Loading...
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.