Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-09-23_Council_Website Agenda Package Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday, September 23, 2021 Via Facebook Live Office Location: 151 King Street, Chester, NS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (15 minutes) 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Council – September 9, 2021. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 6.1 Charlie Hutton, South Shore Historic Preservation Society regarding the Haughn Property at Marriotts Cove (appointment at 9:15 a.m.) 7. MATTERS ARISING: 7.1 Second/Final Reading – Policy P-25 Tax Exemption Policy – annual adjustments in income and exemption levels as per the Consumer Price Index for NS. 7.2 Request for Decision prepared September 15, 2021 – Infrastructure & Operations Department – Fire Services Drone. 7.3 Request for Decision prepared August 20, 2021 – Infrastructure & Operations Department – RFQ MODC-T-2021-011 Supply and Delivery of one 4x4 ¾ ton Truck. 8. CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 Card of thanks from Hubbards Area Lions Club for the financial assistance received during COVID-19. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Request for Decision prepared September 16, 2021 – Community Development & Recreation - Coastal Protection Act Feedback. Page 2 of 2 9.2 Request for Discussion/Decision prepared September 10, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation Department – Request to Alter Heritage Property at 4898 Highway 320. 9.3 Request for Decision prepared September 14, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation Department – Designated Community Fund Request – Chester Garden Club. 9.4 Proclamation Request – Fire Prevention Week – October 3 to 9, 2021. 9.5 Proclamation Request – Truth and Reconciliation Day – September 30, 2021. 10. IN CAMERA 10.1 Section 22(2)(c) of the Municipal Government Act – Personnel. 11. ADJOURNMENT APPOINTMENTS VIA ZOOM 9:15 a.m. Charlie Hutton, South Shore Historic Preservation Society. 310 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COUNCIL MEETING 151 King Street, Chester / Facebook Live, NS On Thursday, September 9, 2021 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:47 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor Veinotte District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford District 3 – Vacant 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 Emily Lennox, Executive Secretary Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS  Bayswater Saddle Island Fish farm noise – Councillor Veinotte. 2021-343 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the agenda and order of business for the September 9, 2021, Council meeting be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 4.1 Council – August 26, 2021. 2021-344 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church the minutes of the August 26, 2021, Council meeting be approved as circulated. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Council (continued) September 9, 2021 311 COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Mayors and Wardens Meeting - September 8, 2021 – Warden Webber. Warden Webber and the CAO updated Councillors on the topics discussed at the September 8, 2021, meeting of Mayors and Wardens, with regard to the new Conservative government, commenting on:  Non-resident housing initiative ($2 per $100 of assessment charge if the owner does not pay NS Income Tax);  A 5% Deed Transfer Tax on purchases from non-NS Income Tax payers;  Doubling the operating Grant to Municipalities;  Small rink fund of $1 Million per year for non-municipal rinks;  Internet - Develop NS creating a program for those who don’t have high speed as a result of the approved builds and having a satellite connection subsidized;  Memorandum of Understanding between the province and Municipalities;  Regional Community Hub – the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg is in the process of studying what that means, i.e., farm markets, art centres, etc.;  Halifax Regional Municipality proposal to regulate Air BnBs – Mayors and Wardens agreed this would be a regional issue. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION There was no public input received. MATTERS ARISING 7.1 Quarterly Report – Corporate and Strategic Management Department. Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO and Erin Lowe, Senior Economic Development Officer were present to review the Quarterly Report of the Corporate and Strategic Management Department, commenting on special projects, fire services, REMO, Health and Safety, statistics of social media, communication support, investment attraction, Parade Square beautification project, Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park, Economic Development Initiatives, and Tourism Chester. 7.2 Investment Attraction Marketing Plan – Economic Development. Erin Lowe, Senior Economic Development Officer, was present to review the Investment Marketing Plan, commenting on the initiatives and results of the Invest Chester Website, search Council (continued) September 9, 2021 312 engine optimization, social media, advertising, content and collateral, email marketing, trade shows and events, and direct outreach. It was noted that mapping will be provided for commercial land and buildings and staff will be on the hunt to expand that information and to keep the map as up to date as possible. 7.3 Request for Decision prepared August 27, 2021 – Corporate and Strategic Management Department – Special Election for District 3 Vacancy. Pam Myra, Municipal Clerk, was present and reviewed the requirements for the upcoming Special Election for District 3. 2021-345 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church the following be approved for the 2021 Special Election for District 3: o The Election be held on Saturday, November 13, 2021 (Nomination Day would be Tuesday, October 19, 2021); o Appoint the Solicitor as Returning Officer and the Municipal Clerk as Assistant Returning Officer for the 2021 Special Election. o Confirm Polls as approved by the NS Utility and Review Board on July 13, 2015. o Use the Provincial List of Electors. o Conduct the election electronically and use a kiosk for those unable to vote electronically located at the Municipal Building on the Saturday Advance Poll Day by appointment. o Electronic Advance Poll Period and Election Day – depending upon the election date, begin electronic voting on the 2nd Wednesday before Election Day allowing 11 days for electronic voting to take place. o Two week revision period. o Not send the initial Voter Information Letter as the Preliminary List of Electors received from the Province is up to date as of July 2021. Advertisements in the local newspapers, in the municipal newsletter and on social media will be carried out. o Revising Officer for Revision Period - Assistant Returning Officer. o Approval of Schedule of Fees increased by CPI. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 7.4 Request for Decision prepared August 4, 2021 – Financial & Information Services Department – Private Street Improvement By-Law – Administration Fees. Council (continued) September 9, 2021 313 Tim Topping, Director of Financial and Information Services was present to review the Request for Decision regarding the Private Street Improvement By-Law with regard to administration fees and recommended a reduction from 10% to 5%. There were various scenarios and options discussed with regard to the percentage fee, a set rate, level of effort, capping the administration fee, number of homes on a road, fairness, applying a percentage but capping it at a certain amount, increasing the fee incrementally by CPI, differentiating the two types of services, etc. Following discussion, it was agreed to have staff review the by-law and return to Council with a hybrid model, considering the level of service required for the options within the by-law and, if complete a draft of the by-law with input from the Solicitor. A break was held from 10:01 a.m. to 10:16 a.m. 7.5 Pride Crosswalk – Verbal Update The CAO noted that a discussion was held with the NS Department of Public Works regarding painting a crosswalk with the Pride colours. He received some indication that they are reviewing guidelines and nationally looking at guidelines related to pavement options and painting of crosswalks. However, a Municipality would not be permitted to install a pride cross walk on a provincial road. We do have municipal roads but not in communities where the request was made, and he doesn’t believe there are any crosswalks on municipal roads. What was suggested as an option is painting one of the thatched walkways in the Municipality’s parking lot with the Pride colours and inviting Pride Lunenburg County to the event on October 1st and explaining to them the limitations of a Municipality with regard to provincial or town roads. It was also noted that October is LGBTQ History Month, so October 1st seems like a logical date to kick off the month to show support. 2021-346 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve painting an area in the Municipal parking lot on Friday, October 1st on one of the thatched areas with the pride colours and invite Pride Lunenburg County to participate. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 Right to Know Week Proclamation – Week of September 27 to October 3, 2021. Council (continued) September 9, 2021 314 2021-347 MOVED by Deputy Warden, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council proclaim the week of September 27 to October 3, 2021, as Right to Know Week in the Municipality of the District of Chester and post the proclamation in the usual manner. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Request for Decision prepared August 26, 2021 – Financial & Information Services Department – Annual Review of Low Income Tax Exemption Policy P-25. Tim Topping, Director of Financial and Information Services was present to review Request for Decision regarding Policy P-25 Tax Exemption Policy. It is reviewed annually and has historically been increased by CPI, with the exception of last year when the increase was more due to COVID-19. 2021-348 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council give First Notice to amend the Tax Exemption Policy P-25 to increase the income limits and exemption amounts by 0.3% to align with the annual Nova Scotia CPI increase. This option would set the income thresholds at $16,208, $20,221, and $27,204 and the exemption amounts at $771, $462, and $309. Discussion: Councillor Veinotte asked if this was approved annually, and it was indicated that it was approved annually. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.2 Request for Decision prepared August 31, 2021 – Financial & Information Services Department – 2021/22 Capital Budget Adjustment (Canada Community-Building Fund review of proposed Gas Tax Funded Projects). Tim Topping, Director of Financial and Information Services was present to review the Request for Decision regarding the Capital Budget Adjustment for the trail bridge evaluation project, which is not an approved use of Gas Tax Funding. The work has been done and came in slightly under budget. He recommended to change the funding source from Gas Tax to General Operating Reserve as funding sources are to be identified. 2021-349 MOVED by Councillor Veinotte, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council approve modifying the funding source for the Trails – Bridge Evaluations project to the General Operating Reserve as the amount does not qualify for funding through the Gas Tax. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Council (continued) September 9, 2021 315 9.3 Request for Decision prepared September 2, 2021 – Financial & Information Services Department – Server Infrastructure Replacement. Cliff Gall, Director of Information Services was present to review the Request for Decision regarding Server Infrastructure Replacement. He indicated that the equipment is replaced every four years and funds in the amount of $15,000 are set aside annually to make the purchase. 2021-350 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that a contract for the supply of three (3) Dell Servers and one (1) Storage Array be awarded to IMP Solutions in the amount of $55,865 including HST; and that the Director of Information Services be authorized to execute the contract. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.4 Council District Grant – District 6: a. Grant Listing. b. Council District Grant Application – District 6 – Charing Cross Garden Club - $500. Councillor Connors reviewed the application. 2021-351 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the Council District Grant for Charing Cross Garden Club in District 6 be approved in the amount of $500. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 9.5 Short Term Rental Regulation Discussion – Councillor Veinotte. Councillor Veinotte commented that Warden Webber touched on the matter when reporting on the Mayors and Wardens Meeting. He noted that HRM is considering taxing residences that are not primary residences and requiring them to register as a hotel or seasonal accommodation. Other jurisdictions have done it. It is a way of moving away from long term rentals to short term rentals – which is an issue for housing. He suggested keeping an eye on what develops in other jurisdictions. It was noted that Air BnBs are being used for a short period of time getting the same amount of revenue with less wear and tear that a long term rental would generate. 9.6 Highway 329 Speed Limits – Deputy Warden Shatford. Council (continued) September 9, 2021 316 Deputy Warden Shatford noted that a survey completed shows a big increase in vehicular traffic as well as bicycle traffic on Highway 329. It was noted that there seemed to be a lack of initiative for paved shoulders or brush cutting from the province. Residents would like to see a reduction to one speed limit of 60 km/hour on the entire loop of Highway 329. He would like a letter to go to the NS Department of Public Works (formerly Transportation and Active Transport) as a request from Council. Councillor Veinotte agreed, noting that he heard the same issue when canvassing in his district. The state of the road is poor, and the government of the day (NDP) did not include paved shoulders as they indicated they would – there are no bike lanes even though the area is promoted as a biking route. 2021-352 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that correspondence be forwarded to the NS Department of Public Works (formerly Transportation and Active Transit) to reduce the speed limit for the entirety of Highway 329 to 60 km/h. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. It was also agreed to include the data we have on file with the letter to Public Works. 9.7 Bayswater - Saddle Island Fish farm noise – Councillor Veinotte. Councillor Veinotte indicated that it is not uncommon to receive complaints of noise at Saddle Island; many of the homes face the bay. When the operation undertakes net cleaning or aeration there is a lot of noise that is bothersome to the residents. He noted that there was a question on jurisdiction if the sounds are being generated offshore. He felt Council should be aware of the issue. Discussion was held regarding jurisdiction and measurement of noise and a suggestion that there should be some evidence of the sound and the decibels. It was noted that the Noise By- Law is not focused on ordinary noise from a business during normal business hours – it is focused on construction noises, amplified music, loud motor vehicles. There are many businesses that are legitimate operating businesses that make noise. Councillor Veinotte noted that there are two issues – the noise and characteristics as well as jurisdiction. Amplitude is decibels but frequency also plays a role; there are certain types of frequencies that can be annoying. It was agreed to determine jurisdiction and check on the decibel meter if we still have it. Council (continued) September 9, 2021 317 9.8 Senior Safety Program – Councillor Connors. Councillor Connors indicated that she would forward the poster to Councillors for a Seniors’ Safety Academy being held in Chester from September 29th to November 3rd. The program is free, but people must pre-register. IN CAMERA 10.1 Section 22(2)(c) of the Municipal Government Act – Personnel. 10.2 Section 22(2)(a) of the Municipal Government Act – Acquisition, sale, lease, or security of municipal property. 2021-353 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the meeting convene “In Camera” as per Section 22(2)(c) – Personnel Matters and Section 22(2)(a) Acquisition, sale, lease, and security of municipal property. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Following a meeting held “In Camera” the meeting reconvened in Regular Session. 2021-354 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council proceed with the sale of municipal property at Whalen Lake (PID 60129319) previously obtained through tax sale and having no value to the Municipality for Municipal or public purposes to Jeana Condon and Seth Wickwire at a cost of $4,000. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2021-355 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council authorize the hiring of a recruitment firm to fill the vacant Certified Engineering Technician position for the Infrastructure & Operations Department. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT 2021-356 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the meeting adjourn. (11:14 a.m.) ___________________________ ___________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra South Shore Historic Preservation Society proposal to Municipality of Chester for the Long-Term Lease and Restoration of the Countway Mosher Home - Circa 1839 4956 Highway 3 Middle River NS Designated Municipal Heritage Property – April 9, 1991 Registered Canadian Heritage Property – March 14, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Synopsis …………………………………………………………………………………. 3 South Shore Historic Preservation Society ……………………………………………... 4 Scope of Repair …………………………………………………………………………. 5 Repair and Restoration Budgets ……………………………………………………….. 6 Phases and Timelines …………………………………………………………………… 7 Sources of Funding ……………………………………………………………………… 8 Accessibility ……………………………………………………………………………... 9 Lead Remediation ………………………………………………………………………. 10 Usage of Building ……………………………………………………………………….. 11 Lease Agreement ………………………………………………………………………... 12 Annual Operating Budget ………………………………………………………………. 13 APPENDICES Appendix A: Objectives…………………………………………………………………… 14 Appendix B: Founding Directors ………………………………………………………… 15 Appendix C: Professional Representation………………………………………………… 16 Appendix D: Countway Mosher Home: Canada’s Historic Places ……………………… 17 Appendix E: Main Level Floor Plan …………………………………………………….. 18 Appendix F: Original Letter to the Municipality ………………………………………... 19 SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 3 SYNOPSIS The newly formed South Shore Historic Preservation Society (SSHPS) is requesting to enter into a long-term lease agreement with the Municipality of Chester for the property known as the Countway Mosher Home situated 4956 Highway 3, Middle River NS, for the nominal sum of $1 per year. Having reviewed the exp. engineering report prepared 2020-05-06 for the Municipality of Chester, we are confident that we can accomplish the restoration and repair of the majority of the home at a budget of approximately $300,000 over a 24 to 36-month period. Upon completion of the restoration, the building will become the headquarters for our society as well as a storage facility for historic documents and antiquities. It will also be offered at a nominal fee for other societies and private meetings. “A historic and unique meeting place where the future meets its past”. The Society will raise the necessary funds through applications for municipal, provincial and federal grant programs. Other sources of funds include corporate sponsorships, membership drives, and bequeaths. In this way, the property will be saved and have long-term, self-sustaining usage. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 4 SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY The South Shore Historic Preservation Society was recently founded to help preserve the many historic properties that exist on the South Shore of Nova Scotia. The cost to preserve historic structures is often prohibitive, and it is difficult to find modern uses of buildings that allow them to remain financially self-sufficient. These treasures of history are a gift to us from the past and are irreplaceable. Every effort must be made to preserve them and all avenues of usage must be explored before demolition. The Countway Mosher Home will be our first project. With respect to the Countway Mosher Home circa 1839, we intend to make the home the headquarters of the SSHPS and the meeting place of other societies and private groups. “A historic and unique meeting place where the future meets its past”. Please see the appendix to review our full society objectives. