amp + $170,000•Fresh air circulation – a driver of mechanical and electrical increases•Asbestos remediation + $17,000•Pleasant Street building façade + $75,000•Project contingency reserve has largely been used. The forecasted project cost is now $1,300,000. The increase has been fully funded by donations from individuals and foundations. Over 125 individual households have donated to the project. 4CHESTER PLAYHOUSEAt the same time, the restoration project has been more complex than anticipated in all areas of renewal infrastructure, and market price inflation has impacted materials and labour costs. Examples include:
5Original RevisedMunicipality $100,000 $100,000NSCCH 150,000 150,000ACOA 250,000 250,000Canadian Heritage 343,000 343,000Private 115,000457,000TOTAL $973,000 $1,300,000CHESTER PLAYHOUSEFunding
6CHESTER PLAYHOUSEThe project promise was to restore and update the Playhouse to meet the needs of audiences and artists today – for safety, comfort and performance. We will meet this promise.But budget pressure from the ”must do” items has compromised our private Fundraising capacity to invest in equipment for two priority programming areas of direct community benefit: film projection and digital streamingThe post-Covid performing arts environment prioritizes programs that can de delivered to low densityaudiences, at a price that is affordable. Film presentation at Cinema quality enabling “live from” feedsis a direct response and will be applauded by the community – residents, and the hospitality sector in particular. Also high on the list is the ability to extend our reach for artists and audiences via hybrid digital streaming models.
The Chester Playhouse is requesting additional funding from the Municipality of Chester to help complete the final stages of the restoration project. Our current shortfall is $100,000. With additional support we will be able to leverage private donations of $47,000 immediately to:7CHESTER PLAYHOUSERequest to the Municipality•Order the projection and sound equipment for use in film programming commencing in summer 2021.•Develop a digital streaming solution for use when fuller programming returns to our stage when we reopen.
•A performing arts venue that meets the standards expected today by artists and audiences;•Aninclusive venue for communityprogramming and events;•A catalyst for programming growth with economic benefitto local businesses;•A more attractive venue for regional tourism partnershipsand collaborations;•A venue that meets audience standards in terms year round comfort;•A ‘greener” Playhouse in terms of energy efficiency, environmental impact and costs;•A substantial investment in the Municipality of Chester, prioritizing local suppliers and trades.CHESTER PLAYHOUSERestoration Project Impact8
•Arts and Culture helps shape identity, preserves social bonds and promotes equality;•Arts and Culture creates places that are more interesting to live in and visit;•Cultural diversity, special events, festivals, concerts and performing arts all help to attract tourists and create vibrancy for the people who live here.A 2018 survey by NS Communities, Culture and Heritage found that:•81% agree that culture helps enrich the quality of our lives•78% agree that culture helps create community identity•74% agree that culture helps connect people from different communities and backgrounds•63% agree that culture helps attract new residents from outside Nova ScotiaCHESTER PLAYHOUSERestoration Project Social and Economic Benefits9
CHESTER PLAYHOUSEProject TeamChester Playhouse Board of DirectorsProject Governance and Financial ControlProject Leads:Susan Crocker, Co-Chair, Board of DirectorsLiz Crocker, Co-Chair, Board of DirectorsKirk MacCulloch, Board Member and Chair Building Committee – Project LeadTechnical Expertise: Project Support:Syd Dumaresq Architect Roma Dingwell General ManagerWilson Fitt Project Management Erick Bickerdike Grant SupportKelly Moore Designer Monique Cole ProcurementMark Dumaresq Electrical EngineeringMark Eisnor Mechanical EngineeringDWD Theatre ConsultingEllen Johnson Accessibility Consultant10
CHESTER PLAYHOUSEBuilding ConstructionConstruction Manager and Builder Plan-It ConstructionChester Building Supplies MaterialsChester Electrical, Plumbing & Heating PlumbingGates Electrical ElectricalR. Schnare Excavation Site workLand & Sea Materials, LandscapingOnboarding Contracting FlooringAtlantic Alltrade Metal platformPropour Concrete Services Theatre floorToadz Odd Jobs Concrete removalPanther Interiors Drywall and TapingMaritime Insulators InsulationKohltech WindowsAcccess Storage StorageUnited Rentals LiftIn The Loop Hearing Hearing loopStage Teck Theatre Equipment Stage curtainsExterior Signage Lunenburg Chiselworks11
12CHESTER PLAYHOUSEThe Municipality of Chester’s Playhouse!
