HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-12-16_Public Input_Public Hearing Info from ResidentsPublic Input Received on December 15, 2021:
Suzi Fraser
Nancy Hatch
Phillip John
M J Moyle/Jillian Reid
Karen Flinn/Guy Skipworth
Suzi Fraser
78 Queen Street
Chester
December 15, 2021
Dear Members of Council,
I would like to voice my opinion regarding the intent to amend the Chester Village
Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By-Law.
A few issues that spring to mind:
Where will the water come from to support these units ?
Turning the commercial district into residential dwellings will wipe out the commercial
area of the village and we could become a bedroom community with no commercial
services.
Parking implications
Waste management
Sewer impact
Lack of municipal water impacts and impedes the efficacy of fire fighting, as witnessed
this past summer, denser residential population in the commercial zone poses a very
real threat.
There are no infrastructure improvements tabled to support this kind of development
initiative and a sudden increase in population density will severely impact the existing
delicate balance of an already threatened water table and sewer/waste management
system, as well as set a dangerous precedent for density on other properties.
Why does Council feel there is a need to expand the allowances when there has been
no demand under existing rules? If this is in response to an isolated case, why not deal
with it on its own as opposed to making a wholesale change for the entire downtown
core?
This issue should be sent to a plan review and not addressed as a one time change.
We don’t need to open the flood gates to property developers and wind up altering
the delicate balance of quality of life that the current infrastructure is already
struggling to support.
Sincerely,
Suzi Fraser
1
Pam Myra
From:Nancy Hatch
Sent:December 15, 2021 9:34 AM
To:Pam Myra
Cc:Derek Wells; Abdella Assaff; Sharon Church; Tina Connors; Floyd Shatford; Allen
Webber; Andre Veinotte
Subject:#External: SPS & LUB Amendment
Good morning, Pam.
Would you please include the following for the continuance of the Public Hearing session on Thursday and for the
record.
Many thanks,
Nancy
Good day, Councillors:
With your permission, I would like to provide my comments on the VPAC Motion of October 12, 2021.
MOVED by Nancy Hatch, SECONDED by John Carroll to recommend to Council to amend the Secondary Planning
Strategy for
a Development Agreement specifically for 122 Queen Street to allow the 10th unit be changed from Commercial
to Residential
and the more wide spread implementation of Development Agreements be discussed as part of the plan review.
MOTION CARRIED
The intent of this Motion was to accommodate the owner of an existing 10-unit building (9 residential units, 1
commercial unit) by providing a way to legally convert an un-rentable commercial space into a useable, needed
residential space.
The planning tool used to accompish the conversion of the existing building was by "Development Agreement”. The
intent was not to re-introduce the option of using Development Agreements throughout the Village Central Commercial
zone and open the door to other 10-unit developments, however, it appears that is what Council is doing.
While Development Agreements may be useful in planning, they have a dark and greatly abused past. Until such time as
the Village Planning Advisory Committee and Council, during the Village Plan Review, can agree on the guidelines and
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.
2
constraints required for the possible future use of DAs, I am requesting Council permit the conversion of only 122
Queen Street into a 10-unit residential building by Development Agreement.
Thank you for your consideration of this specific request and for an interim pause on the wholesale use of Development
Agreements in the Central Commercial Zone..
Nancy Hatch
45 Central Street
Chester
1
Pam Myra
From:Philip John
Sent:December 14, 2021 8:09 PM
To:Pam Myra
Subject:#External: Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By- Law
I am a permanent year-round resident of Chester and given the present Covid situation am
unable to attend your meeting. However, I do have major concerns over your amendment permitting
residential uses of 5-10 dwelling units per structure within the Central Commercial Zone by
Development Agreement.
I am seriously concerned that the Municipality is not being transparent to the residents of Chester as
to why they want this amendment. Therefore can you answer the following 1) why the Municipality
wants this amendment, 2) who has proposed this and why ?, 3) did this arise after a request was
made by a local developer or other ?, 4) why do you want to convert Chester into a bedroom
community ?, 5) do you believe that the few shops in the village of Chester are unlikely to survive in
the future ? and 6) do you think the attraction of the village Chester will be lost if this amendment is
passed ?
As I see things, I believe you will ultimately destroy the historic village of Chester if this amendment is
passed and in so doing simply fill the pockets of a property developer.
However I look forward to hearing from you as perhaps you may allay some of my concerns. I would
appreciate if you also would answer my questions 1)-6) above. Can you also please tell me what are
the next stages involved for considering this possible amendment and what is your timescale for this.