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 5 SCOPE OF REPAIR AND RESTORATION The Countway Mosher Home requires a complete restoration (roof, electrical, plumbing, sewer, water, complete exterior, lead remediation, foundation, windows, doors, porches, floors, mouldings, fascia, soffit, heating/cooling, landscaping, and the addition of an accessible entrance and washroom). Every effort will be made to accomplish the issues outlined in the exp. report dated 2020-05-06 and additional accessibility concerns. The main floor will be the only area to undergo complete interior restoration. The second floor and basement will be cleaned and painted to presentable standards to be used for storage. An accessible ramp will be added to the South facing main door and an accessible washroom added to the South facing wall off the dining room. The lead remediation contained in the home will be accomplished using a certified lead abatement company. Almost all exterior mouldings and shingles will be replaced. Upon closer inspection, the non-original porches will be removed, repaired or replaced. The new roof material will be asphalt shingle. Heat pumps will be installed to maintain humidity and heat levels. There will be an accessible washroom added on the main level (total of two washrooms) on the first level. The second-level washroom will be preserved. A new hot water tank will be added. For other intended repairs and restorations, please refer to the next section, Repair and Restoration Budgets. Estimated time to complete: 24-36 months. Funds permitting an earlier date of completion. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 6 REPAIR AND RESTORATION BUDGETS Estimated Budget Roof $35,000 Electrical $14,000 Temporarily Secure Building $2,000 Water & Sewer $20,000 Horticulture $2,000 Safety Fence $1,000 Basement Stairs $2,000 Basement Structural $20,000 Heat Pumps & HVAC $20,000 Fascia, Soffit & Eves $20,000 Dumpsters $4,000 Interior Clean $1,000 Interior Restoration $15,000 Chimney Repair $6,000 Window & Door Restoration $20,000 Porches (Restore & Build) $20,000 Exterior (Restore & Build) $80,000 Interior & Exterior Lighting $3,000 Security System $2,000 Floor Restoration $4,000 Miscellaneous Expenses $4,000 Contingency $5,000 TOTAL $285,000 *all budgets include materials and labour SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 7 PHASES AND TIMELINES Fall 2021 - Install a new asphalt tile roof, replace any damaged roof boards & repair the chimney. - Weathertight the balance of the building to prevent further moisture or rodent damage. - Clear any foliage around the home that is causing mildew and moisture problems, and remove or trim trees that are touching the home. - Reconnect electrical to install a heat pump cable to maintain sufficient heat and humidity levels to prevent further damage to the building. - Basic painting and cleaning of the second floor, to create a storage area for the main level restoration. The main level will become the workshop for the restoration project. Spring 2022 - Begin the total restoration of the exterior of the building SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 8 SOURCES OF FUNDS Sources of Funding for Repair & Restoration of the Countway Mosher Home: Estimated Budget: $300,000 Estimated Timeline: 24 – 36 months Project Start Date: October 28, 2021 Sources of Revenue for Project(s) Potential Major Project Grant from the Municipality of Chester $100,000 Donation Drive - 100 members at $1000 $100,000 Membership Drive – 1000 members at $25 $25,000 Provincial Heritage Grants $50,000 Federal Grants (ACOA) $100,000 Corporate Sponsors – 10 at $10,000 $100,000 Bequeaths $100,000 TOTAL $575,000 SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 9 ACCESSIBILITY CONCERNS A) Building: The South Shore Historic Preservation Society plans to restore and repair the building to have it fully handicapped accessible to the main floor level. The basement and second- floor facilities are strictly storage and maintenance. An accessible ramp and rails are included in plans for the south-facing entrance. Upon restoration, this entryway will provide the necessary accessibility entry to the building. B) Restroom facilities: Funding applications for handicapped accessible washroom facilities will be made upon agreement of the council to accept our proposal. The only existing washroom on the main floor is off the kitchen and is too small to accommodate handicapped individuals. We are proposing to add a handicapped washroom off the dining room, approximately 8' x 5', gender-neutral, and with a door opening out. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 10 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REMEDIATION One of the major concerns pointed out in the 2020-05-06 report prepared by exp. for the municipality regarding the Countway Mosher Home was the levels of lead contained in paint samples on the interior and exterior of the building. We have contacted Absetors Halifax, qualified and approved contractors for asbestos and lead abatement. They are formalizing a lead control plan to be submitted to the planning department, along with our request for a permit to restore and repair the property. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 11 USAGE OF BUILDING Primary Usage: When the building restoration and repair is complete, the building will become the headquarters for the South Shore Historic Preservation Society. It will also be used to store historic documents and antiques on the second story of the premises. Secondary Usage: The building will provide a meeting place for other societies and groups that currently have no official headquarters or meeting place. The building will also be accessible to private and government groups as “A historic and unique meeting place where the future meets its past”. Audio-visual equipment and kitchen facilities will be available to anyone using the home as a meeting location. Once the building is restored and the adjoining park develops, we are confident other usages of the premises will be possible. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 12 LEASE AGREEMENT DETAILS The South Shore Historic Preservation Society is requesting a long-term lease of the Countway Mosher Home at a nominal rate of $1 per year. The SSHPS will restore and repair the building over a three-year period at considerable cost and needs a long-term lease on the property to protect its investment. We are requesting a 100-year renewable lease, details of which can be negotiated with town officials and lawyers. We are requesting a zero property tax arrangement with the Municipality of Chester for as long- term as can be granted. The SSHPS understands that the property tax ‘free’ status will need to be renewed regularly and are prepared to do so. • We agree to repair and restore the building at the society’s expense. • We will assume all utility and insurance expenses for the building. • We will assume all lawn care and snow removal responsibility for 4956 Highway 3, Middle River component of the estate. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 13 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET Projected Annual Usage: April 15 – December 15 (9 months) Expenses Budget Electrics $1,800 Property Taxes $0 (Subject to the Municipality) Security $1,200 Insurance $2,000 (South Shore Insurance) Property Maintenance (Grass & Snow) $2,000 Miscellaneous $1,000 Total $8,000 SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 14 APPENDIX A Objectives The Objects of the Society are: (a) To identify, document, and protect buildings and properties of significant historical value on the South Shore of Nova Scotia (b) To liaise with municipal, provincial, federal, and international groups and organizations of like-mind; (c) To liaise with municipal, provincial, and federal Canadian government departments to best realize the objects of the Society; (d) To educate Nova Scotians, Canadians, and international peoples as to the value of the preservation of historic buildings and properties; (e) To have authority to act for the betterment of its members; (f) To establish the society as a non-profit organization in order to raise the necessary funds to accomplish its objectives by way of membership dues, donations, grants, bursaries, bequests, and other means which may arise; (g) To acquire by way of grant, gift, purchase, bequest, devise or otherwise, real or personal property and to use and apply such property to the realization of the objects of the Society; (h) To buy, own, hold, lease, mortgage, sell and convey such real and personal property as may be necessary or desirable in the carrying out of the object of the Society. PROVIDED that nothing herein contained shall permit the Society to carry on any trade, industry, or business and the Society shall be carried on without purpose or gain to any of the members and that any surplus or any accretions of the Society shall be used solely for the purposes of the Society and the promotion of its objects. PROVIDED, further that if for any reason the operations of the Society are terminated or are wound up, or are dissolved and there remains at that time, after satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities, any property whatsoever, the same shall be paid to some other charitable organization in Canada, having objects similar to those of the Society. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 15 APPENDIX B South Shore Historic Preservation Society Founding Directors: SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 16 APPENDIX C Professional Representation Legal: Jenny K. Boehner Wells, Lamey, Bryson, Schnare & Mailman Barristers & Solicitors 24 Pleasant St. PO. Box 310 Chester NS, B0J 1J0 Accounting: Harry Davis CA Chandler & Davis 3 Tremont St. Chester NS, B0J 1J0 Corporate ID & Branding: Leonard Walbourne 11 Kitchen Ave. St. John’s Newfoundland A1C 5G5 SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 17 APPENDIX D Countway Mosher Home, Canada’s Historic Places: Built circa 1839 the Countway Mosher home is a Georgian style residence with Victorian themes located in Middle River, Nova Scotia adjacent to the community of Chester Basin. The Municipal Heritage Designation applies to the residence and surrounding property. Front elevation, Countway Mosher Home. Profile of cross gable and east wing, Countway Mosher Home. Rear elevation of the west wing, Countway Mosher Home. Please see visit historicplaces.ca, for the full article on the Countway Mosher Home. SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 18 APPENDIX E Main Level Floor Plan SOUTH SHORE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SOCIETY 19 APPENDIX F Original Letter to the Municipality of Chester First Notice – Council – September 9, 2021 Second/Final Notice – Council – September 23, 2021 i) Annual adjustments in the income levels, below which an exemption for taxation is granted, will be adjusted by either the annual increase in CPI for Nova Scotia or to the extent that council considers appropriate. ii) Annual adjustments in the scale of exemption amounts granted will be adjusted by either the annual increase in the average residential tax bill for the general tax rate and waste collection and disposal area rate or to the extent that council considers appropriate. Municipality of the District of Chester Tax Exemption Policy Policy P-25 Amended - Effective Date: TBD Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 2 __________________________________________________________________________________ First Notice – Council – September 9, 2021 (2021-348) Second/Final Notice – Council – September 23, 2021 Effective Date – April 1, 2021, for the 2021/22 Fiscal Year MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER POLICY P-25 TAX EXEMPTION POLICY WHEREAS Section 69 of the Municipal Government Act permits a Municipality to grant a tax exemption for low income earners; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester adopts the following policy respecting property tax exemptions. 1.0 In this Policy, 1.1 INCOME means a person’s total income (total income before deductions) from all sources for the calendar year preceding the fiscal year of the Municipality of the District of Chester, excluding any allowances paid pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act (Canada) or Pension paid pursuant to the Pension Act (Canada) and includes: i) The income of all assessed owners, their spouse(s), including common law spouses who occupy the property as their principal residence; ii) The income from members of the same family residing in the same household, who contribute to the household expenses; and iii) Those who hold an interest in the property and contribute to the household expenses. 1.2 Owner and those who an interest in the property includes: i) The person assessed for the property; ii) A person who holds title including a part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, or joint tenant of the property; and ii) A person with a life interest in the property; and iv) A person with a matrimonial interest. Not included are those with a leasehold interest and those with an interest under an agreement of purchase and sale. 1.3 Principal Residence is the ordinary place of residence for greater part of the year of an owner as well as an owner in a hospital or nursing care facility, unless that person has not slept at the property for a period of two (2) years or more, or unless the property has been rented to paying tenants, in either of which events, the property shall be deemed to cease being the owner’s ordinary place of residence. 1.4 SAME FAMILY in section 1.1(ii) is defined as including, but not limited to, children and step-children connected to at least one of the legally married or common-law couples included in section 1.1(i). Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 3 __________________________________________________________________________________ First Notice – Council – September 9, 2021 (2021-348) Second/Final Notice – Council – September 23, 2021 Effective Date – April 1, 2021, for the 2021/22 Fiscal Year 2.0 The Director of Finance of the Municipality shall grant an exemption as follows: i) For owners with an Income Level of $16,208 or less the tax exemption shall be the lessor of $771 or the tax on the general tax rate and the waste collection and disposal area rate only; ii) For owners with an Income Level of $16,208 to $20,221 the tax exemption shall be the lessor of $771 less the bracket’s change in the exemption amount $309) prorated for the income above $16,208 divided by the bracket’s income size* or the tax on the general tax rate and the waste collection and disposal area rate only. * i.e., $771 - (((income - $16,208) / ($20,221 - $16,208)) x ($771 - $462)) iii) For owners with an Income Level of $20,221 to $27,204 the tax exemption shall be the lessor of $462 less the bracket’s change in the exemption amount $153) prorated for the income above $20,221 divided by the bracket’s income size^ or the tax on the general tax rate and the waste collection and disposal area rate only. ^ i.e., $462 - (((income - $20,221) / ($27,204 - $20,221)) x ($462 - $309)) 3.0 A person or persons applying for an exemption must: i) Make an affidavit: a) Regarding his/her income from all sources in the calendar year preceding the Municipal taxation year for which the exemption is sought. Satisfactory verification of income must be presented to substantiate the exemption. Exemption form attached as Schedule "A”. b) Verify that any person who either holds an interest in the property or are family members residing in the same household, whose income is not included in household income pursuant to clause 1.1 (ii), does not contribute to paying household expenses. c) Provide satisfactory verification of income to substantiate the exemption. Satisfactory evidence includes a CRA notice assessment, GST/HST credit notice, and copy of tax return prepared by a third-party tax preparer. iii) Apply for the exemption each year prior to March 31st of the Municipal taxation year, with the exception of the 2019/20 fiscal year – the deadline for applications will be June 30, 2020. 4.0 The exemption shall only apply to a property where at least one of the assessed owners occupies it as his/her principal residence; Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 4 __________________________________________________________________________________ First Notice – Council – September 9, 2021 (2021-348) Second/Final Notice – Council – September 23, 2021 Effective Date – April 1, 2021, for the 2021/22 Fiscal Year 5.0 Prior to an exemption being granted, all outstanding debts to the Municipality, which are not a lien on the property, shall be paid in full. This would include any fees such as building permit fees, landfill tipping fees, recreation fees, etc. 6.0 A refusal to grant an exemption pursuant to this Policy may be appealed to Council. 7.0 Annually tax exemption income levels and the exemption amounts will be adjusted as follows: iii) Annual adjustments in the income levels, below which an exemption for taxation is granted, will be adjusted by either the annual increase in CPI for Nova Scotia or to the extent that council considers appropriate. iv) Annual adjustments in the scale of exemption amounts granted will be adjusted by either the annual increase in the average residential tax bill for the general tax rate and waste collection and disposal area rate or to the extent that council considers appropriate. Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 5 __________________________________________________________________________________ First Notice – Council – September 9, 2021 (2021-348) Second/Final Notice – Council – September 23, 2021 Effective Date – April 1, 2021, for the 2021/22 Fiscal Year SCHEDULE A MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER – PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT YEAR DISTRICT ACCOUNT EXEMPTION AMOUNT NUMBER 2021/22 I/We, ____________________ & ____________________, property owners of ____________________ in the County of Lunenburg, Province of Nova Scotia, and is our principal residence, make oath and say as follows: 1. That the total income before deductions of all assessed owners, their spouses (including Common Law Spouses) who occupy the property as their principal residence, family members residing in the same household, who contribute to household expenses and those who hold an interest in the property and contribute to household expenses, was as follows during the calendar year 2019. Any Allowance paid pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act (Canada), or pension paid pursuant to the Pension Act (Canada) is not to be included in a person’s total income for this purpose. ___ Combined Income was $16,207 or less; OR ___ Combined Income was between $16,208 and $20,220; OR ___ Combined Income was between $20,221 and $27,204 AND 2. ___ Verification Provided of combined income of $______________. Check one of the following: ___ Notice of Assessment, _____ GST/HST Credit Notice, _____Copy of tax return. NOTE: - THIS IS A LEGAL SWORN AFFIDAVIT AND THE APPLICANTS SIGNATURE(S) ENDORSED BELOW ARE VERIFICATION THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE IN ALL RESPECTS. THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPTION GRANTED WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER THE FINAL TAX BILL IS PRODUCED AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TAX AND WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL AREA RATE PORTION OF THE OVERALL TAX BILL (I.E. DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER AREA RATES). Sworn to at ______________ in the County of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia on the ____ day of ________, 20___. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Staff Signature ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ A Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Signature of Applicant(s) Nova Scotia or a Municipal Councillor REQUEST FOR D ECISION Prepared By: Bruce Blackwood Date September 15, 2021 Reviewed By: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Date September 15, 2021 Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date September 15, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), commonly referred to as drones, are quickly emerging as effective operational tools within the fire services, providing improvements in efficiency and effectiveness in response to a variety of emergencies. Drone technology enables smarter and safer operational decisions, effective mitigation of risk and less chance of firefighter injury in the line of duty. Drone technology continues to improve adding more operational scope and reliability. Within the MOC, the members of the Lunenburg East Fire and Emergency Services (LEFES) Committee are recommending the purchase of a drone and the development of a Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) program which would provide services to all MOC Fire Districts. RECOMMENDATION Based on recommendations from the Lunenburg East Fire and Emergency Services Committee (LEFES) it is recommended that Council approve the purchase of an RPAS (TJI Mavic 2 Enterprise Advanced drone and associated operating software) at a cost not to exceed $ 9,898.05 (HST at 15% included) Further, to fund the cost of liability insurance coverage for MOC and Fire Departments of $ 3,270 from the Shared Equipment budget and to direct staff to budget for this as an ong oing operating cost. These drone assets would be available to assist at emergency scenes under Basic Flight Operations as may be required by all registered Fire Departments within the MOC in accordance with established operating procedures and as agreed upon by the Fire Departments and the MOC. It is also anticipated that if required, the drone would be available to our mutual aid partners. The drone would also be available for use by the Municipality for special uses that may require piloting under Advanced or Special Operations in accordance with Transport Canada regulations. BACKGROUND Drones are easily deployable and launched at an emergency scene. They can provide real time visual and thermal imaging, vital information, to the Incident Commander (IC) within minutes allowing the REPORT TO: Council SUBMITTED BY: Bruce Blackwood, Corporate and Strategic Services DATE: September 15, 2021 SUBJECT: Fire Services Drone (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) (RPAS) ORIGIN: Corporate and Strategic Services 2 Request For D ecision IC to quickly make informed decisions on resource requirements and deployment . Enhanced situational awareness leads to better decisions and enhanced firefighter safety. Drone technology offers many benefits in a variety of emergency types. A summary of these benefits is discussed following. Wildfire Wildfire is identified as a major risk within the MOC. The recent fire (2020) in Chester Grant resulted in a burn of several acres of land and destroyed some structures. There is a small window of time for containment of small fires that can get out of control quickly and put fire crews at high risk. Early situational awareness is critical. Drones can provide early reconnaissance typically before that of manned aircraft surveillance (Lands and Forestry) . Visual and thermal imagery from drones allows for the rapid detection of fire location (GPS coordinates) and local water supplies. Visual and thermal imagery (even through very smoky conditions) can detect hot spots and provide information on where the fire is likely to spread. During the night when regular suppression activities are usually halted for crew safety reasons, drones can be used to monitor these hotspots and the fire spread providing critical information to the IC for next period planning (daybreak) and improving the overall response activities. Firefighter safety is the IC priority. The safety and accountability of our firefighters is improved as drones can effectively track their location and that of the fire spread. The IC can also provide crews with information on difficult terrain and other obstacles between the staging area and the fire. This information is critical to the Incident Commander for tracking of the fire movement and better decision making on early and ongoing resource accessibility, deployment and safety. Structural Firefighting Drones provide enhanced situational awareness of the fire scene conditions. Critical information on the location of the fire, its intensity and direction of spread within the structure and exposure risks are provided quickly to the Incident Commander for response planning resource deployment. The integrity of the building and the risk of secondary fires in surrounding structures can be evaluated quickly and accurately. Thermal imaging provides reliable information of hot spots that require suppression. This is important to avoid re-kindles and fire department call backs. Firefighter safety is the IC priority. Scene conditions change quickly and timely decisions on offensive or defensive fire strategies are necessary to ensure firefighter safety and accountability. 3 Request For D ecision Ground Search and Rescue Use of drones in Search and Rescue operations has been shown to increase efficiency in location of missing persons. Drones can provide a quick survey of the search area over land and water and provide accurate and timely data, mapping and GPS coordinates for access points, and landmark locations for deployment of search teams. Thermal imaging can detect human heat signatures allowing for quicker location of the missing person. Drones are equipped with bright spotlights and speakers to assist with rescue operations, especially during night operations. Search team safety and accountability is improved by keeping the Incident Command aware of their location and conditions. Hazmat Incidents Firefighter safety and accountability during hazmat incidents is critical. During Hazmat incidents drones offer the advantage of providing remote awareness of the scene conditions. Using visual camera zoom images the IC can read truck placarding and identify the manifest from a safe distance. Critical response planning can be completed quickly and appropriate emergency resources deployed. Drones can assist in determining the extent and direction of any toxic emissions and plumes which may call for evacuations to be implemented. Drone imaging can also assist in the assessment of any environmental impact of the hazmat incident. EMO Support Drones are increasingly being used to assist emergency services with situational awareness, response support, and damage assessment. Using information collected by drones, EMO staff can provide more effective response and recovery support. Similar to ground search and rescue operations, drones can assist in quickly locating persons or populations that require assistance. Drones can also provide a clearer picture of infrastructure damage without putting relief crews and other responders at risk and enabling the allocation of resources more quickly and effectively. Other uses within the Municipality Drones are demonstrating their usefulness in public works and planning. Drones can be used to monitor and inspect remote roads, trails, and other infrastructure safely and effectively. Because drones are unmanned, they allow personnel to gather necessary data for areas that may have previously been difficult or even impossible for them to access e.g. quarries, cliffs, and rugged terrain. Drones can also be used in the development of promotional materials and the coverage of special events within the recreation and tourism sectors. MOC has recently purchased a mini drone which weighs under 250 grams and is exempt from the registration and piloting requirements outlined by Transport Canada. This unit should serve us well 4 Request For D ecision for basic imaging. The unit itself has no thermal imaging capability and is not suited to meet the requirements of the fire services. The fire services drone would also be available for use by the Municipality for special uses. The use of drones (over 250 grams in weight) for specialized municipal uses e.g. coverage of public special events, tourism etc. require additional pilot qualifications as such flights would likely be classified under Advanced or Special Operations under the Transport Canada regulations. (See Appendix A). RPAS (Drone) Regulations Drone pilots (drones over 250 gram weight) must follow the rules in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Part IX – Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems. Please see Appendix A for an overview of these regulations. RPAS (Drone) Program The MOC fire services and the MOC will jointly develop an RPAS (Drone) Program covering equipment acquisition and installation, general asset management, insurances, pilot training, operating procedures and policy. It is intended to have the RPAS fully integrated into our fire and emergency services operations in support of all fire districts. The drone would also be available for use by the Municipality if it chooses to develop internal resources for piloting under Advanced or Special Operations. Procurement of the drone by the MOC will be through the single local (Halifax) DJI authorized dealer. There are two other authorized dealers of DJI drones in Canada both of which are quoting the same distributor pricing. Warranties and ongoing service agreements will be in the name of MOC. As outlined in the Canadian Regulations only licensed pilots will be authorized to operate the drone. Training and pilot licensing requirements and the availability of trained operating personnel are the responsibility of the fire services. Basic certification, the minimum training required, is completed through the federal website at a cost of $10.00 per person. This training would provide each pilot authority to fly the drone in the airspace of any emergen cy scene we have control over. The basic training would not authorize pilots to fly over any public areas or gatherings. Transport Canada does not require us by law to have insurance. Additional liability insurance is advised though to cover operation of the drone by the Fire Department and MOC. Working with our current broker, A.J Gallagher, several insurance options were reviewed. If one department was to own the unit, they would need liability insurance in their name and would be covered for response (through a policy endorsement) to their dispatched calls. However, if the drone was operated at another Department’s emergency scene that Department would need non -owned drone insurance as well. The MOC would also need non-owned policy coverage if they used the drone. 5 Request For D ecision This scenario was shown to be duplicative and added unnecessary costs. Similarly, if MOC owns the drone they need coverage for their use and each department would need their non - owned policy coverage when the unit was operated by their own pilots of at their scene by another Department. Again, this option becomes very costly. The option that provides least cost coverage to both the MOC and all Departments at any emergency scene is to have the MOC as owner of the drone and the fire department listed under additional insured operators of the equipment. The policy will need to be provided by specific aviation underwriters e.g. Global Aerospace. Current estimates are approximately $3,270 annually for $ 2 million in liability protection (with higher protection up to $ 10 million available). We have loss and damage coverage insurance on the equipment from the Vendor as part of the purchase price, so it is not planned to add the drone to our MOC equipment coverage at this time. As the Chester Basin Fire Department currently has licensed pilots, it is planned that MOC drone be housed and dispatched from the Chester Basin FD station upon pre-planned automatic and mutual aid protocol or upon the IC ’s request. The other Fire Departments are preparing to engage their members in the appropriate pilot training programs. Appropriate operating procedures are in development. (adapted from drone operations best practices provided by Lunenburg and HRM Fire) As the program develops in the future it is anticipated that other public safety partners i.e. Ground Search and Rescue, RCMP, Lands and Forest may request these services through the MOC and the fire services. I MPLICATIONS Policy N/A Financial/Budgetary Funding of $20,000 for this drone project is included in the 2021/22 MOC Operating Budget. The cost of the drone is $ 9,898.05 (HST at 15% included). The $3,270 for liability insurance coverage for the drone operations can be taken from the Shared Equipment budget for this fiscal year. In future fiscal years, the cost of the insurance will be included as ongoing operating cost. Environmental N/A. Strategic Plan Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility; Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services. 6 Request For D ecision Work Program Implications Requires ongoing resources from staff to implement and maintain the RPAS program OPTIONS 1. Approve the purchase of an RPAS (TJI Mavic 2 Enterprise Advanced drone and associated operating software) at a cost not to exceed $ 9,898.05 (HST at 15% included) Further, to fund the cost of liability insurance coverage for MOC and Fire Departments of $ 3,270 from the Shared Equipment budget and to direct staff to bud get for this as an ongoing operating cost. Drone assets will be available as may be required to all registered Fire Departments within the MOC in accordance with established operating procedures as agreed upon by the Fire Departments and the MOC. 2. Not proceed with the acquisition and operating costs of the RPAS (drone and operating software) and the initiation of the fire services drone program. ATTACHMENTS Quotation (Dr. Drone for Mavic 2 Enterprise) Excerpts of Minutes of LEFES Meeting of March 5 and July 15, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) Internal to staff on program implementation. External to MOC fire services. Appendix A Overview of RPAS Regulations Drone pilots must follow the rules in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Part IX – Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems. Pilots must respect the privacy rights of others when operating a drone as Trespassing and Privacy laws may apply. Pertinent highlights of these regulations include: General 1. Pilots need to be 14 years old to get a basic license and 16 years old to get an advanced license. 2. Drone pilots must carry a valid drone pilot certificate and only fly drones (greater than 250 grams in weight) that are marked and registered with Transport Canada 3. No pilot shall operate a RPAS unless the pilot or a visual observer always has the aircraft in visual line-of-sight during flight unless a special flight operations certificate has been issued. 7 Request For D ecision 4. No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled or restricted airspace without preapproval of any such proposed operations. 5. No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude greater than 400 feet or 100 feet above any building or structure if the aircraft is being operated at less than 200 feet from the building unless a special flight operations certificate has been issued. 6. No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft less than 100 feet from another person at any altitude. 7. No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the weather conditions at the time of flight permit the operation to be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions 8. No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system during the night unless the remotely piloted aircraft is equipped with position lights sufficient to allow the aircraft to be visible to the pilot and any visual observer. 9. No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system at any special aviation event or at any advertised event concert, festival, market or sporting event except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate 10. Every owner of a remotely piloted aircraft system shall keep the records of pilots and flights, equipment maintenance and modifications. Drone flights are generally classified into 3 operational categories. Basic Operations If you meet all 5 of these conditions, you're conducting basic operations: • You fly it in uncontrolled airspace • You fly it more than 30 meters (100 feet) horizontally from bystanders • You never fly it over bystanders • You fly it more than 3 nautical miles from a certified airport or a military aerodrome • You fly it more than 1 nautical mile from a certified heliport For basic operations, here are some of the rules you must follow: • Register your drone ($ 5.00) with Transport Canada before you fly it for the first t ime • Mark your drone with its registration number 8 Request For D ecision • Pass the Small Basic Exam and obtain a pilot certificate from Transport Canada. ($ 10.00 on line exam based on “Knowledge requirements for Pilots of RPAS (Transport Canada)” • Be able to show your Pilot Certificate – Basic Operations and proof of registration when you fly • Maintain certification. Every 24 months, Pilot Certificate holders must successfully complete a skills update e.g. retake the exam, complete a flight review, proof of ongoing training etc. Advanced Operations If you meet any 1 of these conditions, you are conducting advanced operations: • You want to fly in controlled airspace • You want to fly over bystanders • You want to fly within 30 m but not less than 5 m of bystanders (measured horizontally) at any altitude • You want to fly less than 3 nautical miles from a certified airport or a military aerodrome • You want to fly less than 1 nautical mile from a certified heliport For advanced operations, here are some of the rules you must follow: • As for basic operation the RPAS must be registered and marked with the registration number. • Have a drone with the appropriate safety declaration for the intended operation and flown within its operational limits • Pass the Small Advanced Exam ($ 10.00 on line exam based on “Knowledge requirements for Pilots of RPAS (Transport Canada)” Recommended that the applicant attend training at a recognized drone flight school. Courses are approximately $ 400 per student to prep for the exam. • Pass a flight review with a Transport Canada approved flight reviewer. This flight review is mandatory and normally included in the training from a recognized drone school. • Be able to show your Pilot Certificate – Advanced Operations and proof of registration when you fly your drone • Maintain certification. Every 24 months, Pilot Certificate holders must successfully complete a skills update eg retake the exam, complete a flight review, proof of ongoing training etc • Seek permission from air traffic control (NAV CANADA or the Department of National Defence) to fly in controlled airspace (request an RPAS Flight Authorization from NAV CANADA) Special Operations If you meet any 1 of these conditions, you are conducting special operations: 9 Request For D ecision • the operation of a system beyond visual line-of-sight • the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude greater 400 feet or 100 feet above any building if operating less than 200 feet from the building • the operation of more than five remotely piloted aircraft at a time from a single control station • the operation of a system at a special aviation event or at an advertised event • the operation of a system when the aircraft is transporting any of the payloads • the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft within three nautical miles of an aerodrome operated under the authority of the Minister of National Defense • any other operation of a system for which the Minister determines that a special flight operations certificate — RPAS is necessary to ensure aviation safety or the safety of any person. A certified pilot who proposes to operate a remotely piloted aircraft system for any special operation shall apply to the Minister for a special flight operations certificate — RPAS at least 30 working days before the date of the proposed operation: dates and times of the operation, purpose of the operation, equipment, safety and emergency plans, pilot’s certifications etc. Penalties If you fly a drone without meeting these requirements, you may be fined. Fines can be up to $5,000 per offense for commercial users. Excerpt from LEFES Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2021 Fire Services Drone Update – No further updates. Have price but that particular drone not available at present. Current price is at $10,000.00. Motion by Len Stevens, seconded by Bill Nauss to take the drone price to MODC for approval and purchase. Motion approved. Clary Coolen shared his dismay and opposition to purchase of drone. At this point Clary Coolen left the meeting. Excerpt from LEFES Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2021 Fire Services Drone Update – Presentation by George Kharma from HRFE regarding their Drone Program which has been in place since 2015. George developed it and trained 10 active drone operators within HRFE. He explained the type and quality of drones along-with the various features and benefits of same. He gave numerous examples of its use with photos and short videos. He made some recommendations for our benefit and made himself available for further consultation. After the presentation Lyle asked for further discussion. Everett wanted to revisit the motion to council for purchase of the drone. Brady suggested we hold off on the drone purchase for now as there are more pressing service issues outstanding in his opinion. Bruce reported that the $10,000.00 was held over from last year’s budget for a purchase this year. More money was added to the budget this year and purchase was supposed to be delayed until after the drone presentation as requested by LEFES. Everett then made a motion to proceed with purchase of the drone, seconded by Nancy H after Chris T suggested that departments vote now to make this purchase. (Note: Specific type of drone will be detailed later). After voting, motion passed unanimously with one vote for each fire department and commission present. No representation from Hubbards or Martins River. Bruce then questioned overseeing, maintenance, storage and training for the drone. Everett advised discussion has led to it being stored at Chester Basin Fire hall with Chris Tarbox already being a licensed operator. It will be available to all departments. There is also a licensed operator in Chester. Bruce to take info to MODC on behalf of LEFES. Anyone can challenge the licensing online. It is suggested that each department have 2-3 pilots or more. 2021.08.04 Quote No. 3141 To: Bruce Blackwood The Municipality Of Chester NS Quantity Unit Price Total 1 7,999.00$ 7,999.00$ 1 608.00$ 608.00$ 1 860.70$ FREE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Subtotal 8,607.00$ - Subtotal 8,607.00$ Sales Tax 15.000%1,291.05$ Shipping and Handling Free -$ Total Due 9,898.05$ Thank you for your business! Tel 1-844-373-7663 info@drdrone.ca 250 Baker Drive Suite 146 Dartmouth, NS, B2W 6L4 www.DrDrone.ca HST #821 319126 RT 0001 Description As the first Official DJI Store in Canada, DrDrone Inc has serviced and trained numerous government departments, commercial clients, and universities all across Canada. Technical support from our expertly trained technicians and engineers is included with every purchase. As an Authorized DJI Repair Center we are trained and certified by DJI to repair drones in-house so that clients receive fast and convenient maintenance and repair services. With our invaluable ongoing technical support after purchase and focus on providing the best customer service in the country, DrDrone Inc is the leading drone retail and repair center in Canada. Mavic 2 Enterprise Advanced Mavic 2 Enterprise Fly More Kit Ongoing Technical Support and Priority Service REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION Prepared By: Robin Kaizer Date August 20, 2021 Reviewed By: Christa Rafuse, P. Eng Date August 25, 2021 Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date September 10, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION The approved 2021-2022 Capital Budget included the Supply and Delivery of one (1) 4X4 ¾ ton truck. The budget for this project was estimated at $55,000, Net HST. Due to the changing market conditions, it’s anticipated the set budget amount may be exceeded. