Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-06-02_COW_Website Agenda Package.pdfPage 1 of 1 (Cover Pages) Committee of the Whole AGENDA Thursday, June 2, 2022 Livestreamed via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_uKlob3qOA6eD62x1kK5Kw 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 May 19, 2022. 5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/APPOINTMENTS 6. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Financial & Information Services 4th Quarter Report. (Material to follow) 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Mi'kmaq flags in municipal spaces. 8.2 Request for Decision prepared May 24, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Request to Discharge two development Agreements – CMDA001 and CMDA003. 8.3 Request for Decision prepared May 16, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Unregistered Heritage Properties. 9. IN CAMERA 10. ADJOURNMENT 223 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Via YouTube Live from 151 King St, Chester, NS On Thursday, May 19, 2022 CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:50 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor Andre Veinotte District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford District 3 – Councillor Derek Wells District 4 – Warden Webber District 5 – Councillor Abdella Assaff District 6 – Councillor Tina Connors District 7 – Councillor Sharon Church Staff: Dan McDougall, CAO Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Jennifer Webber, Communications Officer Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development & Recreation Regrets: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS Addition:  In Camera – Section 22(2)(e) – Contract Negotiations – Acadia First Nations. 2022-216 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford Councillor Assaff the May 19, 2022, Agenda and Order of Business for the Committee of the Whole be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Committee of the Whole (continued) May 19, 2022 224 4.1 Committee of the Whole – April 21, 2022 – Warden Webber. 2022-217 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church the minutes of the April 21, 2022, meeting of Committee of the Whole be approved as circulated. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Best of Chester Announcement. Warden Webber read the Best of Chester winners and runners up:  Best Artisanal Retailer: Julien’s Pastry Shop Ltd. (runner-up: Kiwi Pantry).  Best Building Services: Chester Building Supplies (runner-up: Toadz Odd Jobs).  Best Building Supplies Store: Chester Building Supplies (runner-up: Chester Home Hardware).  Best Community Space: Together We Can Community Park (runner-up: Lordly Park).  Best Farm or Forestry Business: Ross Farm Museum (runner-up: Conserve a Tree Forestry).  Best Garden Services: Oceanview Home and Garden (runner-up: Downey’s Pitcher Plant Nursery).  Best Gas Station: The Gold Nugget AFN (runner-up: Chester Basin Petro-Canada)  Best Grocery or Convenience Store: Spidles' Your Independent Grocer (runner-up: Foodland – Chester).  Best Health Care Provider: Our Health Centre (runner-up: Chester Family Dental - Dr. Natasha Zinck).  Best Health or Beauty Services: Luna Salon Spa & Boutique (runner-up: Valerie's Hair Studio).  Best Manufacturing Business: Black Harbour Distillers (runner-up: Hawboldt Industries)  Best Marine Services Business: Gold River Marina (runner-up: South Shore Marine).  Best Mechanic or Auto Shop: Chester European Automotive (AKA: Jeff's Old Volks Home) (runner-up: Gold River Service Centre).  Best Non-Profit Group: Chester Lighthouse Food Bank (runner-up: Integrity's Haven Equine (Animal) Rescue Centre).  Best Pet Services: Your Friend and Mine Pet Supplies (runner-up: Chester Basin Animal Hospital).  Best Place to Have Coffee: Imperfections Café (runner-up: Kiwi Café).  Best Place to Stay: Oak Island Resort & Conference Centre (runner-up: Mecklenburgh Inn).  Best Professional Services: Scotiabank - Chester (runner-up: New Ross Credit Union). Committee of the Whole (continued) May 19, 2022 225  Best Realtor: Susan Diamond, Engel & Volkers (runner-up: Jessica Burch, Royal LePage Atlantic).  Best Restaurant: The Gold Bean Café (runner-up: Rope Loft Dining Room).  Best Spa or Fitness Facility: Sensea Nordic Spa (runner-up: Luna Salon & Boutique).  Best Specialist Retailer: Black Harbour Distillers (runner-up: Julien’s Pastry Shop Ltd.).  Best Vendor at a Farmers’ Market: Julien’s Pastry Shop Ltd. (runner-up: Higbee’s Berry Farm and Nursery). 5.2 CBCL – Inland Floodplain Report – Victoria Fernandez and Ying Zhang from CBCL. Victoria Fernandez of CBCL reviewed the Inland Floodplain report, commenting on the following items:  Project Site;  Study Objectives – Hydrologic Assessment, Coastal water Levels assessment, Hydraulic Model Development and Analysis, and Flood Mapping;  Study Approach from gathering existing information to generating flood maps for the study region;  Sources of Information – CHS Tide Tables, Water flows observed along the gold River and LaHave Rivers;  Lunenburg and Chester Districts – mapping – lidar used to create model to determine how water moves throughout the area;  Bridge Profile Locations – 400+ bridges and culverts;  Bathymetry of Lakes and LiDAR;  Rainfall intensity – Based on Rain Gauge at Western Head;  Snapshot of model;  Environment Canada flow Gauges and Precipitation Gauge;  Model Calibration;  Model Results – profile of the river, slope of water, water level changes, water depth, etc.; and  Model Results Examples in Little East River, New Ross, Middle River, and various other areas. It was noted that the scope of the project did not include recommendations. Warden Webber indicated that the Municipality would take information and do more work with it regarding planning, setbacks, etc. The Deputy CAO indicated that a workshop will be held to review mapping, land use planning regulations to determine if changes any are required based on the mapping. There is more detail. Committee of the Whole (continued) May 19, 2022 226 Discussion was held with regard to flood plains, building in flood plain areas, frequency of events, reasons for setbacks (protection of property and safety of life), and maps that can be layered on our mapping to show where the potential flooding areas are located. Staff will be reviewing and looking at existing properties/structures and that information will be reviewed in the workshop. Depending on their situations, other municipalities will likely have different options/actions to take. The study can form the basis of a more thoughtful and sophisticated planning tool. It was agreed to post the final report on the website for the public so that they can consider implications on their own properties. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Q 4 2021-22 - Quarterly Report – Infrastructure & Operations Department. Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations was present to review the 4th Quarter Report, commenting on the material within the document provided as follows:  Administration.  Solid Waste: o Operations and maintenance. o Collection Update.  Public Works: o Operations and Maintenance. o Wastewater Study. o Stats Update. Councillor Assaff indicated that there is an outstanding work order for streetlights from Martins Point Road to Martins River bridge. Deputy Warden Shatford asked whether the speed radar unit can be used on private roads as he has had a request from a homeowner’s association. It was agreed that the speed radar unit could be used on a private road. The Director of Infrastructure & Operations indicated that he would be providing a report to Council in a couple of weeks to provide an update on where the Department is with current projects. Committee of the Whole (continued) May 19, 2022 227 6.2 Request for Decision – Financial & Information Services – Private Street Improvement By- Law. Tim Topping, Director of Financial & Information Services reviewed the Request for Decision prepared April 25, 2022 regarding amending By-Law #72, the Private Street Improvement and Maintenance By-Law as discussed with Council on December 16, 2021. He noted that there are some changes required in order to be compliant with the Municipal Government Act as well as a reduction in the administration fee to a flat 5% as well as some definitions clarified. 2022-218 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Connors that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to give notice to amend the Private Street Improvement By-Law and proceed to First Reading. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. The Director of Financial & Information Services indicated that the 5% administration fee has been implemented for this current year. CORRESPONDENCE There were no items of correspondence. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Request for Decision – Infrastructure & Operations - Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy. Matthew Blair reviewed the Request for Decision prepared May 2, 2022 outlining the intention to have a Landfill Equipment Replacement Policy for important pieces of equipment which will define responsibilities, maintenance schedules, replacement schedules based on age or hours of use, and financing components. Councillor Veinotte commented that it was important to do this but asked why just a portion of the operation – landfill is included. Asset Management should include all equipment and facilities. It was noted that this policy in particular will be helpful during the budget process and working with our partners. They would only be interested in our landfill equipment asset management and not the remaining vehicles, equipment, or facilities. Committee of the Whole (continued) May 19, 2022 228 Asset management program is a strategic priority and new staff have been tasked with asset management in a broader aspect. The primary objective is a 5, 10, or 15 year plan for rolling equipment. Councillor Wells asked where Transition 2050 fits into the Asset Management Program and although it isn’t noted currently, it is something that is on the radar of staff. It was agreed to add wording to section 3.03 of the policy to include less carbon producing vehicles. 2022-219 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to adopt the Landfill Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Policy in order to establish a framework and guide for the on-going, sustainable maintenance, repair and replacement of landfill vehicles and equipment; with an addition to section 3.03 to include the option of purchasing less carbon producing vehicles (Transition 2050). ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 8.2 Request for Direction prepared May 10, 2022 – Corporate and Strategic Management - PACE Program Options. Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator reviewed the Request for Direction prepared May 10, 2022 regarding PACE Program Options. He noted that the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) is a program that enables a municipality to provide low interest financing to qualifying homeowners interested in undertaking clean energy upgrades. Homeowners enter into an agreement with the municipality to finance eligible energy efficiency measures and the municipality applies a local improvement charge on the property for the cost of the upgrades, financing rate, and any program fees. The program helps achieve three core community outcomes: action on climate change through GHG emissions reduction, savings on energy costs, and investment in the local economy. He reviewed clean energy upgrades for homeowners that most municipalities include in the upgrades of their programs. A listing of current programs in Nova Scotia was also provided in the material along with PACE Program components. The options were outlined, i.e., choosing a PACE Program administrator (the Municipality, PACE Atlantic CIC, or the Clean Foundation. The program parameters were also outlined in the material. Committee of the Whole (continued) May 19, 2022 229 There was discussion on:  The assessment fee and consideration to eliminate a barrier of cost by reducing that from $650 to $100;  Funding source;  Interest rates;  Low income owners;  Administration fee;  Targeting older homes;  Percentage of funding depending on value of the home;  Financial impact on the municipality; and  Using income as a factor for funding. In summary, it was agreed that the following options were required:  Preference to outsource administration of the program to Clean Energy;  Interest in subsidizing the assessment cost perhaps with a low income lens so the cost barrier reduced;  The rate of borrowing should be no greater than the Municipality’s cost to finance;  Program financing up to $40,000 or 15% of property value; and  Impact on debt service ratio considered. The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator will bring back more information on Housing NS Programs to understand the cost of installing some things is supported through Housing NS. A break was held from 10:15 a.m. to 10:31 a.m. IN CAMERA 9.1 Section 22(2)(c) of the Municipal Government Act – Personnel. 