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Malcolm Pitman, CPA, CA, Director
of Financial & Information Services
Date March 12, 2021
Reviewed By: Date
Authorized By: Date
CURRENT SITUATION
MODC has received a request from the Chester Garden Club for Council to approval addition their
property AAN 10858615 to schedule B of the Tax Exemption By-Law property. This is the property of
Chester Garden club, a non-profit organization that is registered as a society under the Registry of Joint
Stock companies. The owner is listed on the assessment roll as Trustees of Chester Garden Club.
On December 10 ,2020 Council approved motion 2020-530 “Moved by Councillor Barkhouse, seconded
by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council direct staff to prepare to amend By-Law No. 74 Exemption for
Charitable, Non-Profit Organizations, Municipal Water Utilities, and Licensed Day Cares By-Law to include
the Chester Garden Club. All in favour. Motion carried.”
To grant an exemption, once the assessment classification is changed, Council is required to add the
property to the list of properties specifically named in the by-law, effective for the 2020-21 fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
That Municipal Council approve adding Trustees of Chester Garden Club to schedule B of Tax Exemption
By-law #74, granting a 100% exemption of resource property tax would be granted to property AAN
10858615, and that area rates for other municipal services would be charged. The effective date would be
April 1, 2020 (i.e., effective for the year April 2020 to March 2021).
SCHEDULE B
OWNER PROPERTY EXTENT OF
APPLICATION
EXTENT OF EXEMPTION
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Finance Department
DATE: March 18, 2021
SUBJECT: Addition of AAN 10858615, Chester
Garden Club, to schedule B of Tax
Exemption By-Law #74
ORIGIN: Chester Garden Club and Council
motion 2020-530
2 Request For Decision
Trustees of
Chester Garden
Club
Water Street
Chester
Account #10858615
The whole 100% of resource property tax. Area
rates for other municipal services will be
charged. Effective date of April 1, 2020
BACKGROUND
Per Section 71(1)(b) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) a Council may by policy (by-law in MODC’s
case), exempt from taxation to the extent and under the conditions set out in the policy, a property of a
nonprofit community, charitable, fraternal, educational, recreational, religious, cultural or sporting
organization if, in the opinion of council, the organization provides a service that might otherwise be a
responsibility of the council.
Per Section 71(3) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) a tax exemption or reduction shall be
accounted for as an expenditure.
Per Section 71(4) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) a Council may, in its discretion refuse to grant
an exemption or reduction and a policy (by-law) extents only to properties specifically named in the policy
(by-law).
Per Section 71(6) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) a policy made pursuant to this section has
effect in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which it is published, unless the policy sets a different
effective date, including an effective date retroactive to the beginning of the current year.
DISCUSSION
Chester Garden club has requested a 100% resource tax exemption. The Club is a non-profit organization
and is registered as a society under the Registry of Joint Stock Companies. In the past Council has only
granted 100% commercial tax exemptions, but the MGA does not limit exemptions to just commercial
assessments.
The services provided that might otherwise be a responsibility of Council include maintaining gardens and
parks.
Other organization receiving an exemption under section 71(1)(b) of the MGA are listed in schedule B on
the By-law.
Council’s options under MGA section 71 are to either grant an exemption or refuse to grant an exemption
or reduction.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy – n/a
Financial/Budgetary
A 100% tax exemption will increase the 2020-21 expense for tax exemptions by the assessment of
$210,000 times the resource tax rate of $1.53/$100 for a total of $1,480.50.
3 Request For Decision
Environmental – n/a
Strategic Plan – n/a
Work Program Implications -n/a
OPTIONS
Two options for the tax exemption and their 18-19 financial implications:
1. Approve the full exemption as recommended for 20-21 – net expense of $1,480.50.
2. Refuse to grant an exemption – no financial implication.
ATTACHMENTS
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
Internal – n/a
External- The named organizations receiving a tax exemption will appear in By-law #74 on the MODC’s
website.