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the purchase of a new 2021 or newer 4X4 - ¾ ton truck to replace the existing 2014 4x4 - 2500 Dodge Ram, budget not to exceed $65,000 and awarded accordingly. BACKGROUND This truck will be used primarily for Infrastructure and Operations (IAO), Public Works staff to complete maintenance at various municipal properties as well as, operational activities such as emergency call outs, weekend wastewater checks and other duties as assigned. DISCUSSION An RFQ will be issued in September and posted for thirty (30) days. All submissions received will be reviewed by staff with complete evaluation based on the information /criteria submitted as outlined in the RFQ. IMPLICATIONS Policy Procurement would follow P-04, Procurement Policy. REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Infrastructure and Operations DATE: September 23, 2021 SUBJECT: Request for Decision RFQ MODC-T-2021-011, Supply and Delivery of one (1) 4X4 ¾ ton truck ORIGIN: 2021-2022 Capital Budget 2 Request For Decision (RFQ MODC-T-2019-009) Financial/Budgetary The capital budget for 2021-2022 included $55,000 from borrowing. However, with present market conditions we anticipate an increase in value. Therefore, we would add an additional $10,000 to the budget (not to exceed $65,000). Strategic Plan 1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility. 2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services. 3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses. Work Program Implications N/A REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION Prepared By: Chad Haughn, Director Community Development & Recreation Date September 16, 2021 Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date September 17, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION The provincial government, through the Department of Environment & Climate Change, is currently seeking feedback from municipalities related to the regulations that are being developed for the Coastal Protection Act. Information about the regulations has been circulated (see attached Part 1 & Part 2 documents) and several on-line sessions have been held in each region of the province over the past month. The consultation sessions provided an overview of the information (see attached presentation slides) and provided an opportunity for participants to ask questions and provide comments. Environment & Climate change have encouraged municipalities to submit a written response to the proposal by September 30, 2021. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council direct staff to submit a written response to Nova Scotia Environment & Climate Change outlining all comments, concerns, and suggestions related to the proposed Coastal Protection Act regulations. BACKGROUND Nova Scotia has 13,300 kilometers of coastline. Storm surges, coastal erosion, damage to ecosystems and effects of climate change are already being experienced and are expected to worsen over time. The provincial government passed the Coastal Protection Act in 2019 to mitigate these issues. A coastal protection zone has been created where the Act and regulations will apply. A minimum building elevation as well as a horizontal building setback have been created and the Municipality will need to ensure that building permits, development permits, and development agreements are compliant with the Act and the new setbacks. REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Chad Haughn, Community Development & Recreation Meeting DATE: September 16, 2021 SUBJECT: Coastal Protection Act Feedback ORIGIN: Coastal Protection Act Consultation 2 Information Report DISCUSSION Several staff have reviewed the information provided about the regulations and have attended the online consultations. Below is a summary of comments that staff would like to submit and any further comments from Council can be added: 1. The Municipality would like to see a copy of the draft regulations. Information circulated to date has been general in nature and has not included all pertinent details. 2. It should be made clear which provincial department has oversight and responsibility for the Coastal Protection Act (CPA) so that the public will know who to contact if there are questions about the legislation. 3. It is suggested that consultation be done with the Nova Scotia Building Officials Association since issuance of approvals under CPA sound as if they will be governed as part of the building permit process. 4. For properties close to the boundary of the Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ), particularly on the inland side, they will require a survey to determine if they are “in” or “out” of the CPZ. For those determined to be “outside” the CPZ they have now accrued additional survey expense with no tangible benefit to their property. This creates increased cost to a construction project. 5. The consultation slides indicate that the Municipality is responsible to and “may” reject a report prepared by a Designated Person (DP) to conduct the erosion assessment. If the Municipality rejects a report, who is responsible to pay for the second report? Also, it was unclear as to why and under what grounds a Municipality would reject a report. The Municipality would suggest that similar to how septic approvals work, we should be receiving a report and not be responsible to review and deem it acceptable or not. 6. Requiring Municipalities to keep records of the DP reports for 10 years is problematic. The retention date does not conform to others (ie. 7 years for finance). Storage space, accessing previous reports, FOIPOP and privacy issues are all concerns of record keeping. This is a very burdensome part of the CPA as proposed. 7. All mapping, online GIS and other features to accompany the CPA need to be released in advance for trial and training. IMPLICATIONS Policy NA Financial/Budgetary NA Environmental The Coastal Protection Act and regulations is intended to provide enhanced environmental protection in the coastal area of our community. Strategic Plan Goal #4: Will strengthen and support, environmental, cultural, and social resources. 3 Information Report Work Program Implications The Coastal Protection Act and regulations will need to be managed by building and planning & development staff. Every building and development application that falls within the Coastal Protection Zone will need to be assessed based on the new regulations, adding time to the review process. It is unknow at this point how many additional staff hours will be required for each review or the what the cumulative hours will be required over a year period. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _X__ No ___ N/A OPTIONS 1. Request that staff submit a written response to Environment & Climate Change outlining comments and concerns about the Coastal Protection Act regulations. 2. Do not provide any comments to Environment & Climate Change about the Coastal Protection Act regulations. ATTACHMENTS 1. Part 1 – Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations 2. Part 2 – A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations 3. Presentation Slides – Coastal Protection Act Regulations Consultation Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act RegulationsPART 1 1 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Introduction Living on waterfront property is a dream for many people. Now, more than ever, we need to plan for the effects of climate change and carefully consider the environment and the safety of our families, property, and business before we decide whether a coastal lot is suitable for development. The Government of Canada recently projected that sea level rise could exceed a meter by the end of this century along areas of Nova Scotia’s coast. On top of this we need to consider the possibility of storm surges that can temporarily increase water levels even more. Much of our coastline is also at increasing risk from coastal erosion. Finally, development in coastal areas can also cause harm to valuable ecosystems, such as beaches and salt marshes that provide fish and wildlife habitat and help absorb greenhouse gases and flood waters. While these problems are expected to worsen in the coming decades, some communities in Nova Scotia are already experiencing these effects of climate change.  To address these issues, the Nova Scotia government committed to introducing legislation to provide legal protection for our coast. Public consultation in 2018 helped shape the Coastal Protection Act, which passed in 2019. This legislation provides a framework for coastal protection and limiting development in at-risk areas, but the act does not take effect until regulations are developed that define how it will work. Legislation provides the authority and regulations contain the detail. It is not uncommon for regulatory changes to be required on occasion and it is easier to change regulations than legislation, which requires an act of the legislature. Since the Coastal Protection Act was passed, the Department of Environment and Climate Change has been developing regulations on how it will work. Regulations will affect what can be built and where in two ways: • on submerged Crown land along or below the high-water mark, the regulations will help ensure structures such as wharfs, boat slips, infilling and shoreline armouring are designed, constructed, and/or situated where disruption of valuable coastal ecosystems is minimized. • On private and public lands, the regulations will ensure construction that requires a building permit is located where it is less at risk from sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion (this includes homes, cottages, commercial or industrial buildings). 2 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations It is time to share the proposed regulations for public comment. This discussion document provides a general overview of the act and how the proposed regulations will work. At the end, you will find a few questions to help provide your thoughts. We are interested to hear about concerns, questions, or ideas you may have. Anyone looking for more detailed information on aspects of the proposed regulations, such as municipalities or those in professions that may be affected by the Coastal Protection Act, please see PART 2: A Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations and respond to the questions at the end of that document. 3 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Coastal Protection Act Nova Scotia’s 13,000 km of coastline includes huge regional differences in tides, valuable coastal ecosystems, estuaries, and islands. Low-lying flood-prone areas and ecologically valuable coastal wetlands lie between eroding bluffs and hills. Even coastal features that are safe from these risks can be near areas unsuitable for development. This makes our coastline complex, meaning no single rule can apply. The Coastal Protection Act is a framework for protecting our coast, recognizing its diversity. The Act will help ensure development and construction does not occur where it can unnecessarily disrupt coastal ecosystems or put structures at risk from coastal flooding and erosion. The Act will come into effect after regulations are approved by Executive Council (Cabinet). The Act does not apply to all buildings and structures. Public infrastructure and commercial or industrial operations that need direct access to the water are exempted, as are activities that are licensed or permitted under the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act, Marine Renewable Energy Act, Wilderness Areas Protection Act, and Special Places Protection Act. Construction in designated marshlands will need to meet the requirements of both the Coastal Protection Act and the Agricultural Marshland Conservation Act. The act does not apply to federal Crown land. The Coastal Protection Act and its regulations will not be the only laws protecting the coastal environment. Multiple regulations and policies at the federal, provincial, and municipal level are in place to protect marine water quality, habitat, wetlands, and watercourses. The new regulations will focus on areas where gaps exist, rather than duplicate provisions already in place. 4 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Proposed Regulations The following sections describe the measures government proposes to include in the regulations. The Coastal Protection Zone The regulations will create a Coastal Protection Zone. New rules about where structures and buildings may be built will apply inside the zone. The zone will be a narrow band surrounding the province’s coast, including land and water-covered areas on either side of the high-water mark. The Coastal Protection Zone will reach inland a set distance from the high-water mark. Government is proposing that this distance be between 80 to 100 meters, although it is not finalized. This distance is not the same as a setback and does not necessarily mean that construction can’t take place. It means that certain regulations apply to what and where you can build, modify or expand a structure, such as a house or building. Nova Scotia faces serious coastal erosion problems. Some areas of our coast are almost immune to coastal erosion, while others experience more than a meter a year. Along with annual erosion and sea level rise, we need to think about the future when creating regulations. To be consistent with typical flood mapping initiatives, we are proposing to look 80 years ahead to the end of the century. This period is our planning horizon. As part of developing the regulations, an erosion assessment tool developed for use by designated professionals was tested at 27 sites around the province. The results indicate a range of possible erosion scenarios, from almost no erosion to over 100 meters over the 80 year planning horizon, depending on the conditions at the site. Building inside the upland boundary of the Coastal Protection Zone triggers the requirement for an erosion assessment. The Coastal Protection Zone therefore needs to be wide enough to accommodate safe setbacks for a wide range of circumstances. The zone is also the area where the minimum building elevation will apply. It is important to provide a band of protection where development is high enough above the water levels expected during the 80-year planning horizon. On the seaward side of the high-water mark, the regulations will not specify an exact boundary. Rather, our focus is on areas where the provincial Crown Lands Act and the Beaches Act apply. The Coastal Protection Zone will include the areas around and on coastal islands, and parts of rivers connected to coastal waters and estuaries, including the Bras d’Or Lake. Regulations will identify how the Coastal Protection Zone boundary is applied along these rivers and in other areas, such as barrier beaches that separate beaches from ponds and lakes immediately next to the coast. 5 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Coastal Protection Act Regulations for Building Locations The regulations will set new rules that apply to municipal building permits for construction within the Coastal Protection Zone. These rules will help ensure that construction of new buildings or homes, or expansion of existing ones, is happening where it is safer from sea level rise, weather events and coastal erosion. The regulations will include two types of setbacks: • Minimum Building Elevations: The regulations will create province- wide vertical setbacks, to be known as minimum building elevations, within the Coastal Protection Zone. Some municipalities already have this type of vertical setback to protect against flooding. The exact height of the setbacks has not been finalized, but we recognize they must provide reasonable protection against sea level rise over the 80-year planning horizon. The minimum building elevation will also include an additional margin for storm surge. The province will produce digital maps to make it easier to determine whether a proposed construction location is above the minimum building elevation for each area of the coast. Municipalities must ensure that construction of a new home or building or an expansion of an existing structure will occur above the minimum building elevation before approving a building permit. • Site-specific Horizontal Setback: This is a horizontal setback from the high-water mark. It applies when a property owner intends to build a new structure or expand an existing one within the Coastal Protection Zone. The setback will be determined by a designated professional hired by the landowner. The designated professional will certify the setback in a report for landowners. This report will be required when applying for a municipal building permit (or development permit or development agreement) for construction in the Coastal Protection Zone. Designated professionals will use a standardized risk assessment tool provided by the province to calculate the setback and generate a report. The recommended setback represents the minimum allowed horizontal distance between the proposed structure and the high-water mark. The horizontal setback determined by the designated professional will not extend further inland than the boundary of the Coastal Protection Zone. The regulations may exempt the requirement for a horizontal setback in some areas. Designated professionals will need to be a member in good standing of a professional body identified in the regulations. The definition of who can be a designated professional under the regulations is being explored with professional associations recognized as self-regulating professional bodies under provincial law. 6 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Repair and maintenance of existing structures will generally be unaffected by both the vertical and horizontal setbacks unless construction increases the size of the structure’s existing footprint or increases its internal volume. Regulations for Wharves, Boat Ramps, and Other Structures In the area that starts at the high-water mark and extends into the water, the regulations will focus on protecting coastal ecosystems and their ecological functions. Coastal ecosystems provide fish and wildlife habitat, filter excess nutrients from run-off before they reach the ocean, absorb flood waters, protect inland areas against wave action and store carbon in this era when reducing CO2 concentrations is particularly important. Wharves, boat ramps and structures that stabilize the shoreline (such as breakwaters, seawalls, revetments, riprap and armour stone) can disrupt sensitive coastal ecosystems. Regulations will restrict works and construction that may interfere with the dynamic nature of the coast or disrupt these sensitive coastal ecosystems. New requirements will be established for permits to build or modify structures along or below the high-water mark that is on Crown land or on land designated under the Beaches Act. The regulations will: • ensure new wharfs, boat ramps and similar structures are built using cribwork that minimizes disruption of normal sediment transport and habitat connectivity; • prohibit the use of pressurized lumber where it contacts the water; and • restrict in-filling and stabilization work on Crown land below the high-water mark, such as shoreline armouring, unless it is needed to protect existing structures from coastal erosion or when necessary for wharf footings. Exemptions will apply to permitted projects and activities undertaken to conserve or improve ecosystem function, such as fish ladders and saltmarsh restoration. 