9.2 Section 22(2)(e) of the Municipal Government Act – Contract Negotiations – Acadia First Nation. 2022-220 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the meeting convene In Camera as per:  Section 22(2)(c) of the Municipal Government Act – Personnel.  Section 22(2)(e) of the Municipal Government Act – Contract Negotiations – Acadia First Nation. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Committee of the Whole (continued) May 19, 2022 230 Following a brief meeting of the Committee held “In Camera” the meeting reconvened with all members present. 2022-221 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to approve the change in status for the Public Works Labourer Position from Part-time/Casual to Full-time. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 2022-222 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Wells that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Acadia First Nation, Gold River, to allow use of a parcel of land owned by Acadia First Nation as a temporary trail connection (path) to serve users of the Chester Connection Trail during the closure period of the Gold River Bridge (trail). ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT 2022-223 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church the meeting adjourn. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. (10:43 a.m.) ___________________________ ___________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk The Grand Council Flag Mi'kmaq Flag commonly referred to as the Santee Mawioomi flag or the Mikmaq Grand Council Flag. The white denotes the purity of creation, the red cross represents mankind and infinity (four directions), sun represents he forces of the day and the moon signifies the forces of the night. (Benoit First Nation, 2005) http://wwwbenoitfirstnation.ca/mikmaq flags symbolism.html#national A lot of universities and colleges are flying the flag permanently alongside the Canadian and Nova Scotian flag as of 2017. To show their ongoing commitment they have to the indigenous students, employees and extended community. As well as Honoring the culture and history of the indigenous communities. Places that are permanently flying the Grand Council Flag • SMU • Dalhousie • Acadia • StFX • Saint Thomas University • North and South Esk Regional School • Memorial University • Kensingon. Town Hall, PEI • IWK • SSRE have the flags on smaller poles attached to the building (CAMS, FHCS) • CFB flys the flag within the Common support training facility. • Sugarloaf Senior High School in New Brunswick • The Town of Lunenburg Flew the Mi'kmaq Grand Council Flag for the first time in 2018 showing that relations between governments and first nations are slowly improving. • During the month of October for Mi'kmaq history month. Along with the Nova Scotia Legislature raised the flag on October 151 for Treaty Day. • The grand council flag is flown at the government house for the Month of October. The flying of the flag would have been unheard of 5 to 10 years ago no one knew the significance of the flag or what it was for. It is not only an important acknowledgement of the indigenous communities but also a great education experience for young children when they recognize the Canadian and Nova Scotian Flag and ask what the grand council flag means and learn about the indigenous heritage. http s://www. ckbw. ca/2018/ 10/23 /lunenburg-flies-mikmaq-flag-for-first-time/ https://www.cbc,ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mi-kmaq-history-month-flag-universities-1.4354680 http s://ww w2. acadia u, ca/home/news -reader-page/grand-council-flag-of-th e-mikmaw-nation-to-fly- pennanently-above-university-hall.html https://www.smu.calindigenous-community/flag,html https://www.stu.ea/indigenous-homepage/events/wolastogiyik maliseet-and mikmaq-flag-raising/ REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole MEETING DATE: June 2, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Request to Discharge Two Development Agreements: CMDA001 & CMDA003 ORIGIN: Email Request Dated May 12, 2022 RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff recommend Option 1: CURRENT SITUATION A request (attached as Appendix A) to discharge two existing development agreements (CMDA001 & CMDA003) has been received by staff. These agreements are in place for 35 and 31 Venture Avenue respectively. The request has been submitted by Jim Cox, Director of Vale Packaging Limited, owner of 35 Venture Avenue. The company is in the process of purchasing 31 Venture Avenue and the application letter includes authorization from Bocheng Xu, Director of 3324008 Nova Scotia Limited (current owner of 31 Venture Avenue). Mr. Cox has also submitted applications for a Development Permit for each structure. These applications have been deemed complete and permits will be issued pending discharge of the existing development agreements. BACKGROUND The existing Development agreements were authorized under the previous Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS). Under the former MPS, the zoning of the two properties in question was Mill Cove Campus Commercial. This zone allowed commercial developments by development agreement in accordance with MPS Policy 7.7.6.3 and part 6A.6.1(b)(i) of the previous Municipal Land Use By-law. DISCUSSION Based on discussions with Mr. Cox and the submitted permit applications, staff understand that the use of both structures is proposed for manufacturing and sales of thermoforming equipment. With the adoption of the new Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law in 2020, the zoning was changed for 31 and 35 Venture Ave. to the Mixed Use Zone. The Mixed Use zone permits light industrial uses which occupy up to 2000m 2 of floor area, by development permit. Under current zoning, the existing development agreements are no longer required and may inhibit the ability of the owner to use the site for light industrial uses. Date: May 24, 2022 Prepared by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date: Reviewed by: [staff, title] Date: May 25, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO 1. Subject to receiving the required Registry Fee of $100 per development agreement for a total of $200, that Municipal Council authorize the discharge of Development Agreements CMDA001 and CMDA003 for 31 and 35 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove as per Section 6 a) of the approved Development Agreements. Further direct staff to prepare and execute a Notice of Discharge to be recorded at the Land Registry for each agreement. R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 With the request from Mr. Cox to discharge the existing development agreements and the submission of development permit applications to come into effect following the discharge, Council must now determine how to proceed. OPTIONS IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy N/A Financial/budgetary N/A Environmental N/A Strategic Priorities The discharge of Development Agreement CMDA001 and CMDA003 will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework: Priority Outcomes: Governance & Engagement 1. Ensure municipal service delivery is efficient and effective, communicated and accessible. 2. Ensure municipal bylaw and policy frameworks reflect current and changing needs. Work Program Implications No significant impacts are anticipated. Staff will work with the Municipal Solicitor to de-register the Development Agreement and notify the Applicant. Has Legal review been completed? __ Yes No X N/A 1. Subject to receiving the required Registry Fee of $100 per development agreement for a total of $200, that Municipal Council authorize the discharge of Development Agreements CMDA001 and CMDA003 for 31 and 35 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove as per Section 6 a) of the approved Development Agreements. Further direct staff to prepare and execute a Notice of Discharge to be recorded at the Land Registry for each agreement. Both development agreements contain provisions for discharging the agreement. Section 6 a) of the Development Agreement states: “That this Agreement shall be in effect until discharged by resolution of the Council of the Municipality in accordance with the Municipal Government Act, whereupon the Land Use By-law shall apply to the lands described in Schedule “A”. The Municipal Fee Policy states that the property owner shall cover the cost of the Registry Fee’s which is $100 per development agreement discharge. This cost does not include billable hours for the Municipal Solicitor as the Fee Policy only references only the Registry Fee. 2. Other (please specify). If Council does not approve deregistration, it will limit the use of each property to the terms of the existing development agreements until a discharge is approved. This may impact the ability of the property owner to carry-out their intended use of the structures. R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 3 COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) None required. Public Participation Program does not apply to the discharge or removal of a Development Agreement. Review by a Planning Advisory Committee is not required. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A – letter of request from Jim Cox, requesting discharge of CMDA001 & CMDA003 Appendix B – CMDA001 currently in effect for 35 Venture Avenue Appendix C – CMDA003 currently in effect for 31 Venture Avenue Vale Packaging Limited "Solutions, Options, Assistance" May 12, 2022 To: Municipality of Chester V AU: Garth Sturtevant & Heather Archibald Good Morning, On behalf of Vale Packaging and with the consent of 3324008 I would like to request submit a request to discharge the current development agreements for the 35 Venture Ave, Mill Cove (REF# CMDAOO1) and 31 Venture Ave, Mill Cove (REF# CMDA003) with the intent to apply for new development permits. The current agreements are out of date and have not been updated after a change of ownership. The agreements no longer reflect the operations and use of the buildings, however, the proposed application still falls within the permitted use of the current zoning. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or to discuss in more detail. Regards, p. Jim Cox President Vale Packaging p. 35 Venture Avenue Hubbards, NS, Canada BOJ 110 Tel: 902-857-1392 Fax: 902-857-1827 sa1s@va(epaciging. ca/www. va Iepac&aging. ca Jim Cox From: Bocheng Xu <BochengXu@hotmail.com > Sent: May 12, 2022 11:35 AM To: Jim Cox Subject: Re: Development Permit/Agreement Yes. Thanks sent by my iPhone W On May 12, 2022, at 09:00, Jim Cox <jim©valepackaging.ca > wrote: Bocheng, Please reply with consent for submittal below to municipality below: On behalf of Vale Packaging and with the consent of 3324008 NS Limited, I would like to request submit a request to discharge the current development agreements for the 35 Venture Ave, Mill Cove (REF# CMDA001) and 31 Venture Ave, Mill Cove (REF# CMDA003) with the intent to apply for new development permits. The current agreements are out of date and have not been updated after a change of ownership. The agreements no longer reflect the operations and use of the buildings, however, the proposed application still falls within the permitted use of the current zoning. Thanks, 91 Jim 1 V THIS NOTICE OF PARTIAL DISCHARGE made this / day of4GGUi7, 2004 491 BETWEEN: The Municipality of the District of Chester, a duly under the laws of Nova Scotia, hereinafter called the "rouNICIPALITY" -and- c orated municipal body Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society, a body corporate, having its head office at Mill Cove in the County of Lunenburg in the Province of Nova Scotia, -and- 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited, a body corporate, having its head office at Halifax in the County of Halifax in the Province of Nova Scotia hereinafter called the "DEVELOPER" WHEREAS Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society entered into a Development Agreement with the Municipality dated the 6ih day of February 2003, which limits the use made of the land and the building at civic address 35 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove Park on the property described in Schedule `A' attached to that agreement;. AND WHEREAS Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society conveyed to the developer by deed dated the 29 April 2003 and filed at the Registry of Deeds in Bridgewater Nova Scotia in Book 890 at Pages 811 to 822 as document number 2597 the whole oldie property described in the development agreement, and containing several buildings in addition to 35 Venture Avenue; AND WHEREAS the developer wishes to convey to others a portion of this property containing the building and grounds at 31 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove Park free and clear of encumbrances; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality, by resolution passed at a meeting on the'' th day of ' 2004 discharged the said Development Agreement in parr .and only to the extent that it affects the building and grounds at 31 Venture Avenue effective upon the execution of this document by the Warden and Clerk of the Municipality; NOW THIS NOTICE OF DISCHARGE W[TNESSETH that in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and pursuant to Clause 6 of the Development Agreement hereinbefore referred to: 1, The Municipality hereby gives notice that it has partially discharged the said Development Agreement dated 6 February 2003 and registered at the Registry of Deeds, Bridgewater, Nova Scotia in Book 879, Pages 219 to 224, as document number 761; The Municipality hereby gives notice that this discharge applies only to that portion of the affected lands which contain the building and grounds at 31 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove Park, as more fully described in Schedule 'A' attached hereto; 3. The Municipality hereby gives notice that the lands described in Schedule `A' attached hereto are subject to the terms of the Chester Municipal Land Use By -Law; 4. The Municipality hereby gives notice that the remainder of the lands described in the Development. Agreement referred to in Clause 1 above continue to be subject to the terms of the said Development Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Municipality has caused this Notice of Partial Discharge to be executed by its proper officers, and has caused its seal to be affixed hereto. Municipali S PROVINCE OF NOVA SCO COUNTY OF LUNENBUR rft 0 THE / =+' ""'DAY OF .e 7/ , 2004, before me the subscriber personally came and appeared a i se /,� , dli I _ a subscribing witness to the foregoing Notice of Discharge, who, having been by me duly made oath and said that the Municipality of the District of Chester, one of the parties thereto, duly executed the same in hj3presence by affixing thereto its corporate seal identified by the signatures of its Warden and its Clerk, duly authorized officers in that regard A COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA July 2t, zou4t:.Vee.rnctimtCtie:nu*anntvs•LUB-suBlxtiuCuYePArk';vneBiliVrftl rFlka I,GF_SS A C:ommisSia:,nff thfy SuWrc rm "r -q“ of N, rv>1 SCHEDULE "A" LOT 1A-1 ALL THAT parcel of lend situate on the southerly side of Parkwood Drive at Mill Cove, County of Lunenbur+g, Province 01 Nova Scotia, being designated as Lot 1A-1 on a "Plan of Subdivision of Lots 1A-1, 1A-2, 1A-3 and 1A-4; being a Subdivision of Lot 1A; Lands of 3077314 Nova Scotia limited"; said plan prepared by Terrain Group Inc., dated June 24, 2004, and signed by Kirk T. Nutter, NSLS; said Lot 1A-1 having an area of 3.187 acres, more or less, and being more particularly described as follows: PREMISING that the line joining Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10303 to Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10302 has a grid bearing of North 13°21'50" West, referred to Meridian 64°30' West, and relating all 'bearings herein thereto. COMMENCING at a survey marker placed on the southerly limit of Parkwood Drive at the northeast comer of Let 1A-2 as shown on said plan; THENCE South 29°21'17" West along Lot 1A-2, a distance of 240.08 feat to a survey marker placed at a comer thereof; THENCE South 64°4644" West continuing along Lot 1A-2, a distance of 62.85 feet to a survey marker placed at a corner thereof; THENCE South 1512'55" West continuing along Let 1A-2 a distance of 180.85 feet to a survey marker placed at a northeast Corner of Lot 1A-3; THENCE South 20°19'45" East continuing along Lot 1A-3 and Par cni B, Lands of the Municipality of the District of Chester, a distance in all of 250.17 feet to a survey marker placed on the northerly limit of Lot 5; THENCE North 79°13'28" East along Lot 5 and Lot 4, a distance in all of 335.54 feet to a survey marker found at a southerly corner of Remaining Portion of Lot 3A, Land of 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited; THENCE North 25°32'25" West along Remaining Portion of Lot 3, Lands of 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited and Lot 2A (Proposed Parkland), Now or Formerly Lands of Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society, a distance in all of 444.49 feet to a survey marker found at a comer thereof; THENCE North 14°46'16" East continuing along Lot 2A, a distance of 180.12 feet to a :survey marker found on a curve of Packwood Drive having a radius of 1232.66 feet; THENCE along said curve of Parkwood Drive to the right, an arc distance of 43.33 feet, chord equivalent being 42.32 feat, measured on a course North 81°45'26" West to a survey marker found at the end of said curve; THENCE North 80°46'29" West continuing al point of commencement, TOGETHER WITH an access and service easement over, along, upon, and under that portion of Lot 1A-2, being designated as Parcel AE -2, having an area of 6,003 square feet, more or fess, and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004. ALSO TOGETHER WITH an easement for access and servicing purposes in common with all others entitled thereto over, along, upon, and under that portion of Lot 1A-4, being designated as Parcel AE -1, having an area of 28,854 square feet, more or less. and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004, SUBJECT TO a portion of a 30 foot wide service easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester, being designated as Parcel SE -1 and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004. ALSO SUBJECT TO an easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester for the installation, repair, and maintenance of water lines as shown on a "Plan of Survey of Parcels 8, C, E, G, and H, Being a Subdivision of Lands of Aspotogan Heritage Trust. Society", dated October 16, 2001, signed by Kirk T. Nutter, NSLS. nec of 7.00 feet to the 000761 LUNENBURG COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS 76/ r79 a/9- q4; I certify that this document FEBDocumentt 1 Book pia was registered es shown here. - 6 2003 Time Joan Plunkett Registrar , L A,9:34-�O VV tyRM OD YYYY � n THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT made in triplicate this t day o BETWEEN: 219 D. 2003 SEE book q6 q &Page liqf ASPOTOGAN HERITAGE TRUST SOCIETY, abody corporate, having its head office at Mill Cove in the County of Lunenbnrg in the Province of Nova Scotia, hereinafter called the "DEVELOPER" Of the One Part and THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER a duly incorporated municipal body, hereinafter called the "MUNICIPALITY" Of the Second Part WHEREAS the Developer intends to lease, to a commercial enterprise which manufactures packaging equipment, the building and surrounding grounds at 35 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove Park on the'property described in Schedule "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS the property described in Schedule "A" is situated in an area which is both designated Mill Cove Park Campus Commercial on the Future Land Use Map of the Municipal Planning Strategy and zoned Mill Cove Park Campus Commercial on the Zoning Map of the Land Use By-law; and WHEREAS Policy 7.7.6.3 of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Clause 6A.6. l (b)(i) of the Land Use By-law enable the use of this land for commercial developments by development agreement; and WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality, by resolution, passed at a meeting on the 18th day of Nov . , 2002, approved the execution of this agreement by the parties hereto; NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and valuable consideration the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. USE OF BUILDINGS AND LAND Subject to Clause 8 below, the developer undertakes to ensure that the use of the building and grounds at 35 Venture Avenue on the land described in Schedule 'A' shall be limited to : a) Office and administrative support for the sale of packaging equipment; b) Display and demonstration of packaging equipment; and c) Training in the operation of packaging equipment. 2. SITE PLAN To clarify the intent of Clause 1 above, the developer undertakes to ensure that the grounds surrounding 35 Venture Avenue shall: a) be used for the parking of employees, visitors and trainees; and b) not be used for the outdoor storage of goods or materials of any kind. 3. ILLUMINATION The developer undertakes to ensure light from exterior lighting sources, including the illumination of signs, shall be not be directed upon adjacent properties; OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The developer undertakes to ensure that: 000760 Filed Bridgewater Registry, the‘4eday of .D.. oaratrli, 'clock2 as No. /a, .3.Qy-- _ 220 2 (a) all structures, including the building, are maintained in good repair and in a tidy, attractive and useable state; and (b) all lawns, trees, shrubs, parking areas, lighting systems, and other landscaping elements are maintained in a tidy, attractive and useable state free of unkempt matter of any kind; 5. CHANGES AND ALTERATIONS (a) That all matters in this Agreement not specified in Subcl ause 5(b) below are substantial matters which shall not be changed or altered except by amendment to this Agreement in accordance with the Municipal government Act; and (b) That the following matters are not substantial matters and may be changed or altered without amendment to this Agreement but with the written consent of the Council of the Municipality, provided that the Council of the Municipality determines that the changes do not significantly alter the intended effect of these aspects of this agreement: (i) alteration of the use of the equipment to continuous or intermittent production of packaging.; 6. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT (a) That this Agreement shall be in effect until discharged by resolution of the Council of the Municipality in accordance with the Municipal Government Act, whereupon the Land Use By-law shall apply to the lands described in Schedule "A"; and (b) That the Council of the Municipality may discharge this Agreement if the development described herein has not been commenced within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Agreement; and (c) That the Council of the Municipality may discharge this Agreement if the use described herein is discontinued for a period of no less than twelve months; and (d) That the Council of the Municipality retains the option of discharging this development agreement should any fact provided to the Municipality by the developer or its agents constitute a material misrepresentation of the facts upon which this Agreement is based; and (e) That the Council of the Municipality may discharge this agreement if the developer breaches any term of the agreement; 7. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS That nothing in this Agreement shall exempt the Developer from complying with Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws, by-laws and regulations in force within the Municipality, including the Building By-law, or from obtaining any federal, provincial or municipal license, permission, permit, authority or approval required thereunder including any permission required under the Fire Prevention Act and The Environment Act; 8. APPLICATION OF LAND USE BY-LAW That without restricting the generality of the foregoing any aspect of any development on the property not specified in Clauses 1 and 2 above is subject to the requirements of the Land Use By-law. 9, EFFECT (a) That, in accordance with Section 229 of the Municipal Government Act, this Agreement shall continue to apply to the property until discharged by Council; (b) That this Agreement shall enure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the Municipality and its successors and assigns and shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Developers, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, the owner or owners from time to time of the property described in Schedule "A", until discharged by Council; 221 Witness 3 10. OWNERSHIP The Developer hereby certifies by the signatures affixed below that Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society is the sole owner of the property described in the attached Schedule "A", having received the warranty deed from 7 , 4i awl Ouraa•- , dated a►.J, ) /%P7and recorded at the Bridgewater Registry of Deeds on % / 9 7 7 at Book b 7/ , page /14 as document number 1lsag . The Developer further certifies that it has not disposed of any interest in the property and there are no judgements, mortgages or other liens or encumbrances affecting the property in addition to those described herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties to this Agreement have hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. IN THE PRESENCE OF: „oittitiurri ASPOTOGAN HERIT E, TVtr-cam Per Per • : MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER );>:••••"'" an, Municipal' htrk•••... ... ..• 4 `) X 1,F1, 111' 222 SCHEDULE "A" LOT lA ALL THAT parcel of land situate on the southerly side of Parkwood Drive, at Mill Cove, at the County of Lunenburg, Province of Nova Scotia, being designated as Lot 1A on a "Plan of Subdivision of Lots 1A to 5A Incl. and Lot MC -2-B, Being a Subdivision of Lands of Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society"; said plan prepared by Wallace Macdonald & Lively, Ltd., dated August 28, 2002, and signed by Kirk T. Nutter, N.S.L.S.; said Lot 1A having an area of 11.764 acres, more or less, and being more particularly described as follows: PREMISING that the line joining Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10303 to Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10302 has a grid bearing of North 13°21'50" West, referred to Meridian 64°30' West, and relating all bearings herein thereto; COMMENCING AT a survey marker placed on the southerly limit of Parkwood Drive at the northwest corner of Lot 2A as shown on said plan; THENCE South 14°46'16" West along Lot 2A, a distance of 180.12 feet to a survey marker placed at a corner thereof; THENCE South 25°32'25" East along Lot 2A and Lot 3A, a distance in all of 444.49 feet to a survey marker placed on the northerly limit of Lot 4; THENCE South 79°13'28" West along Lot 4 and Lot 5, a distance in all of 335.54 feet to a survey marker placed at a corner of Parcel B; THENCE North 20°19'45" West along Parcel B, a distance of 87.36 feet to a survey marker placed at a corner thereof; THENCE South 63°50'11" West along Parcel B, a distance of 136.24 feet to a survey marker placed at a corer thereof; THENCE South 79°13'28" West along Parcel B, a distance of 189.34 feet to a survey marker placed at a corner thereof; THENCE North 19°44'32" West along Parcel B, a distance of 57.43 feet to a survey marker placed at a corner thereof; THENCE South 80°03'09" West along Parcel B, a distance of 146.00 feet to a survey marker placed on the easterly limit of Lake Road (Future Street); THENCE North 10°11'14" West along Lake Road (Future Street), a distance of 640.13 feet to a survey marker placed on the southerly limit of Parkwood Drive; THENCE North 59°33'38" East along Parkwood Drive, a distance of 13.32 feet to a survey marker placed at the beginning of a curve having a radius of 485.13 feet; THENCE along said curve of Parkwood Drive to the right, an arc distance of 335.70 feet, chord equivalent being 329.04 feet, measured on a course North 79°24'05" East to a survey marker placed at the end of said curve; .../2 Page 2 223 SCHEDULE "A" LOT l.A THENCE South 80°46'29" East along Parkwood Drive, a distance of 427.68 feet to a survey marker placed at the beginning of a curve having a radius of 1232.66 feet; rl WO THENCE along said curve of Parkwood Drive to the left, an arc distance of 43.33 feet, chord equivalent being 42.32 feet, measured on a course South 81 °45'26" East to the point of commencement. SUBJECT TO a service easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester, for that portion of Parcel SE -1 crossing Lot 1A; said Parcel SE -1 being described in Book 818, Page 359 and being further shown on the aforementioned plan dated August 28, 2002. ALSO SUBJECT TO a utility easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester, for that portion of Parcel UE-3 crossing Lot 1 A as shown on the aforementioned plan dated August 28, 2002. -- 224 PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA ) COUNTY OF LUNENBURG, SS ) On this 90'Ll-day of , A.D., 2003, before me, the subscriber, personally came and appeared (0496/41e-5 eold 643 a subscribing witness to the foregoing Indenture, who having been by me duly sworn, made oath and said that ASPOTOGAN HERITAGE TRUST SOCIETY, one of the parties thereto, duly executed the same in he/presence by affixing thereto its corporate seal identified by the signature of I ' 0104044" 1"i its COh , and IP• , its &Aid Srt,e4Ti , duly authorized officers in that regard. A Ba st g of the Supreme Court of Nov.: cotia PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA ) COUNTY OF LUNENBURG, SS ) On this 3/ day of Jct . , A.D., 2003, before me, the subscriber, personally came and appeared &wile (re,-- a subscribing witness to the'foregoing Indenture, who having been by me duly sworn, made oath and said that the MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER, one of the parties thereto, duly executed the same in h presence by affixing thereto its corporate seal identified by the signature of Allen B. Webber, its Warden and and Barry IyLenihan, its Clerk, duly authorized officers in that regard. A Barrislkr/ Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia A. STEPHEN GRAHAM A COMMISSIONER Of THE SUPREME COMFIT OF NOVA SCOTIA LUNEnl36r THIS DEVELO BETWEEN: T AGREEMENT madey snAtripli dayof �.15.'2Ei6' L -ti,') E Ivey A 6 COMPOSITES ATLANTIC LIMITED, a body corporate, having its head office at wow in the County of Lunenburg in the Province of Nova Scotia, hereinafter called the "DEVELOPER" Of the One Part and. THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER a duly incorporated municipal body, hereinafter called the "MUNICIPALITY" Of the Second Part WHEREAS the Developer intends to use the buildings and grounds at 31 Venture. Avenue, Mill Cove Park on the property described in Schedule "A" attached hereto as facility for manufacturing tools and machinery, as well as a research and development facility; and WHEREAS the property described in Schedule "A" is situated in an area which is both designated Mill Cove Park Campus Commercial on the Future Land Use Map of the Municipal Planning Strategy and zoned Mill Cove Park Campus Commercial on the Zoning Map of the Land Use By-law; and WHEREAS Policy 7.7.6.3 of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Clause 6A.6.1(b)(i) of the Land Use By-law enable the use of this land for light industrial and research developments by development agreement; and WHEREAS the Council of [he Municipality, by resolution, passed at a meeting on the th day of the execution of this agreement by the parties hereto; 4 pproved NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNF.SSETH that in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and valuable consideration the parties hereto agree as follows: USE OF BUILDINGS AND LAND Subject to Clause 8 below, the developer undertakes to ensure that the use of the buildings and grounds at 31 Venture Avenue on the land described in Schedule 'A' shall be limited to a) Manufacturing of tools and machinery; b) Research and development; and c) Administrative support of these activities. OUTDOQR STORAGE To clarify the intent of Clause 1 above, the developer undertakes to ensure that the grounds surrounding 31 Venture Avenue shall not be used for the outdoor storage of goods or materials of any kind ILLUMINATION a) The developer undertakes to ensure that light from exterior lighting sources, including the illumination of signs, shall not be directed upon adjacent properties; and b) The developer undertakes to ensure that light from exterior lighting sources shall not become a nuisance to adjacent property owners by reason of its intensity. o Comm fltwsrnv Cr Nit* Uisin 4. OPERATION ANII 1M7AIt TEt�+IANCE The developer undertakes to ensure that: (a) all structures, including the building, are maintained in good repair and in a tidy, attractive and useable state; (b) all lawns, trees, shrubs, parking areas, lighting systems, and other landscaping elements are maintained in a tidy, attractive and useable state free of unkempt matter of any kind; (c) sufficient paved parking areas are constructed and. maintained so as to provide parking for all employees and visitors; and (d) the development shall not generate emisstons such as noise, dust, radiation, odours, liquids, or light to the air, water, or ground so as to create a recognized health or safety hazard, or to create a nuisance to the adjacent residential properties. 5. CHANGES AND ALTERATIONS (a) That all matters in this Agreement not specified in ubclause 5(b) below are substantial at hich shall not be changed or altered except by amendment to this Agreement in accordance with the Municipal government Act; and (b) That the following [natters are not substantial matters and may be changed or altered without amendment to this Agreement but with the written eonsent of the Council of the Municipality, provided that the Council of the Municipality determines that the changes do not significantly alter the intended effect of these aspects of this agreement: (1) alteration of existing outbuildings and the construction of additional outbuildings; and (ii) alteration of, and addition to, the existing main building. G TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT (a) That this Agreement shall be in effect until discharged by resolution of the Council of the Municipality in accordance with the Municipal Government Act, whereupon the Land Use ay -law shall apply to the lands described in Schedule "A"; and (h) That the Council of the Municipality may discharge this Agreement if the development described herein has not been commenced within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Agreement; and (c) That the Council of the Municipality may discharge this Agreement if the use described herein is discontinued for a period of no less than twelve months; and (d) That the Council of the Municipality retains the option of discharging this development agreement should any fact provided to the Municipality by the developer or its agents constitute a material misrepresentation of the facts upon which this Agreement is based; and (e) That the Council of the Municipality may discharge this agreement tf the developer breaches any term of the agreement; 7, COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS That nothing in this Agreement shall exempt the Developer from complying with Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws, by-laws and regulations in force within the Municipality, including the Building By-law, or from obtaining any federal, provincial or municipal license, permission, permit, authority or approval required thereunder including any permission required under the Fire Prevention Ad and The Environment Act;. 