Philip John
44 Pleasant St, Chester
Sent from my iPhone
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.
1
Pam Myra
From:M.J. Moye
Sent:December 14, 2021 9:37 PM
To:Pam Myra
Subject:#External: Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By- Law
Dear Ms. Myra:
As Village of Chester residents, my wife and I are very concerned about the proposed amendment to permit residential
uses of 5-10 dwelling units per structure with the Central Commercial Zone by development agreement.
We fully agree with the questions and concerns raised by VOCTADA and oppose this amendment moving forward unless
Municipal Council can fully answer the questions and satisfactorily address the concerns. If Municipal Council attempts
to answer the questions and address these concerns during the Thursday hearing and still intends to move forward on
the amendment, it should hold a follow-up public meeting before doing so.
"Where will the water come from to support these units?
Turning the commercial district into residential dwellings will wipe out the commercial area of
the village and we could become a bedroom community with no commercial services
Parking implications
Waste management
Sewer impact
Lack of municipal water impacts and impedes the efficacy of fire fighting, as witnessed this past
summer, denser residential population in the commercial zone poses a very real threat
There are no infrastructure improvements tabled to support this kind of development initiative and a
sudden increase in population density will severely impact the existing delicate balance of an already
threatened water table and sewer/waste management system, as well as set a dangerous precedent
for density on other properties.
Why does Council feel there is a need to expand the allowances when there has been no demand
under existing rules? If this is in response to an isolated case, why not deal with it on its own as opposed
to making a wholesale change for the entire downtown core? This issue should be sent to a plan review
and not addressed as a one time change. We don’t need to open the flood gates to property developers
and wind up altering the delicate balance of quality of life that the current infrastructure is already
struggling to support."
Sincerely,
M.J. Moye
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.
2
Gillian C. Reid
97 Duke Street, Chester
Comments to Council regarding SPS Amendment to Permit 5-10 Residential Units per Structure
Motion 2021-317.
We are property owners on Queen St. in Chester and would like council to consider our
thoughts on the proposed development changes.
It appears the two main objectives of this proposal are to eliminate some existing uncertainty
about larger developments, thereby removing some of the discretionary decision making and to
increase needed housing stock.
This proposal should not be approved at this time as council nor residents have enough
information to understand the impact this decision will have and whether the proposal will
achieve the goals of the council.
1. There is no assessment in the report of how many units might be built in total over a
specific period of time. Without this assessment, how can council know if the changes
will increase housing stock. There is no mention of what kind of housing stock is
required and how whether the proposed changes will result in the right kind of stock.
2. There is no assessment of impact on the water table. Over the last few years, dating
back to at least 2016, the municipality has spent money to provide residents with water
due to dry wells.
In the 2017 report to council - “VOC Central Water System Needs Assessment”, 25 % of
respondents reported shortages of water. The report also stated
“existing climate models suggest the rate and frequency of extreme weather events is
increasing in Nova Scotia which would indicate that drought events such as those experienced
in 2016 are likely to be repeated.”
And as we know, more residents had to rely on bottled water last summer. What was the cost
to the municipality for the water relief program last year and what is budgeted for the future?
Implications
Finance
“N/A”
It’s difficult to understand how the staff report can suggest that the proposed changes have no
impact on the finances of the municipality. If there is not analysis of how many units might be
built in the village, how can council estimate the impact on the water table and the resulting
costs for water relief?
Further, the report states that individual applications in the future, would be subject to
“confirmation of adequate ground water.” What is the criteria to determine if there is
adequate ground water? It appears that discretion and uncertainty will continue under the new
proposed planning rules.
Strategic Plan
Part of the municipality’s strategic plan states the village to be a “choice for residences,
businesses and organizations and an international tourist destination.” If the water table is
impacted, and wells are dry, how do retail business’ like the Rope Loft, Focsle, Chesters and
Kiwi Café continue to operate and attract tourists if their costs to pay for water are going to
increase substantially. Who will want to buy a property in the village if wells are dry? How will
the municipality maintain services if property values decrease?
Arbitrary
Why 10 units?
Why not 8 or12?
It appears that one applicant asked for 10, so council decided 10 is the right number.
Is it?
Conclussion
The goals of the proposed changes may make sense, however residents and council do not
have enough information to make a rational decision.
Sincerely
Karen Flinn Guy Skipworth
Dated: December 15, 2021