7 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Putting the Coastal Protection Act into Effect Administration The Coastal Protection Act regulations are being designed to work through existing permitting and compliance processes at provincial and municipal levels of government. For structures and works along or below the high-water mark on provincial Crown land or land designated under the Beaches Act, such as wharves, infilling or shoreline armouring, landowners will continue to apply for permits through the Department of Lands and Forestry under the Crown Lands Act and/or the Beaches Act. Landowners are responsible for ensuring their applications comply with the Coastal Protection Act and its regulations. Applications not in compliance will not receive a permit. Conservation officers will continue to enforce the acts as they do now. Where necessary, Conservation Officers will investigate whether construction activity is properly permitted and consistent with the permit, and take enforcement action when warranted. Some changes to existing municipal processes will be needed to incorporate the new requirements for construction within the Coastal Protection Zone, but the regulations are being developed to keep these to a minimum. The main changes are that municipalities will have to determine whether: • a proposed construction location is within the Coastal Protection Zone and, if so, if it is above the minimum building elevation and upland of the setback as per the designated professional’s report; and, • the designated professional is a member in good standing of their professional organization. Municipalities will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the terms of the building or development permit, as they are now. The Coastal Protection Act requirements for the most part will be related to the location of the proposed construction. A municipality will need to determine the location of the proposed construction from a plot plan provided by the landowner, or from a location certificate from a professional land surveyor. These documents are often already required by municipalities a part of their permit processes. No new powers or authorities for government inspection or enforcement staff are expected because the act works through existing legislation. If a landowner violates the Coastal Protection Acct, they will have also violated other legislation and be subject to enforcement under those acts. 8 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Mapping Tools Recognizing that the zone boundaries and minimum building elevations are complex and maybe difficult to visualize, we are exploring opportunities for developing digital map resources to help interpret the regulations and provide guidance. Training/Building Awareness Part of the planning for implementing the Coastal Protection Act regulations includes training. Groups with a specific role in implementing the regulations include Designated professionals and municipal officials who issue permits that need to comply with the act. Designated professionals will need to understand their role and responsibilities and how to properly complete the erosion risk assessment. Municipal officials will require support to help them determine whether a building permit or development permit is subject to and compliant with the act. All Nova Scotians, whether they live on the coast or further inland, have an interest in making sure coastal development is not at risk from flooding and erosion and does not damage valuable ecosystems. Those most directly impacted will be those planning to build on, or buy or sell, coastal property, and those in occupations and professions involved in those transactions. In addition to building public understanding and awareness, we will work with occupations and professions who require a detailed understanding of how the act and regulations work, such as those involved in planning or executing property transactions; planning for construction near the coast, and undertaking valuation, land use planning or subdivision activities. We will work through professional associations, relevant provincial and municipal government offices, and other organizations to ensure those who need to be aware of the Coastal Protection Act and regulations understand the new requirements as early as possible. 9 PART 1 Overview of Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations We’d Like to Hear From You! To help get the public discussion started, we have developed some questions to consider. Please feel free to answer the questions or provide any thoughts you want to share on the proposed regulations. 1. In your opinion, will the proposed regulations provide appropriate additional protection for coastal ecosystems? Why or why not? 2. Will the proposed regulations be effective in preventing development in areas at risk from sea level rise and coastal erosion? Why or why not? 3. The Coastal Protection Zone will be a band around the entire coast where the regulations apply. This is not a setback, but it is the area where minimum building elevations will apply and where landowners will need to hire a designated professional to check for erosion risks before they can get a building permit. Do you agree the Coastal Protection Zone should extend somewhere in the range of 80 to 100 metres inland from the high-water mark? Why or why not? 4. Are there any parts of the proposed regulations that you think are too restrictive?  If so, which ones and why? 5. Are there any parts of the proposed regulations that are not restrictive enough? If so, which ones and why? 6. What can government do to ensure people have the information they need about the Coastal Protection Act and Regulations when planning construction on the coast? 7. Do you have any further thoughts you would like to share to help us write the final regulations? A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act RegulationsPART 2 1 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Introduction This document is designed to help those who need a more detailed look at the proposed Coastal Protection Act regulations. This could include municipal officials, members of professions designated to perform erosion assessments under the Act, and those involved in construction or property purchase, sale or subdivision of coastal lands. We also encourage anyone who may be interested in or impacted by the Act to read this document and share their thoughts with us. We have included a few questions at the end to help people respond to this consultation . The following sections outline government’s proposed approach and are intended for discussion purposes only. All content is subject to change. 2 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Coastal Protection Zone Regulations will identify the area included in the Coastal Protection Zone, where the Act and regulations will apply. The Coastal Protection Zone will be a narrow band surrounding the province’s coast, including land and water-covered areas on either side of the ordinary high-water mark. This zone will include islands, major tidal rivers where they near the ocean, and other estuaries that are directly connected to coastal waters. The Coastal Protection Zone includes both public and private lands and may overlap with lands designated under other Acts, such as the Agricultural Marshlands Conservation Act and the Special Places Protection Act. In these areas, the Coastal Protection Act provides exemptions to avoid interference with the intent of existing legislation. The Coastal Protection Zone does not include federal Crown lands. 3 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations How the Regulations will Apply in the Coastal Protection Zone The Coastal Protection Zone boundaries will be identified using the high-water mark (which may be set out in regulations as the ordinary high-water mark, or similar reference line approximating water levels at high tide). The area that starts at the high-water mark and extends inland, in most cases, will be called the “upland” area of the zone. The width of the upland area has not yet been finalized, but government is proposing it be in the range of 80 to 100 meters. Within this area, municipalities will need to ensure building permits and construction are compliant with two new setbacks: the minimum building elevation for different regions of the coast; and a horizontal building setback determined for the specific property by a Designated Professional, as defined under the regulations. For the area that starts at the high-water mark and extends seaward, the Coastal Protection Zone boundary will not be specified. Within this zone, regulations will apply to wharfs, jetties, seawalls, groynes, in-filing, shoreline armouring and similar structures, and will be administered using existing permitting processes administered by the Department of Lands and Forestry for areas where the Crown Lands Act and Beaches Act apply. Coastal Protection Zone Upland Boundary The upland boundary will be a line that follows the coastline at a set distance upland from the closest point on the high-water mark. Two types of naturally occurring shorelines need to be considered when setting the Coastal Protection Zone boundary to the coast - barrier beach areas and estuaries (tidal rivers that meet the sea and, in this case, include the Bras d’Or Lake). Our proposed approached for the boundary in these areas is outlined here. 4 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Coastal Protection Zone boundaries in Areas with Barrier Beaches Barrier beaches are typically thin beaches that separate ocean waters from pond or lakes. While barrier beaches often shelter the inland water, they are prone to shifting and are often breached by ocean waters, either gradually or suddenly due to a storm. When breached, the pond or lake becomes connected to the ocean. As a result, the freshwater of the pond turns salty, and the shoreline that was previously protected is now at risk from coastal erosion and sea level rise. Where part of a pond or lake behind a barrier beach is within the Coastal Protection Zone, the upland boundary will extend further inland to include the land adjacent to it. In these areas, regulations will specify that the upland boundary will be: • a set distance to the nearest point on the Ordinary high-water mark on the ocean side of the beach (proposed to be within the range of 80 to 100 meters); and • no closer than a set distance from the ordinary high-water mark of the pond or lake behind a barrier beach (proposed to be within the range of range 80 to 100 meters). It may be possible to build within this part of the Coastal Protection Zone, if the vertical and horizontal setback requirements are met, except on the barrier beach itself. Barrier beaches are generally too dynamic to safely allow development. Coastal Protection Zone in Estuaries Estuaries are areas where rivers meet the sea and freshwater mixes with salt water. The Act includes estuaries as part of the coast. Houses and buildings along the banks of an estuary often face the same risks as properties facing open ocean, including sea level rise, storm surge and erosion. At the same time, many rivers in Nova Scotia extend tens of kilometers inland and well away from what many people would consider to be the coast. While there are several criteria (for example, salinity or tidal influence) that could be used to approximate where an estuary turns into an inland watercourse, none are practical ways of determining exactly where the Coastal Protection Zone should end along a river. Instead, government is proposing that the regulations rely on one of two methods to determine the boundary. Both methods can be consistently determined and displayed with digital mapping tools. 1. Size criteria that combine the width and/or inland extent of a river. The inland extent of the Coastal Protection Zone would be where the banks of an estuary narrow to a specified width, or the river has reached a specified distance inland. These criteria can be determined and displayed on a digital map layer and work for large and small rivers. The province is currently exploring various combinations of river widths and upstream distances to determine a best- fit approach that can be consistently applied across the province. 5 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations We expect it will be possible to provide map coordinates to identify precisely where the Coastal Protection Zone ends on major estuaries. This will not be practical for smaller rivers because of their number. In these cases, municipalities may choose to rely on provincial visual mapping aids to determine where the zone ends. Disputes over the precise location of the zone boundaries could be resolved by a professional land surveyor based on the definitions in the regulations. 2. Ending the inland reach of the zone on a river where it meets an area where an existing municipal land-use bylaw applies that includes vertical setbacks that address sea level rise and flooding for the planning horizon of 80 years, and any other restrictions required to be consistent with the Statement of Provincial Interest on Flooding. Boundary Along Water Control Structures In areas where the shoreline is formed by human-built structures designed to restrict or prevent the upstream or inland flow of water, such as a dam, roll-over dam, or aboiteau, the seaward side of the structure will be taken as the ordinary high-water mark for setting the upland boundary. The body of water on the upstream side of the structure would not be included in the Coastal Protection Zone because water levels and flow on this side of the water control structure are generally under human control. A possible exception to this rule is the canal lock at St. Peters that connects the ocean to the Bras d’Or Lake, as there are other connections to ocean waters. A causeway would be considered a water control structure if it includes a means to restrict or prevent the inland flow of ocean waters. A bridge that is not designed to restrict the flow of water would not be considered a water control structure. Coastal Protection Zone in Map or Graphic Form Provincially produced maps to display the approximate boundaries of the zone and related information are for general guidance only. If information on a map differs from the written regulations, the written regulations are correct. 6 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Coastal Protection Regulations and Municipal Building Permits The proposed regulations will add new requirements for building permits, development permits and development agreements within the zone. It is the responsibility of municipalities to ensure that permits comply with the Coastal Protection Act. This will include whether the Act applies to the proposed construction and ensures the site is compliant with the minimum building elevation and horizontal setback certified in the Designated Professional’s report. Structures Covered by the Act Requirements for building permits within the zone apply to houses, cottages and commercial or industrial buildings, with some exceptions. This will include public infrastructure and commercial or industrial structures that need to be located at the shoreline. Other proposed exemptions being considered include: • trailers or mobile homes that are designed for frequent transport; • boathouses, detached garages, or outbuildings that are intended for storage or similar uses and do not have water service, plumbing, living quarters or similar amenities, and • decks, gazebos or similar structures, regardless of whether it requires a permit. Approval of a Building Permit in the Coastal Protection Zone Unless an exemption applies, municipalities are required to do the following before a building permit is approved or issued for construction within the Coastal Protection Zone: • receive the designated professional’s report stating the minimum horizontal setback distance from the high-water mark, • receive a plot plan or a professional land surveyor’s location certificate that identifies: —minimum building elevation (includes the structure and its footings) —minimum horizontal setback distance, as defined by the designated professional Permits will not be issued for construction of living spaces in structures built below the high-water mark (such as on wharves or similar structures). 7 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Modification and Repair of Existing Structures Applications for municipal building permits that increase the footprint of a building or increase its internal living space will need to meet the new requirements. A municipality will not be allowed to issue a building permit that includes creation or conversion of existing space to residential in a structure that is located below the minimum building elevation. Modifications that do not increase the footprint of its foundation or internal living space are exempted, as is work limited to improving a structure’s strength or resistance to damage from flooding (such as increasing the height of the foundation walls to raise the existing living space to reduce the risk of flood damage). Relocation of Existing Structures If a landowner proposes to move an existing permanent structure inside the zone, it is considered construction and the Act still applies. If the structure was already located inside the zone, the structure may be moved to a location where the elevation is the same or greater height from the high- water mark. In this case, a municipality may exempt the landowner from supplying a designated professional’s report. Modified Requirements for Developed Downtown Waterfronts Many waterfront areas along the coast are important economic and public centers for municipalities and communities. To preserve the economic potential and character of an existing developed waterfront that provides public amenities and mixed-use commercial/ residential space, it is proposed that some regulations be modified for specific types of structures within these areas. We are currently exploring definitions for these areas to avoid putting any more structures at risk from flooding due to sea level rise. A possible definition could be, “developed downtown waterfront areas as dominated by mixed-use structures with a public amenity or multi- unit residential component where there are no gaps of greater than 75 meters between existing mixed-use structures, or where the area was zoned for commercial, mixed use or equivalent prior to the Act coming into effect”. 8 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Municipal building permits for construction of commercial or mixed-use, or food-service or similar public amenities in the zone could be exempted from a site-specific horizontal setback and the requirement for a designated professional’s report. Some elements of the minimum building elevation rules would still apply to reduce the risk from sea level rise and coastal flooding, including that no residential part of: • a new structure can be below the minimum building elevation, or • an existing structure being modified can be below the minimum building elevation. The proposed modified provisions for developed downtown waterfront areas would not apply to construction or a new or expanded single or semi-detached residence. For these, all provisions of the Act and regulations would apply and the entire structure must be located above the minimum building elevation, a designated professional’s report must be completed and the horizontal building setback certified by the designated professional will apply. Permit and Agreement Administration Existing building permits that have not expired before the date the Act comes into effect will be exempted for the duration of the remainder of the permit. Any extensions or amendments to a building permit initiated after that time are subject to the Act. The period for which the permit is valid, including any extensions, must not exceed two years from the date on which the original building permit was issued, or two years from the date the Act came into effect. Municipalities will not be able to issue a development permit or enter into a development agreement that has the effect of exempting a landowner or developer from the Act. Subdivision of Lots If a designated professional certifies a horizontal setback for an area that covers several PIDs, or an area was subdivided after the initial report was completed, the report may be accepted by the municipality for the areas included. When a landowner applies to subdivide lots that include areas inside the zone, a municipality must inform them about the Act and regulations and how it may impact their development plans. 9 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Acceptance of Reports by a Municipality The following provisions are proposed around the acceptance and administration by municipalities of reports by designated professionals: • a municipality can accept a designated professional’s report that is signed by a qualified designated professional; • a municipality may accept a designated professional’s report that was issued to a landowner other than the current landowner; • if a landowner or building proponent provides more than one report by from different designated professionals for the same proposed building location, the municipality may accept the one chosen by the landowner provided it meets all requirements; • municipalities must refuse a designated professional’s report if, in the opinion of the municipality: a) the designated professional is not qualified to provide the report; b) the information and/or specified setback in the report is incomplete or inconsistent with the relevant conditions on the site (for example, the height or slope of a bluff appears to be misstated), c) the methodology prescribed in the regulations for determining and certifying the site-specific horizontal setback was not followed; or, d) Conditions at the proposed building location have changed since the date the field work for the erosion risk assessment was conducted. A municipality will be required to retain a copy of a designated professional’s report for 10 years from the date the report was signed. A municipality will make any or all reports available to the provincial department administering the Act, upon request. Ensuring Compliance Once a building permit is issued, a municipality is responsible for ensuring the construction is compliant with the permit, including the new Coastal Protection Act and regulations, in the normal manner. This may include building inspectors verifying that a new structure, or one being expanded, is located where the plot plan or location certificate indicates. 10 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Determining Building Setbacks The regulations include two types of setbacks within most areas of the zone to reduce risks for future development. Vertical setbacks, called minimum building elevations, will help reduce risks from coastal flooding and will be determined by the province for different regions of the coast. Site-specific horizontal setbacks are designed to avoid erosion risks and will be determined for a specific property when a landowner wants to build within the zone. Minimum Building Elevation Some Nova Scotian municipalities are already preparing for climate change by including vertical building setbacks in their land-use bylaws. The Coastal Protection Act will create a province-wide set of vertical building setbacks known as minimum building elevations to cover all areas of the coast. Regulations will set out minimum building elevations for all areas of the coast as a vertical height above mean sea level in meters to the nearest 20 centimetres. The mean sea level will likely be identified as an established geodetic datum, possibly Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum 2013 (CGVD2013). Where a municipality uses a different vertical datum in their planning documents, the municipality is responsible for converting elevations to the datum set out in the regulations. Because the minimum building elevations will be measured from mean sea level, they will be adjusted for local tides, which vary around the coast, especially in the Bay of Fundy and Minas Basin areas. Regulations will divide the coast into sections (using map coordinates, with visual maps for general guidance) and will assign a minimum building elevation for each section. The minimum building elevation for islands will be taken from the minimum building elevation on the nearest section of the coast on the mainland. 11 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations We are currently developing a schedule of minimum building elevations that will incorporate the latest relative sea level rise projections released by Natural Resources Canada in early 2021 and a more generalized additional margin of safety for storm surge. How will municipalities and landowners know if a proposed building location is above the required minimum building elevation? We are developing map resources to help interpret the regulations. These may include contour lines for the minimum building elevations for each coastal section, illustrating what parts of properties are above and below the minimum building elevation for that part of the coast. Mapping resources are intended only to provide general guidance. If there is a difference in the location of the segment boundaries on a map and the coordinates or minimum building elevation set out in regulations, the written form in the regulations will be taken as correct. In some cases, a landowner or municipality may wish to rely on professional land survey (at the landowner’s cost) to resolve any uncertainty. If there is a difference in an elevation determined from a map and an elevation determined by a licensed land surveyor, the elevation determined by the surveyor shall be taken as correct. Determining the Horizontal Building Setback The Act and regulations will use a system of site-specific horizontal building setbacks to ensure new construction is located where it is safer from coastal erosion throughout an 80-year planning horizon. The risk of erosion can vary significantly, even between neighbouring properties. This makes it impractical to set “blanket” setback distances for large areas of the coast. The proposed regulations will require the designated professional to use a specific analytical tool to determine the horizontal building setback for a given property. The setback determined by the designated professional represents the minimum allowed horizontal distance between the proposed structure and the high-water mark. Although the assessment tool might produce a setback that extends farther upland than the boundary of the zone, the upland boundary of the zone will be the maximum horizontal setback possible under the regulations. The method a designated professional will use to determine the horizontal building setback for a specific property is being developed to ensure that it is affordable to landowners. It also needs to be readily usable for a range of professionals designated under the Act. The final design of the tool will ensure designated professionals can produce consistent results based on various combinations of erosion risk factors that appear anywhere on Nova Scotia’s coast. 12 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations We will make resources available online to assist designated professionals in determining horizontal setbacks, including: • an assessment tool that will calculate the horizontal setback, in spreadsheet format; • instructions and training resources to guide designated professionals during site assessments, and • a template for the report. A designated professional will visit the proposed building lot, measure distances, angles and slopes to capture the shoreline profile; record information about materials within any beach areas; test the hardness of bluffs or rock faces, and record any other information required for the assessment tool. The designated professional will refer to maps to determine the amount of open water in front of a property, which the tool uses to estimate how wave energy impacts the shoreline. The designated professional will also take photographs of the site to include in the report. Designated Professionals will enter measurements and observations collected at the site and from public maps into the spreadsheet. Formulas built into the spreadsheet will project how far inland the shoreline could shift over the planning horizon, which is proposed to be 80 years. These projections incorporate risks related to sea level rise, the erodibility of the material and the amount of wave energy it could be exposed to, and the height and slope of bluffs and or rock faces along the shoreline. The distance the tool calculates is the horizontal building setback for the property that the designated professional then certifies in their Report. 13 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Designated Professionals A landowner seeking a building permit to construct a new structure or expand an existing structure in the zone will need to hire a designated professional to assess the coastal erosion risks at the proposed site and determine the site-specific horizontal building setback that will apply to the property. The result will be provided in a report, which landowners must provide to municipalities when applying for a building permit for construction within the zone. The erosion assessment tool proposed by the province is designed to be a general risk assessment tool that can be used by a variety of professions. We are currently exploring the possibility for designation with specific self-regulating professional bodies that are governed by legislation. The professional bodies qualified to be designated professionals will be set out in the regulations. Role and Qualifications of the Designated Professional The designated professionals’ role will be to: • provide independent professional judgement free from bias in completing the report. • perform an erosion risk assessment at the property, using the specified method and analytical tool; • determine horizontal setback distance; • provide the designated professional’s report certifying the horizontal setback to the landowner, and • maintain records, as required by regulations. A designated professional must be: • a member in good standing with their professional organization, • acting within their abilities and experience, skills and/or training to carry out the assessment and complete the report as per the regulations. 14 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations The designated professional’s responsibility under the Act is specific: to certify that they are qualified, the property has been assessed in accordance with the erosion risk assessment methodology, and that the resulting horizontal building setback has been established in accordance with the regulations. A designated professional’s report is meant to reduce risk and is not a guarantee of safety of the building location against coastal erosion. Designated professionals will be required to self-declare as being qualified and a member in good standing of their professional body. Laws governing their respective professional bodies and scope of practice will apply. A designated professional (or their employer) will maintain professional liability insurance that is valid at the time of the assessment as well as continues if the insured becomes bankrupt or insolvent, is declared incompetent or dies during the period of insurance. The coverage must continue for two years after the date the person ceases as a designated professional. A designated professional will be required to produce proof of their qualification and insurance if a municipality or the province requests it. Responsibilities Regarding Site Assessment Designated Professionals will sometimes be hired to assess large lots that may exhibit considerable variation in geological and topographical conditions within the property boundaries. Variations in erosion risk factors can significantly change the horizontal setback. The designated professional will be required to check for significant variations in conditions, such as: • exposure to wave energy; • geological composition of the foreshore, backshore, bluff, bank, or rock face; • angle, elevation or width of the foreshore, backshore, buff, bank, or rock face in the area being assessed. Where these varied conditions are present within the area being assessed, designated professionals must do one of the following: 1. conduct multiple assessments using the prescribed method to determine the appropriate horizontal setback for each area, including diagram in the report that clearly indicates where the setback applies. 2. limit the report to an area smaller than the lot being assessed and provide a diagram attached to the report clearly indicating the area where the site- specific horizontal setback applies. 3. determine what is likely to be the most erosion prone area, perform the assessment with the prescribed tool and certify the setback for the entire property. 15 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Information to be Included in the Report The designated professional’s report may apply to a single lot, a portion of a lot, or multiple lots. It may apply to a portion of a lot if the owner requests it or if the designated professional has determined that conditions are not sufficiently consistent throughout to allow for a single assessment, such as a large lost that includes more than one type of shoreline. If a designated professional’s report applies only to a portion of a property associated with a PID, the report must include a diagram indicating the area for which the setback applies. A report may apply to multiple lots with multiple PIDs if: 1. the lots share common boundaries; 2. the designated professional has determined that erosion risk assessment factors are consistent throughout the area within which the setback applies and do not include material variations in exposure to wave energy; geological composition of the foreshore, backshore, bluff, bank or rock face being assessed; or variations in slope angle or elevation in the area being assessed; and, 3. the common setback applicable to all lots reflects the greatest horizontal setback distance (and therefore the highest erosion risk level) for the properties to which the report applies. Form and Certification of the Report The province is currently developing a template for the report that will be accessible online. It will clearly articulate the information presented and certified. By signing the report, the designated professional will be certifying: 1. the horizontal setback, in meters from the high-water mark, that applies to the area covered in the report. 2. they are qualified under the regulations. 3. the assessment was completed in the prescribed manner. The report will be valid for 10 years from the date it is signed by the designated professional. It is important for all parties – landowner, municipalities, realtors, developers, and designated professionals – to recognize the horizontal setback is a generalized risk management tool. It is not a guarantee that a structure will be safe from coastal erosion. 16 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Additional Assessment to Override a Report The Costal Protection Act’s horizontal setbacks are based on surface observations and measurements of the shoreline profile and geologic material to provide a consistent, risk-managed horizontal setback based on the precautionary principle. We are exploring whether evidence-based adjustments to the setback produced by the erosion assessment tool should be permitted. Any allowable revisions to a designated professional report would be limited to improvements to the accuracy of the inputs for the assessment tool, and not on varying the assumptions, decision rules or calculations that are incorporated into the tool’s calculations. For example, a landowner may wish to hire a professional, such as a geotechnical engineer or geologist, to undertake additional investigation to determine if harder geological material is present beneath a thin layer of loose sediment visible at the surface in order to update that particular input parameter to the erosion assessment tool. This could also apply to more precise measurement of the distances, slopes and angles that are also required as inputs. Consideration is being given to what processes and conditions would need to exist to ensure additional studies that over-ride the original erosion assessment result would not undermine the intention of the regulations or place undue burden on municipal officials. 17 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations Protecting Coastal Ecosystems Coastal ecosystems provide fish and wildlife habitat, filter excess nutrients from run-off before they reach the ocean, absorb flood waters, protect inland areas against wave action and store carbon in this era when reducing CO2 concentrations is particularly important. The proposed approach is designed to balance environmental protection with the need to protected existing legally located structures from erosion risk. Wharves, boat ramps and structures that stabilize the shoreline (such as breakwaters, seawalls, revetments, rip-rap and armour stone) can disrupt sensitive coastal ecosystems and their ability to adapt to natural processes. Regulations will restrict or limit works and construction that may interfere with the dynamic nature of the coast or disrupt sensitive coastal ecosystems. To do this, requirements will be outlined that apply to permits to build or modify structures or earth works on Crown land below the high-water mark or on designated beaches. The new requirements will be incorporated into existing permitting processes currently administered by the Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry, and additional policies and conditions required by that department will also continue to apply. Landowners will not need to apply for any additional permits. Regulations will ensure that wharves, boat ramps and other structures are designed, constructed and located to allow natural shoreline movement and protect sensitive coastal ecosystems. Shoreline armouring, which by its nature disrupts movement of the shoreline and in some cases may accelerate erosion, will only be allowed on Crown land seaward of the high-water mark when needed to protect an existing structure from risk. Hard structures that are intended to trap sand to create a beach for recreation. The Act and regulations will help ensure people are less likely to build in areas that will require shoreline armouring over the planning horizon. For boat ramps, wharves and other similar structures, the regulations will: • allow for maintenance of existing structures, as long as the work does not use pressurized lumber or other toxic materials; • permit construction of new structures or expansion of existing structures as long as new section(s) are built using open cribwork to minimize disruption of normal sediment transport and habitat connectivity, and no toxic materials including pressurized lumber are used or come into contact with the water. 18 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations For in-filling and shoreline stabilization (including shoreline armouring), the regulations will: • prohibit in-filling on Crown land or on beaches designated under the Beaches Act on the seaward side of the high- water mark, except when used to anchor a footing of a wharf, boat ramp or similar structure; • prohibit installation of shoreline stabilization on Crown land below the high-water mark, including new or expanded shoreline armouring, unless it is needed to protect an existing home, cottage, business, or similar structure that is at risk from coastal erosion and was located within the Coastal Protection Zone prior to the date the Act came into effect; • allow for maintenance of existing, legal shoreline stabilization structures, and • prohibit installation of groynes or breakwaters that disrupt along-shore sediment transport, unless they are required to protect the entrance of a publicly-accessible harbour, dock, or marina, or are needed to protect public infrastructure. These restrictions do not apply to permitted projects or activities undertaken to conserve or improve ecosystem function. In some areas, the zone will overlap with dyke lands designated under the Agricultural Marshlands Conservation Act. The regulations will place no new restrictions on work to maintain, repair or modify any element of the dyke system in areas undertaken by, or on behalf of, either a marsh body or the province. Also exempted are works within the Coastal Protection Zone required to anchor a designated dyke system to higher ground that may extend outside of the area designated under the Agricultural Marshlands Conservation Act. Any proposed activity or construction in the designated marshlands will need to meet the requirements of both the Coastal Protection Act and the Agricultural Marshland Conservation Act. Compliance The proposed approach is for no new application processes on Crown land along the high-water mark or in an area designated as a protected beach. Landowners and contractors working in these areas will apply for permits as they do now. Permits will not be issued if the proposed structure does not comply with the Act. Conservation officers, who are responsible for enforcing the Crown Lands Act and the Beaches Act, will determine whether work undertaken is consistent with the issued permits and investigate where necessary. 19 PART 2 A Detailed Guide to Proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations We want to hear from You! The Coastal Protection Act Regulations will be a new and substantial step forward in mitigating risks to our coastal environment and construction in these areas. As we continue to develop these regulations, please share your thoughts so we can ensure the regulations are as effective and practical as possible. These questions are designed to help you in providing feedback in any form that is convenient for you. 1. The regulations will create a Coastal Protection Zone that will extend inland from the high-water mark by a set distance. Government is proposing this distance be in the range of 80 to 100 meters. This is not a setback but will be the area within which a minimum building elevation would apply and where a landowner would need to hire a designated professional to assess erosion risk. Thinking about sea level rise, coastal flooding and the range of coastal erosion risks facing areas of Nova Scotia’s coast, do you think this distance is appropriate to provide the margin of safety we need in future decades? Is it too wide? Too narrow? 2. Are the proposed role and responsibilities of designated professionals appropriate and clear? What changes would you like to see in the role or responsibilities of delegated professionals? 3. Do the types of structures to which the regulations apply seem reasonable? Do the proposed exemptions make sense? 4. Do the proposed regulations for building and maintenance of shoreline structures, such as shoreline armouring, make sense to you? Will they help protect our sensitive coastal ecosystems? Are they too restrictive, and if so, why? 5. What are the most important things government can do to make sure introduction of these regulations is as smooth as possible? 6. Do you have any further thoughts you would like to share to help us as we finalize the regulations? Coastal Protection Act: Proposed Regulations CONSULTATION SESSIONS WITH NOVA SCOTIA MUNICIPALITIES AUGUST 15TH –SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2021 ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 2 Your input will help refine our approach to the Coastal Protection Act regulations. The content of the consultation documents and this presentation pertaining to regulations is for the purpose of public consultation and is subject to change. Regulations must be approved by Governor in Council. Who we’re engaging with: All Nova Scotians Municipalities Formal Terms of Reference Consultation with the Mi’kmaq and outreach to indigenous groups with an environmental focus Professional bodies (Engineers, Geoscientists, and Land Surveyors) Sector organizations Consultation documents are posted online at novascotia.ca/coast Consultation closes on September 30th, 2021. Welcome! 3The Coastal Protection Act The need for coastal protection legislation How the Coastal Protection Act will work Overview of proposed regulations The role of municipalities Keys to success Discussion 4The Need for Coastal Protection Legislation Climate Change and Nova Scotia’s Vulnerable Coast Many low-lying coastal areas in Nova Scotia will become increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surge in the coming decades. Nova Scotia’s coast includes many areas with significant erosion risks. Stabilization measures (e.g., armouring) can accelerate erosion. Fighting the sea is an expensive, long-term battle. Costs can exceed the means of individual landowners whose properties are at risk from coastal flooding and erosion. Shoreline structures can interfere with or damage sensitive coastal ecosystems that provide valuable ecological services such as carbon sequestration. 5Bill 106 -The Coastal Protection Act The public and municipalities were consulted in 2018 Public supported the approach Considerations made to mitigate municipal concerns (resources, property value impact, immediate actions) The Coastal Protection Act was passed in 2019 to prevent or restrict development and related activity in places where it will: Damage sensitive coastal ecosystems Put property at risk from: Inundation (flooding from sea level rise and storm surge). Coastal erosion The Act will be in effect once regulations are approved 6Challenges that shaped the CPA 13,300 km of convoluted coastline with varied geology, topography, bathymetry, tides and wave exposure. Erosion risk levels vary significantly –sometimes within a few tens of meters at the same site –making province- wide or regional setbacks less effective. Need to keep incremental regulatory and administrative burden to a minimum. Rules / allowances for existing structures. Many communities with developed waterfront areas. Many stakeholders with diverse short and long-term interests and perspectives. 7How the Coastal Protection Act will work Regulations will create a coastal protection zone (CPZ), a band around the coastline where the CPA and Regulations will apply. Primary regulatory tools are: Shoreline structures standards and restrictions to protect coastal ecosystems. Vertical building setbacks to reduce future coastal flooding risks. Site-specific horizontal building setbacks determined by a designated professional (DP) to reduce risks from coastal erosion. The CPA does not create new permitting processes; it works through processes that already exist. The CPA does not require legally-permitted existing structures to be moved and allows for maintenance and repair. The Act and Regulations will allow for reasonable exceptions, for example, structures that need to be near the water and modified rules for developed downtown waterfronts. Area where Regulations Apply: CPZ Protect Coastal Ecosystems Build in safe places 8Overview of regulations Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ) This distance is not a setback, but a regulatory “trigger” for where: the minimum building elevation applies, and the landowner will normally require a “DP Report” to determine the horizontal setback for their property a building permit. The upland boundary of the Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ) is proposed to be 80 –100 meters back from the ordinary high-water mark. Government will determine a single “default” upland distance following consultation. Specific delineation rules determine how the CPZ boundaries are applied around small and large estuaries, and barrier beaches. 9How the CPA will work No building permits issued for locations below Minimum Building Elevation (MBE) Terms of Crown Lands Act and/or Beaches Act Permit typically required for shoreline structures must comply with CPA regulations. Required for Building Permit Upland of OHWM OHWM and Seaward Landowner hires designated professional (DP) to assess erosion risk and provide DP report with site-specific horizontal setback to municipality. 10Protecting Coastal Ecosystems Shoreline Structures Standard The CPA is not intended to stop all construction along the coast. The CPA will help minimize unnecessary disruption of natural processes that can result in accelerated damage to natural and built infrastructure. Permits issued pursuant to the Crown Lands Act and the Beaches Act for activity within the Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ) must comply with the CPA once the act is proclaimed into law. Regulations will restrict infilling, including shoreline armouring, on submerged provincial Crown lands to cases where it is necessary to protect an existing structure or repair existing shoreline stabilization structures. Regulatory Focus Toxic Building Materials in contact with water Increased wave energy reflection Disrupt ecosystem connectivity Disrupt sediment transport and water circulation Blocking dynamic movement of coast Direct destruction of habitat area 11Minimum Building Elevations (MBEs) Minimum Building Elevations will be a system of vertical building setbacks to restrict or prohibit development in low-lying areas within the CPZ that are expected to be vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal flooding. Because of large differences in local tidal amplitudes, MBEs will vary significantly around the coast. MBEs will be set out in a tabular schedule with MBEs for different areas of the coast, supported by map resources for easier interpretation. Site Specific Horizontal Setbacks Nova Scotia’s coast is too diverse for a “one size fits all” solution to provide effective erosion risk management. A single, rigid setback for large regions of coast will frequently be either too restrictive or too risky in any specific location. The CPA incorporates site-specific horizontal setbacks determined by a designated professional (DP) using a specific coastal erosion risk factor assessment tool to assess the risk in a consistent way. The risk assessment is done at the landowner’s expense. The setback is contained in a “DP Report” which the landowner provides to the municipality when applying for a building permit or development permit. Sample Coastal Sections for Minimum Building Elevations 12 Who can be a designated professional (DP)? DP will need to be a member of a professional body designated under the regulations. This has not been finalized however we are in discussions with: Engineers Nova Scotia Geoscientists Nova Scotia Association of Nova Scotia Land Surveyors What is the DP’s Role? The DP’s role is to complete an erosion risk assessment for the landowner using the specific method prescribed in regulations and create a DP report that specifies the horizontal setback distance for the property. The Designated Professional is certifying they are qualified to do the work, they are a member in good standing of a designated profession and that they followed the method prescribed by the regulations in determining the horizontal setback. The DP’s erosion risk assessment is conducted at the landowner’s expense. The Designated Professional is not providing a guarantee of safety from coastal erosion, nor determining where the CPZ or property boundaries are located. Designated Professionals 13 Municipality considering a building permit approval for construction within the CPZ must: Determine if the Coastal Protection Act applies: Construction location is within the CPZ? Act applies to structure type? Ensure: The application for a building permit is accompanied by a DP Report. The proposed location as indicated on a plot plan or surveyor’s location certificate is: above the Minimum Building Elevation. upland of the site-specific horizontal setback provided in the DP report. The designated professional was member in good standing of a professional body designated in the regulations at the time the DP report was signed. Compliance and enforcement Municipalities use the usual means of monitoring, inspecting and ensuring compliance as they would with other building or development permits. Municipalities and Building Permits 14Municipalities and DP Reports DP reports and the horizontal setback may apply to: Multiple properties, if they are adjacent and have a similar shoreline composition. The entire property, if the shoreline is consistent throughout the water frontage or the setback is based on the greatest erosion risk present in the area being assessed. A portion of a property, if a DP only assessed a part of the lot. The DP report must include a diagram indicating the area in which the setback applies. A municipality may reject a DP Report if in the opinion of the municipality it is invalid for any reason or if conditions on the site have changed. A landowner may hire another DP to do a further risk assessment, if they wish. A municipality may accept the second report. A DP Report will be valid for ten years. The municipality must keep a record. 15Exemptions covered by the Act and regulations Requirements for building permits within the zone apply to houses, cottages and commercial or industrial buildings. The Act provides some exemptions: public infrastructure commercial or industrial structures that need to be located at the shoreline. Proposed exemptions under the regulations: trailers or mobile homes that are designed for frequent transport; boathouses, detached garages, or outbuildings that are intended for storage or similar uses and do not have water service, plumbing, living quarters or similar amenities, and decks, gazebos or similar structures, regardless of whether it requires a permit. 16Developed Waterfronts Waterfronts are an important part of many Nova Scotia communities. The Regulations seek to balance the economic, social, and cultural value of these areas with the need to avoid increasing our risk exposure to climate change by including modified rules for these area. Proposed definition for a developed waterfront: “areas dominated by mixed-use structures with a public amenity or multi-unit residential component where there are no gaps of greater than 75 meters between existing mixed-use structures, or where the area was zoned for commercial, mixed use or equivalent prior to the Act coming into effect” Proposed modified rules: qualifying structures in the zone would be exempted from a site-specific horizontal setback, however no residential part of a new structure can be below the minimum building elevation. no residential part of an existing structure being modified can be below the minimum building elevation. 17Keys to Success On-going dialogue with stakeholders: During development of regulations, During implementation phase, On-going operation of the Coastal Protection Act regulations. Training for designated professionals, municipal building officials, provincial staff. Effective, two Communication with key stakeholders. Mapping tools on a user-friendly platform, displaying: Coastal Protection Zone boundaries, Minimum Building Elevation contour lines. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation. 18 Thank You! Contact Information: John Somers Executive Lead, Coastal Protection Act Nova Scotia Environment and Climate Change john.somers@novascotia.ca 902-424-58563 REQUEST FOR DIRECTION/DECISION Prepared By: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date September 10, 2021 Reviewed By: Date Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date September 15, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION A request has been received (attached as Appendix A) from Theresa and John Zafiris (the Applicant) to complete renovations and exterior work to a Municipally Registered Heritage Property (4898 Highway 329, Blandford). Before a Development Permit can be issued to undertake this work, approval from Council is required. Under normal circumstances, this file would first be considered by the Heritage Advisory Committee before being brought to Council for a final decision. At this time, the Heritage Advisory Committee is inactive pending nominations to fill vacant positions. Therefore, staff have brought the request and resulting report directly to Council for a decision. This will avoid any significant delay in rendering a decision on the request. RECOMMENDATION For consideration and discussion. BACKGROUND The property at 4898 Highway 329, Blandford, the Anglican Rectory, has been registered with the Municipality of Chester since 1995. The structure is included and described in the federal Historic Places registry and website as well as in Municipal Heritage files. The rectory was constructed in 1867 and is valued for its age, historical associations and architecture. The REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Community Development & Recreation DATE: September 23, 2021 SUBJECT: Alterations to 4898 Highway 329 ORIGIN: Email Request from Theresa Zafiris Figure 1 - Front Elevation 4898 Highway 329 (historicplaces.ca) 2 Request For Direction/Decision rectory was originally built for Rev. Richard Payne who oversaw construction of St. Barnabas Church located nearby. The complete listing from Historic Places, which includes details on the occupation and use of the property is attached as Appendix B. The Heritage Registry file for 4898 Highway 329 is extensive and includes a substantial list of “Character Defining Elements”, which must be maintained and protected. The list of Character Defining Elements is provided below:  ridgeline of original portion oriented toward the water;  three-bay façade on the front elevation featuring a central door flanked by single six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods and storm shutters;  two-bay façade of six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods and storm shutters at first storey of southern side elevation;  two-bay façade of six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods in the peak of gable at second storey of southern side elevation and northern side elevation;  frieze running under eaves topped by a simple cornice;  styled rake bargeboards, which form face of closed cornices;  corner boards featuring raised border moldings with a recessed rounded centre.  steep cross-gable located on ell addition on southern side elevation;  steeply pitched roof;  window located in peak of cross-gable.  eave returns on original portion and gabled end of ell addition;  ornate design of stained glass transom and sidelight windows surrounding main entrance on the ridgeline of original portion of home;  asymmetrical design of southern side elevation of ell addition;  location of southern side elevation entrance off to side of steep cross-gable;  presence of decorative window hoods similar to those on original portion of house on the southern and northern ridgeline sides of ell addition;  asymmetrical design of rear elevation of ell addition featuring a four-bay façade at first storey with a cluster of three narrow windows by southern corner and a rear entrance by northern corner;  narrow window located in peak of rear elevation of ell addition. Figure 2 - Rear and Side Elevations 4898 Highway 329 (historicplaces.ca) 3 Request For Direction/Decision DISCUSSION A request from the Applicant has been received to undertake renovations to the exterior and interior of the structure. The purpose of the renovations is to make the structure habitable and return it to an attractive state. The structure is currently in a moderate to severe state of disrepair with evidence readily available including peeling paint, rotten trim, and shingles. This has allowed wildlife to enter the structure and cause further damage to the interior. The Applicant has stated their wish to undertake and complete the work by November 1, 2021 so that the structure may be occupied by rental tenants. The letter of request (Appendix A) includes the proposed renovations. The scope of work is as follows:  replace all existing windows with modern vinyl windows, keeping the same style and grid pattern (ie. 6 over 6);  Replace exterior doors with modern vinyl equivalent;  All headers, shutters and trim will be replaced to match the existing size and design  Replace existing shake shingles on entire south side of structure with new B-Clear Cedar Shingles. Also, replacement of other shingles on other portions of the structure as needed;  Replace front deck, side doorway landing, back deck and back doorway landing with wood and granite to match existing;  Replace cellar door;  Replace outdoor lighting at entrance ways with modern fixtures designed to match the period of construction of the structure. Upon review of the proposed scope of work, staff believe that the Character Defining Elements will be preserved and maintained where possible and replaced with modern equivalents as warranted due to damage. There is one exception, which is discussed later in this report. The window and door replacements are permitted through an existing Municipal Policy, P-46 which states “Owners of Municipal Heritage Properties who request alterations to replace windows and doors will be allowed to use modern replacement materials if they match the original size and frame of the opening, width of the trim, style and design of Figure 3 - example of current state of structure at 3898 Highway 329 Figure 4 - showing rotten trim and shingles at 3898 Highway 329 4 Request For Direction/Decision the original windows/doors that are being replaced.” The effect of this policy is that Council approval is not required before undertaking this work. However, in this situation, windows and doors are only a portion of the overall scope of work and therefore have been included in this report. The remainder of the proposed work is intended to repair or replace existing features to make the structure habitable. The Applicant has confirmed in writing that with one exception, the proposed work will not alter the listed Character Defining Elements, except for the replacement of damaged features with a “like for like” modern equivalent. Stained Glass Transom and Sidelight Windows The proposed scope of work is in keeping with the listed Character Defining Elements with one exception. This pertains to the “stained glass transom and sidelight windows surrounding the main entrance on the ridgeline of the original portion of home” (figure 5). The Applicant has stated that the window is not stained glass but appears to be a more modern replacement with the image affixed to the exterior of the glass as a stamp. The image is now peeling from the window and does not appear to be repairable. Further the window is marked as having been “produced in Ontario” and appears to be dated 1984, which would indicate it is unlikely the original window mentioned in the Heritage Registry. The owner has provided photos of the existing window, including one showing the production markings (Figures 5 & 6). The Applicant has proposed to “replace all the glass, leave the door the same size with the same size trim and opening. This would be a one piece custom unit - energy efficient. The outside will still appear to look the same when this project is completed…”. In the absence of an appointed Heritage Advisory Committee, staff are directly seeking a decision from Council to permit or deny the request. Figure 5 - current state of the "stained glass window & transom" Figure 6 - production marking on window showing it was produced in Ontario in 1984, likely a modern addition to the structure 5 Request For Direction/Decision IMPLICATIONS Policy Windows and doors may be replaced with modern equivalents in accordance with Policy P-46. The remainder of the proposed work requires approval of Council. Financial/Budgetary No impacts are anticipated. Environmental No impacts are anticipated. Strategic Plan  Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;  Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources;  Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity. Work Program Implications No significant impacts are associated with this file. Staff time has been spent in preparing this report and working with the applicant to submit the file to Council. If approval is granted, minimal additional staff time will be required. OPTIONS 1. Approve the request of the Applicant for 4898 Highway 329, Blandford to complete the exterior renovations and repairs discussed in this report to the Municipally registered heritage property, including a change to the stained-glass window transom listed in the Character Defining Elements. 2. Approve the request of the Applicant for 4898 Highway 329, Blandford to complete the exterior renovations and repairs discussed in this report to the Municipally registered heritage property, excluding a change to the stained-glass window listed in the Character Defining Elements. The stained-glass window must be replaced with a modern equivalent that will require future approval by Council before the work on this part of the structure may proceed. 3. Deny the request of the Applicant for 4898 Highway 329, Blandford to complete the exterior renovations and repairs discussed in this report to the Municipally registered heritage property. 4. Request additional information from staff or the Applicant. This information will be brought to a future Council meeting for consideration. ATTACHMENTS  Appendix A – Letter of Request (including scope of work) from Theresa Zafiris  Appendix B – Historic Places Listing for 4898 Highway 3, Blandford 1 Garth Sturtevant From:Theresa Zafiris Sent:September 6, 2021 1:21 PM To:Garth Sturtevant; Theresa Zafiris Subject:Re: #External: 4898 Highway 329 Blandford Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Garth, thanks for your email. We have reviewed the list and we will fully be following the original character of the exterior. This will include the length and width of the running boards, headers, trim, returns, and shutters. The "ornate design of stainglass" is an issue. Upon our closer inspection, the glass does not appear to be actual stain glass, however, stamped glass, it rubs off, and the window shows that it was shipped from Ontario ! this is not something that can be repaired. I looked up photos of old black and whites of the property and do not see stained glass in the photos. Appears to be a replacement door unit - not sure of the date? We can replace all the glass, leave the door the same size with the same size trim and opening This would be a one piece custom unit - energy efficient. The outside will still appear to look the same when this project is completed, I look forward to hearing from you and discussing next steps. regards, Theresa On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:04 PM Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca> wrote: Hi Theresa, Thank you for your email as well as the pictures in the second email. These are very helpful as I begin to prepare a report to outline your request to Council. In researching the property I have been reviewing the list of “Character Defining Elements”. These are the features or reasons that the property has been registered and which would require specific approval if they are to be altered or replaced. The scope of work you have provided is quite extensive, however, for my report I would appreciate if you could review the list of Character Defining Elements below and confirm in writing that the planned renovations would either replace like for like or would not impact the Character Defining Elements. As a note, Municipal Heritage Registration only applies to the exterior of the property so you do not need to provide any details on the planned interior work at this time. If you are proposing to alter any of the listed items, I will want to highlight that in my report and provide details as to why the change is required. If any of the terms used below are unfamiliar, please let me know. I have attached the listing, which includes the character defining elements, which may be helpful in determining which portion of the structure is being referred to below.  ridgeline of original portion oriented toward the water;  three-bay façade on the front elevation featuring a central door flanked by single six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods and storm shutters;  two-bay façade of six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods and storm shutters at first storey of southern side elevation; 2  two-bay façade of six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods in the peak of gable at second storey of southern side elevation and northern side elevation;  frieze running under eaves topped by a simple cornice;  styled rake bargeboards, which form face of closed cornices;  corner boards featuring raised border moldings with a recessed rounded centre.  steep cross-gable located on ell addition on southern side elevation;  steeply pitched roof;  window located in peak of cross-gable.  eave returns on original portion and gabled end of ell addition;  ornate design of stained glass transom and sidelight windows surrounding main entrance on the ridgeline of original portion of home;  asymmetrical design of southern side elevation of ell addition;  location of southern side elevation entrance off to side of steep cross-gable;  presence of decorative window hoods similar to those on original portion of house on the southern and northern ridgeline sides of ell addition;  asymmetrical design of rear elevation of ell addition featuring a four-bay façade at first storey with a cluster of three narrow windows by southern corner and a rear entrance by northern corner;  narrow window located in peak of rear elevation of ell addition. Once you have had a chance to review this list, an email response confirming that the work will not alter (except a like for like replacement) of the Character Defining Elements will allow me to complete my report for Council. Happy to answer any questions or have another discussion on the phone if that would be helpful. Thank you, Garth Sturtevant Garth Sturtevant Senior Planner Community Development & Recreation Municipality of Chester PO Box 369 186 Central Street, Chester, NS, B0J 1J0 Office: 902-275-4135 General Inquiries: 902-275-2599 Web: www.chester.ca Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? COVID-19 note: On July 6, 2020 the Municipality of Chester resumed regular hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the King Street and Central Street entrances as well as 3 the entrance to Recreation & Parks Services at the lower floor entrance to the Annex Building. While the buildings may be open to the public there are public health precautions in place. We continue to encourage using our drop boxes and accessing our Municipal on line services. We would also encourage calling ahead to book appointments with particular staff or for services that may require extended time. Please call our mainline at 902-275-3554 or visit our website at www.chester.ca for details and additional department contact information. As always, our pledge to you is to provide efficient timely service. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipients in communication with the Municipality of Chester. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e- mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. From: Theresa Zafiris Sent: August 30, 2021 5:26 PM To: Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca>; Theresa Zafiris Subject: #External: 4898 Highway 329 Blandford Hi Garth, further to our conversation today. Please find details below of our restoration plan for the above noted registered heritage property. We purchased and closed the property on August 20, 2021. The house is in very poor condition ( inside and out) with many openings where wildlife can and are entering. Our goal is to have the property ready for habitation on November 1, 2021 as, we have tenants who are being displaced ready to occupy the property. We have ordered windows as we needed a 6-7 week lead time for arrival. We have copied the same grid pattern, and size of each opening ( currently they are a mix of wood and vinyl and most are painted shut) all new windows will be vinyl and be energy efficient. Doors will be replaced with the same opening and will be vinyl and energy efficient. All headers, shutters and trim will be replaced, they will be of the same size and appearance/design as original to the house. This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recogize the sender and know the content is safe. 4 The whole right side of the house requires new wood shingles (the current ones are rotten). The shingles will be B- Clear Cedar and left to weather grey. The rest of the house will have any shingles needing replacement complete and a total scrap and paint job. I can send you color samples if they are needed for review. The front deck, side doorway landing, as well as the back deck, and back doorway landing will all be replaced with wood or granite as per what is at each location presently. The cellar door requires a full replacement as it currently has most of the wood missing and is not weather or critter proof. All outdoor lighting at entrance ways will be replaced with period looking lanterns As far as the inside goes, all walls will remain in place, upgrades will be done on the heating, electrical, plumbing, flooring and light fixtures. I will forward photos to you with a separate email as they are on another device. I look forward to discussing next steps with you regards, Theresa Zafiris Anglican Rectory 4898 Highway 329, Blandford, Nova Scotia, B0J, Canada Formally Recognized: 1995/10/03 Front and Side Elevations Rear Elevation Eave Return Detail OTHER NAME(S) n/a LINKS AND DOCUMENTS n/a CONSTRUCTION DATE(S) LISTED ON THE CANADIAN REGISTER: 2008/03/25 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE The Anglican Rectory in Blandford, Nova Scotia was built circa 1867 by the parishioners of St. Barnabas Anglican Church. The former rectory is located beside Highway 329 only metres from the shore line and at the foot of the large hill where St. Barnabas Anglican Church stands. The Municipal Heritage Designation applies the building and surrounding property. HERITAGE VALUE The Anglican Rectory is valued for its age, historical associations and architecture. The rectory was built circa 1867 for the first resident clergyman in the area, Rev. Richard Payne, who oversaw the construction of St. Barnabas Church, located beside the rectory. The former rectory is located beside Highway 329, which replaced an old foot trail that traced the edge of Mahone Bay. Until the road was constructed, the church and rectory were only accessible by the trail or by sea. Throughout its history the rectory has functioned as both a residence for clergymen and as a location for church social events, such as weddings, until 1926 when it was sold to Warren Publicover. The home's association with the Publicovers, a well-known local family, ended in 1988 when it was sold after two generations of the family had lived there. The Cape Cod style architecture of the home is still evident today, although significant renovations have taken place. The original gabled portion of the home sits with its ridgeline facing the highway located near the water’s edge. The orientation of the ridgeline towards the road is a common trait of Cape Cod homes; however, the original “road” would have been a route across the water. Other characteristics of the home’s Cape Cod style include a symmetrical three-bay façade on the front elevation with a central door and flanking six-over-six windows. The windows have storm shutters common to the early Cape Cod style; however, the decorative window hoods are more common to the later Cape Cod style. This later style includes more architectural embellishments such as the home’s plain wide frieze running under the eaves topped with a simple cornice. In addition, the home features styled corner boards and a stained glass transom and sidelights surrounding the main entrance that are also typical of later examples of the Cape Cod style. The symmetry of the front elevation is not maintained on the gabled ends of the original portion of the home. The southern elevation has two six-over-six windows at the first storey; each with a decorative window hood and storm shutters. In addition, two six-over-six windows are located next to each other in the peak of the gable. Although the northern elevation has windows in the peak of the gable arranged identically to the southern side elevation, it does not feature any windows at the first storey. Perhaps the most interesting change to the home has been the addition of a large ell on the rear elevation, which features a Gothic Revival inspired steep cross-gable. Uncharacteristically the doorway on that elevation is not centred under the cross-gable. The ell addition features a wide frieze running under the eaves similar to the gabled portion of the home. The styled rake bargeboard and decorative eave returns on the ell addition are also similar to those present on the original portion of the home. Three of the five windows located on the ridgeline sides of the ell feature shutters and window hoods modeled after those on the original part of the home. The gabled end of the ell features an unsymmetrical four bay façade at the first storey composed of three narrow windows flanked by a rear entrance on the northern corner. At the second storey a single narrow window is located in the peak of the gable. The varying styles of architecture that have influenced the home’s construction make it an interesting example of a home with a vernacular style, that still possess strong associations with its original Cape Cod style architecture. Source: Municipality of the District of Chester Heritage Property Files. CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS Character-defining elements of the Anglican Rectory that relate to its Cape Cod style architecture include: - ridgeline of original portion oriented toward the water; - three-bay façade on the front elevation featuring a central door flanked by single six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods and storm shutters; - two-bay façade of six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods and storm shutters at first storey of southern side elevation; - two-bay façade of six-over-six windows with decorative window hoods in the peak of gable at second storey of southern side elevation and northern side elevation; - frieze running under eaves topped by a simple cornice; - styled rake bargeboards, which form face of closed cornices; - corner boards featuring raised border moldings with a recessed rounded centre. Character-defining elements of the Anglican Rectory that relate to its Gothic Revival architecture include: - steep cross-gable located on ell addition on southern side elevation; - steeply pitched roof; - window located in peak of cross-gable. Other character-defining elements of the Anglican Rectory that relate to its architecture include: - eave returns on original portion and gabled end of ell addition; - ornate design of stained glass transom and sidelight windows surrounding main entrance on the ridgeline of original portion of home; - asymmetrical design of southern side elevation of ell addition; - location of southern side elevation entrance off to side of steep cross-gable; - presence of decorative window hoods similar to those on original portion of house on the southern and northern ridgeline sides of ell addition; - asymmetrical design of rear elevation of ell addition featuring a four-bay façade at first storey with a Samuel Prescott House 55 Central Street, Chester, Nova Scotia The Samuel Prescott House is a Gothic Revival home constructed circa 1811 to 1816 and is perched on… Terrace Cottage 19 King Street, Chester, Nova Scotia Built circa 1881 Terrace Cottage is a Victorian Vernacular house set high above the street on a… Zoé Vallé Library cluster of three narrow windows by southern corner and a rear entrance by northern corner; - narrow window located in peak of rear elevation of ell addition. RECOGNITION HISTORICAL INFORMATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Map data ©2021 NEARBY PLACES REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By: Chad Haughn Date September 14, 2021 Reviewed By: Date Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date September 14, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION The Chester Garden Club has requested a Designated Community Fund Grant in the amount of $200. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council provide a Designated Community Fund Grant to the Chester Garden Club in the amount of $200. BACKGROUND The Municipality of Chester has a Designated Community Fund Policy (P-77) which provides an opportunity for individuals or businesses to donate funds to the Municipality with direction that it be deposited into a Designated Community Fund Account for a specific group. The donor receives a charitable donation receipt for their contribution. After a period of time, the community organization requests a Designated Community Fund Grant from the Municipality equivalent to the funds collected. DISCUSSION The Chester Garden Club has followed the policy by establishing a Designated Community Fund Account and formally requesting the grant payment. The Chester Garden Club is planning to use the funds towards improvements to the Parade Square gardens (see attached letter). The Department of Finance has confirmed that there is $200 in the Chester Garden Club Designated Community Fund Account. REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Chad Haughn, Community Development & Recreation Department MEETING DATE: September 23, 2021 SUBJECT: Designated Community Fund Request ORIGIN: Designated Community Fund Account 2 Request For Decision/Direction IMPLICATIONS Policy If Council approves the grant payment, they will have adhered to the process outlined in the Designated Community Fund Policy (P-77). Financial/Budgetary Payment of the $200 grant is equivalent to the amount of funds collected. Approval of this request will have no impact on the Council budget for 2021-22. Environmental NA Strategic Plan Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources. Work Program Implications NA ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter requesting a Designated Community Fund Grant from Sandy Dumaresq, President of Chester Garden Club. Chester, NS B0J 1J0 July 6, 2021 Mr. Chad Haughn Community Development and Recreation Director Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King St., PO Box 369 Chester, NS B0J 1J0 Dear Chad, In 2018, a member of The Chester Garden Club donated $200 in the Designated Community Fund for the improvement of the Parade Square Garden. The Chester Garden Club would very much appreciate receiving those funds in order to continue our work in that Garden. I trust that this is the information you require to request Council’s approval to release these funds. Thank you so much for your assistance. Sincerely, (Mrs.) S. L. Dumaresq Treasurer MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER FIRE PREVENTION WEEK 2021 WHEREAS the 2021 Fire Prevention theme is; Learn the Sounds of Fire Safety ©NFPA AND WHEREAS THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER;  recognizes fire is a serious public safety concern and fire losses in Canada remain unacceptably high thereby necessitating improved fire prevention measures;  commits to ensuring the safety and security of all citizens and reducing the loss of lives and property from fire through individual and community fire prevention programs;  recognizes homes are the locations where people are at greatest risk from fire and urges all residents to plan and practice a home fire escape plan;  reminds everyone to be responsive to public education measures and take action to increase their safety from fire and to earnestly work to eliminate those fire hazards that cause the loss of life and property;  supports the members of the Fire Service and other public agencies in combining their talents and efforts to ensure a successful fight against those conditions that cause fire; NOW THEREFORE, I, Allen Webber, Warden for the Municipality of Chester, this 23rd day of September 2021, do hereby designate the week of October 3-9, 2021 as Fire Prevention Week throughout the Municipality, and I call upon our citizens to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work and school. I call upon all public information agencies to actively participate in an effort to provide effective fire prevention programs, which will instill in the minds of each citizen, those fire safety practices that will reduce the loss of life and property caused by fire. _________________________________ Allen Webber, Warden Municipality of the District of Chester PROCLAMATION National Day of Truth and Reconciliation September 30, 2021 WHEREAS the Government of Canada passed Bill C-5 that establishes September 30 as a federal and statutory holiday to honour survivors of the residential school system, their families, and communities; WHEREAS the Municipality of Chester recognizes the importance of acknowledging the past and present anguish that was caused to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis by the residential school system. This acknowledgement is especially important as we continue to uncover and confirm the location of unmarked graves of innocent children across Canada, freshening the wounds of grief; WHEREAS on this day, the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation, the Municipality of Chester encourages the thoughtful reflection of the impact of colonization in Canada and the unwavering spirit of the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis that continues to stand in the face of tragedy and injustice. And that for generations, the people indigenous to this land endured discrimination, racism, suffering, and sorrow; WHEREAS the Municipality of Chester has hope for reconciliation while never forgetting the long and shameful history of residential schools that operated in Canada. The Municipality of Chester recognizes that reconciliation will take time but is committed to learning and educating others about our history, taking a stand against discrimination, and condemning racism. And that the Municipality of Chester is committed to advancing reconciliation by listening to the Calls to Action; and WHEREAS the Municipality of Chester believes that all citizens – regardless of race or ethnic origin – have the right to live in conditions of good health, safety, dignity, respect, and peace. THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that September 30, 2021, be recognized as National Truth and Reconciliation Day in the Municipality of the District of Chester. Allen Webber, Warden Date