8. APPLICATION OF I,AN15 USE BY-LAW That without restricting the generality of the foregoing any aspect of any development on the property not specified in Clauses I, 2 and 5 above is subject to the requirements of the Land Use By-law. 9. EFFECT (a) That, in accordance with Section 229 of the Municipal Government Act;, this Agreement shall continue to apply to the property until discharged by Council; (b) That this Agreement shall enure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the Municipality and its successors and assigns and shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Developers, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, the owner or owners from time to time of the properly described in Schedule "A", until discharged by Council; 10. OWNERSHIP The Developer hereby certifies by the signatures affixed below that Composites Atlantic Limited is the sole owner of the property described in the attached Schedule "A", having received the warranty deed from 3077314 NS Ltd. dated Aug • 12/04, and recorded at the Bridgewater Registry of Deeds on August 17, 2004 at Book 966 , page 26 as document number 76104786 The Developer further certifies that i1 has not disposed of any interest in the property and there are no judgements, mortgages or other liens or encumbrances affecting the property in addition to those described herein, IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties to this Agreement have hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. IN THE PRESENCE OF; Per Per Per Per MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRBCT 0 TE2 A ANTIC LIMITED A. Webber, lardett P.M. Myra, Mdaficipal Clerk CHESTER kA CFI kt/ 6k".i i'A £,C; lb r_KNAIN UKULir r•gbt l7Y! 02 SCHEDULE "A" LOT 1A-1 ALL THAT parcel of land situate on tho southerly side of Parkwood Drive at Mill Cove, County of Lunenbur , Province of Nova Scotia, being designated as Lot 1A-1 on a "Plan of Subdivision of Lots 1A-1, 1A-2, 1A-3 and 1A-4; being a Subdivision of Lot 1A; Lands of 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited"; said plan prepared by Terrain Group Inc„ dated June 24, 2064, and signed by Kirk T. Nutter, NSLS; said Lot 1A-1 having an area of 3.187 acres; more or less, and being more particularly described as follows: PREMISING that the line joining Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10303 to Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10302 has a grid bearing of North 13°21'50" West, referred to Meridian 64°30' West, and relating all bearings herein thereto. COMMENCING at a survey marker placed on the southerly limit of Parkwood Drive at the northeast corner of Lot 1A-2 as shown on said plan; THENCE South 29°21'17" West along Lot 1A-2, a distance of 240.08 feet to a survey marker placed at a comer thereof; THENCE South 64°46'44" West continuing along Lot 1A-2, a distance of 62,86 feet to a survey marker placed at, a corner thereof; THENCE South 15°12'55" West continuing along Lot 1 A-2, a distance of 18©,85 feet to a survey marker placed at a northeast corner of Lot 1 A-3; THENCE South 20°19'45" East continuing along Lot 1A-3 and Porto! 8, Lands of the Municipality of the District of Chester, e distance in all of 250,17 foot to a survey marker placed on the norlherly limit of Lot 5; THENCE North 79°13'28" East along Lot 5 and Lot 4, a distance in all of 335.54 feet to a survey marker found at a southerly corner of Remaining Portion of Lot 3A, Land of 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited; THENCE North 25°32'25" West along Remaining Portion of Lot 3, Lands of 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited and Lot 2A (Proposed Parkland), Now or Formerly Lands of Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society, a distance in all of 444.49 feet to a survey marker found at a corner thereof; THENCE North 14°46'16" East continuing along Lot 2A, a distance of 180.12 feet to a survey marker found on a cuive of Parkwood Drive having e radius of 1232.66 feet; THENCE along said curve of Parkwood Drive to the right, an arc distance of 43.33 feet, chord equivalent being 42.32 feet, measured on a course North 81'45'26" West to e survey marker found at the end of said curve; THENCE North 80"46'29" West continuing along Parkwood Drive, a distance of 7.00 feet to the point of commencement, TOGETHER WITH an access and service easement over, along, upon, and under that portion of Lot 1A-2, being designated as Parcel AE -2, having an area of 6,003 square feet, more or less, and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004, ALSO TOGETHER WITH an easement for access and servicing purposes in common with all others entitled thereto over, along, upon, and under that portion of I._at 1A-4, being designated as Parcel AE -1, having an area of 26,.854 square feet, more or less, and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004. SUBJECT TO a portion of a 30 foot wide service easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester, being designated as Parcel SE -1 and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004. ALSO SUBJECT TO an easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester for the installation, repair, and maintenance of water lines as shown on a "Plan of Survey of Parcels B, C, E, G, and H, Being a Subdivision of lands of Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society", dated October 16, 2001, signed by Kirk T. Nutter, NSLS, PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA COUNTY OF LUNENBURG, S.S. ON TL " day of A.D., 2004, before me, the subscriber personally came and appeared �.y 2 'e , a subscribing witness to the foregoing Indenture, who heaving been by Inc duly sworn, made oath and said, that COMPOSITES ATLANTIC LIMITED one of the s thereto, duly executed the same in h14 -presence by affixing thereto its corporate seal identified by the q�R1C � t2'cif'T70"-' and 'DA- 'ir7 ��c1LC/L-4 P1C_ duly authorized officers in that regard.. A COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BEVERLY A. BURGESS A Comrr>rr,sioner of ehe SuwernF Coon of Nov, Srry6rir PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA COUNTY OF LUNENBURG, S.S. ON THIS at day of A.D., 200tbefore me, the subscriber personally came and appeared. i )ec /6 z�� having heel by me duly sworn,, made oath and said that the MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER, one of the parties thereto, duly executed the same in hl frescnce by affixing thereto its corporate seal identified by the signature of Allen B. Webber, its Warden and P.M. Myra, its Clerk, duly authorized officers in that regard. , a subscribing witness to the foregoing Indenture, who A COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BEVERLY A. BURGESS A Co ssioncr of the Supreme l oui t of Nova Scotia 16June 2004EdTEXT\CfIEMM1Citt0MPRIMt'SLUt P5i'MillCnvnPerk43l thiureDACn,apAiI n55DA5.df,wpd THIS NOTICE OF PARTIAL D BETWEEN; E made this /A day of 41/ f 004 The Municipality of the District of Chester, a duly incorporated municipal body under the laws of Nova Scotia, a hereinafter called the "MUNICIPALITY" -and- Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society, a body corporate, having its head office at Mill Cove in the County of Lunenburg in the Province of Nova Scotia, _and - 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited, a body corporate, having its head office at Halifax in the County of Halifax in the Province of Nova Scotia hereinafter called the "DEVELOPER" WHEREAS Aspotogan hleritage Trust Society entered into a Development Agreement with the Municipality dated the 6'" day of February 2003, which limits the use made of the land and the building at civic address 35 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove Park on the property described in Schedule 'A' attached to that agreement; AND WHEREAS Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society conveyed to the developer by deed dated the 29 April 2003 and fih Registry of Deeds in Bridgewater Nova. Scotia in Book 890 at Pages 811 to 822 as document number 2597 the whole of property described in the development agreement, and containing several buildings in addition to 35 Venture Avenue; AND WHEREAS the developer wishes to convey to others a portion of this property containing the building and grounds at 3 l Venture Avenue, Mill Cove Park free and clear of encumbrances; ° ivy AND WHEREAS the Council of the Municipality, by resolution passed at a meeting on theme th day of 2004 discharged the said Development Agreement in part and only to the extent that it affects the building and grounds at 31 Venture Avenue effective upon the execution of this document by the Warden and Clerk of the Municipality; NOW THIS NOTICE OF DISCHARGE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and pursuant to Clause 6 of the Development Agreement hereinbefore referred to: 1. The Municipality hereby gives notice that it has partially discharged the said Development Agreement dated 6 February 2003 and registered at the Registry of Deeds, Bridgewater, Nova Scotia in Book 879, Pages 219 to 224, as document number 761; 2. The Municipality hereby gives notice that this discharge applies only to that portion of the affected lands which contain the building and grounds at 3'I Venture Avenue, Mill Cove Park, as more fully described in Schedule 'A' attached hereto; The Municipality hereby gives notice that the lands described in Schedule 'A' attached hereto are subject to the terms of the Chester Municipal Land Use By -Law; 4. The Municipality hereby gives notice that the remainder of the lands described in the Development Agreement referred to in Clause 1 above continue to be subject to the terms of the said Development Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Municipality has caused this Notice of Partial Discharge to be executed by its proper officers, and has caused its seal to be affixed hereto. PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA COUNTY OF LUNENBURG THT /c2 "D Y OF 1 LUNENBURO Counry ceerr'Ey thug issen, MO, 0 lC HI n y++� knn, nl ertfanenAet, e gin!nraft,' i 4rr, the Registry of needs as dhow .war Jnan_f'lunkett Registrar , 2004, before me the subscriber personally came and appeared Y7t1 a subscribing witness to the foregoing Notice of Discharge, who, having been by me duly lor�made oath and said that the Municipality of the District of Chester, one of the parties thereto, duly executed the e in hL5presence by affixing thereto its corporate seal identified by the signatures of its Warden and its Clerk, duly authorized officers in that regard A COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA 1ufy 21, 2DIM E;lTEX1NC11EMlCRt?MI'til1MPS-LUa-SDn1MiIlCovePnrktiVAleileafik lifuaAu0WRG ESS A Commissioner of the Suorerw r..nu0 nt Novn Scofia SUH!c.UULt N LOT 1A-1 ALL THAT parcel of land situate on the southerly side of Prrkw d Cnve at Mill Cove, County of Lunenburg, Province of Nova Scotia, being designated as Lot 1A-1 on a "Plan of Subdivision of Lots 1A-1, 1A-2, 1A-3 and 1A-4; being a Subdivision of Lot 1A; Lands of 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited"; said plan prepared by Terrain Group Inc., dated June 24, 2004, and signed by Kirk T, Nutter, NSLS; std Lot 1A-1 having an area of 3.187 acres; more or less, and being more particularly described as follows:. PREMISING that the tine joining Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10303 to Nova Scotia Coordinate Monument 10302 has a grid bearing of North 13°21'50" West, referred to Meridian 64°30' West, and relating all bearings herein thereto. COMMENCING at a survey marker placed on the southerly limit of Parkwood Drive at the northeast comer of Lot 1A-2 as shown on said plan; THENCE South 29°21'17" West along Lot 1A-2, a distance of 24008 feet to a survey marker placed et a comer thereof; THENCE South 64°46'44" West continuing along Lot 1A-2, a distance of 62.86 feet to a survey marker placed at a corner thereof; THENCE South 15°12'55" West continuing along Lot 1A-2, a distance of. 180,85 feet to a survey marker placed at a northeast corner of Lot 1 A-3; THENCE South 20°19'45" East continuing along Lot 1A-3 and P . B, Lands of the Municipality of the District of Chester, a distance in all Of 250.17 feet to a surrey marker placed on the northerly limit of Lot 5; THENCE North 79°13'28' East along Lot 5 and Lot 4, a distance in all of 335.54 feet to e survey marker found at a southerly comer of Remaining Portion of Lot 3A, Land of 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited; THENCE North 25'°32'25" West along Remaining Portion of Lot 3, Lands et 3077314 Nova Scotia Limited and Lot 2A (Proposed Parkland), Now or Formerly Lands of Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society, a distance in all of 444.49 feet to a survey marker found at a corner thereof; THENCE North 14°46'16" East continuing along Lot 2A, a distance of 180.12 feet to a survey marker found on a curve of Parkwood Drive having a radius of 1232.66 feet; THENCE along said curve of Parkwood Drive to the right, an arc distance of 43.33 feet, chord equivalent being 42.32 feat, measured on a course North 81°45'26" West to a survey marker found at the end of said curve; THENCE North 8©°46'29" West continuing along Parkwood Drive, a distance of 7.00 feel to the point of commencement. TOGETHER WITH an access and service easement over, along, upon, and under that portion of Lot 1A-2, being designated as Parcel AE -2, having an area of 6,003 square feet, more or less, and being more particularly shown an the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004. ALSO TOGETHER WITH an easement for access and servicing purposes in common with ail others entitled thereto over, along, upon, and tinder that portion of Lot 1A-4, being designated as Parcel AE -1, having an area of 26,854 square feet, more or less. and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004. SUBJECT TO a portion of a 30 foot wide service easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester, being designated as Parcel SE -1 and being more particularly shown on the aforementioned plan dated June 24, 2004, ALSO SUBJECT TO an easement in favour of the Municipality of the District of Chester for the installation, repair, and maintenance of water lines as shown on a "Plan of Survey of Parcels B, C, E, G, and it Being a Subdivision of Lands of Aspotogan Heritage Trust Society", dated October 16, 2001, signed by Kirk T. Nutter, NSLS. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: June 2, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Unregistered Heritage Properties ORIGIN: Staff Date: May 16, 2022 Prepared by: John Gamey, Summer Co-op Planning Student Date: May 17, 2022 Reviewed by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO CURRENT SITUATION A review of the municipality’s heritage files has shown that there are 16 properties currently listed as “unregistered”. There are several reasons for a particular property being left unregistered, including:  A form was not filled out to complete heritage property registration;  A property was recommended for heritage registration, but this was not pursued by property owner(s);  A property owner contacted the municipality requesting that their property be registered, but no further action was taken;  Council refused registration. In an effort to (a) identify properties that may still be suitable for registration as Municipal Heritage properties, and (b) close files on properties that are no longer suitable or desired for registration as Municipal Heritage Properties, it is recommended that the Summer Co-op Planning Student compiles research on these properties into a formal report to be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED MOTION/ACTION Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. Of these 16 properties, 5 are located in the village, with the other 11 located throughout the municipality (see Appendix A). In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that Council or the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. BACKGROUND Chester is well-known for its historical buildings and architectural styles, which play a significant role in defining the municipality’s character. To preserve these historically significant structures, the Municipality has the Heritage Property By-law (By-law 076), which allows for the formal registration of qualifying structures as Municipal Heritage Properties. Currently, there are 45 registered Municipal Heritage Properties in the municipality. Once a property is registered, approval from Council is required to make substantial structural alterations. The goal of this process is to protect the outside appearance of the heritage property. Indoor renovations are not regulated for Municipally registered heritage properties. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 In 2018, the Senior Planner contacted five of the current owners of these unregistered heritage properties, explaining to them that their home had been recognized as having heritage value, and that it was still possible to register the property. Of these five properties, three appear to have been previously registered (e.g. evidence of heritage plaquettes, requests made for alterations) despite not having completed all official documentation. None of these five properties have been added to the list of registered heritage properties since being contacted by the Senior Planner. Planning & Development would like to finalize the status of these five properties, as well as the eleven other unregistered properties identified in the heritage files. DISCUSSION The Municipality of Chester values its history, with the Municipal Heritage Properties program working as a tool to protect this history. A variety of official documents and reports compiled on behalf of the municipality indicate a desire from residents to maintain the architectural style and character of Chester, particularly in the Village. Examples of this include:  Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy  September 2021 Resident Survey  Highway 3 Plan  FBM Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study As the Village Plan Review unfolds, discussion concerning the protection of Chester’s historical architectural style and how that fits in with future development in the municipality continues. While economic and population growth are both considered desirable, a high level of concern exists among residents with regard to developing in a way that aligns with Chester’s historical character. While the Municipal Heritage Properties program only protects a small number of properties in the municipality, it is a tool that furthers the goal of architectural and historical preservation. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a property officially registered as a heritage property. In terms of advantages, the property is protected from major alterations which serves to maintain Chester’s unique character. Further, property owners have the ‘prestige’ of owning a heritage property. In terms of disadvantages, the perception that it can be difficult for property owners to alter their property as they envision, as approval is required prior to exterior alterations of registered heritage properties. A review of a deregistered heritage property also showed that difficulties may arise in accessing financing and insurance on heritage properties, as the cost to re-build them with the same materials can be quite high. A strong case that highlights the argument for registering heritage properties in Chester is the case of 153 Union Street. Originally built in 1902, what became known as the ‘Jib House’ was of late Georgian style structure, reminiscent of a southern United States colonial estate. While the architecture did not align with the Cape Cod and Gothic Revival styles that were prevalent at the time of construction, the Jib House was well-known by local residents and was a landmark in the community. Records indicate that in 1989 the property was recognized by the municipality as having heritage value. In 1998, the municipality contacted the owners at the time to inquire whether there was any interest in pursuing heritage registration. No further action was taken, and in 2017 the original Jib House was demolished, with construction beginning on a more contemporary-style home. Some have argued that this new home is representative of the larger homes that the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy seeks to avoid allowing. Had this property been registered as a Municipal Heritage Property, it is unlikely that the redevelopment currently taking place would have been permitted. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 OPTIONS 1. Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. 2. Direct staff to take no action. No report will be drafted, and the unregistered properties listed in the heritage files will remain open. 3. Other (please specify) IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental None Strategic Priorities None Work Program Implications It is estimated that this report will take the Summer Co-op Student 1 – 2 weeks to complete if approval is granted to move forward. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 APPENDIX A: LIST OF UNREGISTERED HERITAGE PROPERTIES Civic # Street Community Also Known As 3234 Highway 329 Aspotogan James Backman House 52 New Harbour Road Blandford 72 David Collicutt Road Canaan 1 Walker Road Chester The Heron’s Nest 15 Water Lane Chester 25 Union Street Chester Freda House 153 Union Street Chester The Jib House 3966 North Street Chester Cottnam Smith Home 24 Bywater Lane Chester Basin The Fitch Home 394 Lacey Mines Road Chester Basin Croft Home 5144 Highway 3 Chester Basin D’Aubin House 5274 Highway 3 Chester Basin Big Oaks Inn 165 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 278 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 281 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 123 East Side Martins River Road Martins River Langille Home REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: June 2, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Unregistered Heritage Properties ORIGIN: Staff Date: May 16, 2022 Prepared by: John Gamey, Summer Co-op Planning Student Date: May 17, 2022 Reviewed by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO CURRENT SITUATION A review of the municipality’s heritage files has shown that there are 16 properties currently listed as “unregistered”. There are several reasons for a particular property being left unregistered, including:  A form was not filled out to complete heritage property registration;  A property was recommended for heritage registration, but this was not pursued by property owner(s);  A property owner contacted the municipality requesting that their property be registered, but no further action was taken;  Council refused registration. In an effort to (a) identify properties that may still be suitable for registration as Municipal Heritage properties, and (b) close files on properties that are no longer suitable or desired for registration as Municipal Heritage Properties, it is recommended that the Summer Co-op Planning Student compiles research on these properties into a formal report to be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED MOTION/ACTION Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. Of these 16 properties, 5 are located in the village, with the other 11 located throughout the municipality (see Appendix A). In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that Council or the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. BACKGROUND Chester is well-known for its historical buildings and architectural styles, which play a significant role in defining the municipality’s character. To preserve these historically significant structures, the Municipality has the Heritage Property By-law (By-law 076), which allows for the formal registration of qualifying structures as Municipal Heritage Properties. Currently, there are 45 registered Municipal Heritage Properties in the municipality. Once a property is registered, approval from Council is required to make substantial structural alterations. The goal of this process is to protect the outside appearance of the heritage property. Indoor renovations are not regulated for Municipally registered heritage properties. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 In 2018, the Senior Planner contacted five of the current owners of these unregistered heritage properties, explaining to them that their home had been recognized as having heritage value, and that it was still possible to register the property. Of these five properties, three appear to have been previously registered (e.g. evidence of heritage plaquettes, requests made for alterations) despite not having completed all official documentation. None of these five properties have been added to the list of registered heritage properties since being contacted by the Senior Planner. Planning & Development would like to finalize the status of these five properties, as well as the eleven other unregistered properties identified in the heritage files. DISCUSSION The Municipality of Chester values its history, with the Municipal Heritage Properties program working as a tool to protect this history. A variety of official documents and reports compiled on behalf of the municipality indicate a desire from residents to maintain the architectural style and character of Chester, particularly in the Village. Examples of this include:  Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy  September 2021 Resident Survey  Highway 3 Plan  FBM Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study As the Village Plan Review unfolds, discussion concerning the protection of Chester’s historical architectural style and how that fits in with future development in the municipality continues. While economic and population growth are both considered desirable, a high level of concern exists among residents with regard to developing in a way that aligns with Chester’s historical character. While the Municipal Heritage Properties program only protects a small number of properties in the municipality, it is a tool that furthers the goal of architectural and historical preservation. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a property officially registered as a heritage property. In terms of advantages, the property is protected from major alterations which serves to maintain Chester’s unique character. Further, property owners have the ‘prestige’ of owning a heritage property. In terms of disadvantages, the perception that it can be difficult for property owners to alter their property as they envision, as approval is required prior to exterior alterations of registered heritage properties. A review of a deregistered heritage property also showed that difficulties may arise in accessing financing and insurance on heritage properties, as the cost to re-build them with the same materials can be quite high. A strong case that highlights the argument for registering heritage properties in Chester is the case of 153 Union Street. Originally built in 1902, what became known as the ‘Jib House’ was of late Georgian style structure, reminiscent of a southern United States colonial estate. While the architecture did not align with the Cape Cod and Gothic Revival styles that were prevalent at the time of construction, the Jib House was well-known by local residents and was a landmark in the community. Records indicate that in 1989 the property was recognized by the municipality as having heritage value. In 1998, the municipality contacted the owners at the time to inquire whether there was any interest in pursuing heritage registration. No further action was taken, and in 2017 the original Jib House was demolished, with construction beginning on a more contemporary-style home. Some have argued that this new home is representative of the larger homes that the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy seeks to avoid allowing. Had this property been registered as a Municipal Heritage Property, it is unlikely that the redevelopment currently taking place would have been permitted. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 OPTIONS 1. Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. 2. Direct staff to take no action. No report will be drafted, and the unregistered properties listed in the heritage files will remain open. 3. Other (please specify) IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental None Strategic Priorities None Work Program Implications It is estimated that this report will take the Summer Co-op Student 1 – 2 weeks to complete if approval is granted to move forward. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 APPENDIX A: LIST OF UNREGISTERED HERITAGE PROPERTIES Civic # Street Community Also Known As 3234 Highway 329 Aspotogan James Backman House 52 New Harbour Road Blandford 72 David Collicutt Road Canaan 1 Walker Road Chester The Heron’s Nest 15 Water Lane Chester 25 Union Street Chester Freda House 153 Union Street Chester The Jib House 3966 North Street Chester Cottnam Smith Home 24 Bywater Lane Chester Basin The Fitch Home 394 Lacey Mines Road Chester Basin Croft Home 5144 Highway 3 Chester Basin D’Aubin House 5274 Highway 3 Chester Basin Big Oaks Inn 165 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 278 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 281 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 123 East Side Martins River Road Martins River Langille Home REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: June 2, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Unregistered Heritage Properties ORIGIN: Staff Date: May 16, 2022 Prepared by: John Gamey, Summer Co-op Planning Student Date: May 17, 2022 Reviewed by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO CURRENT SITUATION A review of the municipality’s heritage files has shown that there are 16 properties currently listed as “unregistered”. There are several reasons for a particular property being left unregistered, including:  A form was not filled out to complete heritage property registration;  A property was recommended for heritage registration, but this was not pursued by property owner(s);  A property owner contacted the municipality requesting that their property be registered, but no further action was taken;  Council refused registration. In an effort to (a) identify properties that may still be suitable for registration as Municipal Heritage properties, and (b) close files on properties that are no longer suitable or desired for registration as Municipal Heritage Properties, it is recommended that the Summer Co-op Planning Student compiles research on these properties into a formal report to be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED MOTION/ACTION Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. Of these 16 properties, 5 are located in the village, with the other 11 located throughout the municipality (see Appendix A). In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that Council or the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. BACKGROUND Chester is well-known for its historical buildings and architectural styles, which play a significant role in defining the municipality’s character. To preserve these historically significant structures, the Municipality has the Heritage Property By-law (By-law 076), which allows for the formal registration of qualifying structures as Municipal Heritage Properties. Currently, there are 45 registered Municipal Heritage Properties in the municipality. Once a property is registered, approval from Council is required to make substantial structural alterations. The goal of this process is to protect the outside appearance of the heritage property. Indoor renovations are not regulated for Municipally registered heritage properties. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 In 2018, the Senior Planner contacted five of the current owners of these unregistered heritage properties, explaining to them that their home had been recognized as having heritage value, and that it was still possible to register the property. Of these five properties, three appear to have been previously registered (e.g. evidence of heritage plaquettes, requests made for alterations) despite not having completed all official documentation. None of these five properties have been added to the list of registered heritage properties since being contacted by the Senior Planner. Planning & Development would like to finalize the status of these five properties, as well as the eleven other unregistered properties identified in the heritage files. DISCUSSION The Municipality of Chester values its history, with the Municipal Heritage Properties program working as a tool to protect this history. A variety of official documents and reports compiled on behalf of the municipality indicate a desire from residents to maintain the architectural style and character of Chester, particularly in the Village. Examples of this include:  Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy  September 2021 Resident Survey  Highway 3 Plan  FBM Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study As the Village Plan Review unfolds, discussion concerning the protection of Chester’s historical architectural style and how that fits in with future development in the municipality continues. While economic and population growth are both considered desirable, a high level of concern exists among residents with regard to developing in a way that aligns with Chester’s historical character. While the Municipal Heritage Properties program only protects a small number of properties in the municipality, it is a tool that furthers the goal of architectural and historical preservation. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a property officially registered as a heritage property. In terms of advantages, the property is protected from major alterations which serves to maintain Chester’s unique character. Further, property owners have the ‘prestige’ of owning a heritage property. In terms of disadvantages, the perception that it can be difficult for property owners to alter their property as they envision, as approval is required prior to exterior alterations of registered heritage properties. A review of a deregistered heritage property also showed that difficulties may arise in accessing financing and insurance on heritage properties, as the cost to re-build them with the same materials can be quite high. A strong case that highlights the argument for registering heritage properties in Chester is the case of 153 Union Street. Originally built in 1902, what became known as the ‘Jib House’ was of late Georgian style structure, reminiscent of a southern United States colonial estate. While the architecture did not align with the Cape Cod and Gothic Revival styles that were prevalent at the time of construction, the Jib House was well-known by local residents and was a landmark in the community. Records indicate that in 1989 the property was recognized by the municipality as having heritage value. In 1998, the municipality contacted the owners at the time to inquire whether there was any interest in pursuing heritage registration. No further action was taken, and in 2017 the original Jib House was demolished, with construction beginning on a more contemporary-style home. Some have argued that this new home is representative of the larger homes that the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy seeks to avoid allowing. Had this property been registered as a Municipal Heritage Property, it is unlikely that the redevelopment currently taking place would have been permitted. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 OPTIONS 1. Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. 2. Direct staff to take no action. No report will be drafted, and the unregistered properties listed in the heritage files will remain open. 3. Other (please specify) IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental None Strategic Priorities None Work Program Implications It is estimated that this report will take the Summer Co-op Student 1 – 2 weeks to complete if approval is granted to move forward. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 APPENDIX A: LIST OF UNREGISTERED HERITAGE PROPERTIES Civic # Street Community Also Known As 3234 Highway 329 Aspotogan James Backman House 52 New Harbour Road Blandford 72 David Collicutt Road Canaan 1 Walker Road Chester The Heron’s Nest 15 Water Lane Chester 25 Union Street Chester Freda House 153 Union Street Chester The Jib House 3966 North Street Chester Cottnam Smith Home 24 Bywater Lane Chester Basin The Fitch Home 394 Lacey Mines Road Chester Basin Croft Home 5144 Highway 3 Chester Basin D’Aubin House 5274 Highway 3 Chester Basin Big Oaks Inn 165 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 278 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 281 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 123 East Side Martins River Road Martins River Langille Home REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: June 2, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Unregistered Heritage Properties ORIGIN: Staff Date: May 16, 2022 Prepared by: John Gamey, Summer Co-op Planning Student Date: May 17, 2022 Reviewed by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO CURRENT SITUATION A review of the municipality’s heritage files has shown that there are 16 properties currently listed as “unregistered”. There are several reasons for a particular property being left unregistered, including:  A form was not filled out to complete heritage property registration;  A property was recommended for heritage registration, but this was not pursued by property owner(s);  A property owner contacted the municipality requesting that their property be registered, but no further action was taken;  Council refused registration. In an effort to (a) identify properties that may still be suitable for registration as Municipal Heritage properties, and (b) close files on properties that are no longer suitable or desired for registration as Municipal Heritage Properties, it is recommended that the Summer Co-op Planning Student compiles research on these properties into a formal report to be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED MOTION/ACTION Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. Of these 16 properties, 5 are located in the village, with the other 11 located throughout the municipality (see Appendix A). In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that Council or the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. BACKGROUND Chester is well-known for its historical buildings and architectural styles, which play a significant role in defining the municipality’s character. To preserve these historically significant structures, the Municipality has the Heritage Property By-law (By-law 076), which allows for the formal registration of qualifying structures as Municipal Heritage Properties. Currently, there are 45 registered Municipal Heritage Properties in the municipality. Once a property is registered, approval from Council is required to make substantial structural alterations. The goal of this process is to protect the outside appearance of the heritage property. Indoor renovations are not regulated for Municipally registered heritage properties. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 In 2018, the Senior Planner contacted five of the current owners of these unregistered heritage properties, explaining to them that their home had been recognized as having heritage value, and that it was still possible to register the property. Of these five properties, three appear to have been previously registered (e.g. evidence of heritage plaquettes, requests made for alterations) despite not having completed all official documentation. None of these five properties have been added to the list of registered heritage properties since being contacted by the Senior Planner. Planning & Development would like to finalize the status of these five properties, as well as the eleven other unregistered properties identified in the heritage files. DISCUSSION The Municipality of Chester values its history, with the Municipal Heritage Properties program working as a tool to protect this history. A variety of official documents and reports compiled on behalf of the municipality indicate a desire from residents to maintain the architectural style and character of Chester, particularly in the Village. Examples of this include:  Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy  September 2021 Resident Survey  Highway 3 Plan  FBM Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study As the Village Plan Review unfolds, discussion concerning the protection of Chester’s historical architectural style and how that fits in with future development in the municipality continues. While economic and population growth are both considered desirable, a high level of concern exists among residents with regard to developing in a way that aligns with Chester’s historical character. While the Municipal Heritage Properties program only protects a small number of properties in the municipality, it is a tool that furthers the goal of architectural and historical preservation. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a property officially registered as a heritage property. In terms of advantages, the property is protected from major alterations which serves to maintain Chester’s unique character. Further, property owners have the ‘prestige’ of owning a heritage property. In terms of disadvantages, the perception that it can be difficult for property owners to alter their property as they envision, as approval is required prior to exterior alterations of registered heritage properties. A review of a deregistered heritage property also showed that difficulties may arise in accessing financing and insurance on heritage properties, as the cost to re-build them with the same materials can be quite high. A strong case that highlights the argument for registering heritage properties in Chester is the case of 153 Union Street. Originally built in 1902, what became known as the ‘Jib House’ was of late Georgian style structure, reminiscent of a southern United States colonial estate. While the architecture did not align with the Cape Cod and Gothic Revival styles that were prevalent at the time of construction, the Jib House was well-known by local residents and was a landmark in the community. Records indicate that in 1989 the property was recognized by the municipality as having heritage value. In 1998, the municipality contacted the owners at the time to inquire whether there was any interest in pursuing heritage registration. No further action was taken, and in 2017 the original Jib House was demolished, with construction beginning on a more contemporary-style home. Some have argued that this new home is representative of the larger homes that the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy seeks to avoid allowing. Had this property been registered as a Municipal Heritage Property, it is unlikely that the redevelopment currently taking place would have been permitted. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 OPTIONS 1. Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. 2. Direct staff to take no action. No report will be drafted, and the unregistered properties listed in the heritage files will remain open. 3. Other (please specify) IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental None Strategic Priorities None Work Program Implications It is estimated that this report will take the Summer Co-op Student 1 – 2 weeks to complete if approval is granted to move forward. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 APPENDIX A: LIST OF UNREGISTERED HERITAGE PROPERTIES Civic # Street Community Also Known As 3234 Highway 329 Aspotogan James Backman House 52 New Harbour Road Blandford 72 David Collicutt Road Canaan 1 Walker Road Chester The Heron’s Nest 15 Water Lane Chester 25 Union Street Chester Freda House 153 Union Street Chester The Jib House 3966 North Street Chester Cottnam Smith Home 24 Bywater Lane Chester Basin The Fitch Home 394 Lacey Mines Road Chester Basin Croft Home 5144 Highway 3 Chester Basin D’Aubin House 5274 Highway 3 Chester Basin Big Oaks Inn 165 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 278 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 281 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 123 East Side Martins River Road Martins River Langille Home REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: June 2, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Unregistered Heritage Properties ORIGIN: Staff Date: May 16, 2022 Prepared by: John Gamey, Summer Co-op Planning Student Date: May 17, 2022 Reviewed by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO CURRENT SITUATION A review of the municipality’s heritage files has shown that there are 16 properties currently listed as “unregistered”. There are several reasons for a particular property being left unregistered, including:  A form was not filled out to complete heritage property registration;  A property was recommended for heritage registration, but this was not pursued by property owner(s);  A property owner contacted the municipality requesting that their property be registered, but no further action was taken;  Council refused registration. In an effort to (a) identify properties that may still be suitable for registration as Municipal Heritage properties, and (b) close files on properties that are no longer suitable or desired for registration as Municipal Heritage Properties, it is recommended that the Summer Co-op Planning Student compiles research on these properties into a formal report to be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED MOTION/ACTION Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. Of these 16 properties, 5 are located in the village, with the other 11 located throughout the municipality (see Appendix A). In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that Council or the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. BACKGROUND Chester is well-known for its historical buildings and architectural styles, which play a significant role in defining the municipality’s character. To preserve these historically significant structures, the Municipality has the Heritage Property By-law (By-law 076), which allows for the formal registration of qualifying structures as Municipal Heritage Properties. Currently, there are 45 registered Municipal Heritage Properties in the municipality. Once a property is registered, approval from Council is required to make substantial structural alterations. The goal of this process is to protect the outside appearance of the heritage property. Indoor renovations are not regulated for Municipally registered heritage properties. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 In 2018, the Senior Planner contacted five of the current owners of these unregistered heritage properties, explaining to them that their home had been recognized as having heritage value, and that it was still possible to register the property. Of these five properties, three appear to have been previously registered (e.g. evidence of heritage plaquettes, requests made for alterations) despite not having completed all official documentation. None of these five properties have been added to the list of registered heritage properties since being contacted by the Senior Planner. Planning & Development would like to finalize the status of these five properties, as well as the eleven other unregistered properties identified in the heritage files. DISCUSSION The Municipality of Chester values its history, with the Municipal Heritage Properties program working as a tool to protect this history. A variety of official documents and reports compiled on behalf of the municipality indicate a desire from residents to maintain the architectural style and character of Chester, particularly in the Village. Examples of this include:  Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy  September 2021 Resident Survey  Highway 3 Plan  FBM Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study As the Village Plan Review unfolds, discussion concerning the protection of Chester’s historical architectural style and how that fits in with future development in the municipality continues. While economic and population growth are both considered desirable, a high level of concern exists among residents with regard to developing in a way that aligns with Chester’s historical character. While the Municipal Heritage Properties program only protects a small number of properties in the municipality, it is a tool that furthers the goal of architectural and historical preservation. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a property officially registered as a heritage property. In terms of advantages, the property is protected from major alterations which serves to maintain Chester’s unique character. Further, property owners have the ‘prestige’ of owning a heritage property. In terms of disadvantages, the perception that it can be difficult for property owners to alter their property as they envision, as approval is required prior to exterior alterations of registered heritage properties. A review of a deregistered heritage property also showed that difficulties may arise in accessing financing and insurance on heritage properties, as the cost to re-build them with the same materials can be quite high. A strong case that highlights the argument for registering heritage properties in Chester is the case of 153 Union Street. Originally built in 1902, what became known as the ‘Jib House’ was of late Georgian style structure, reminiscent of a southern United States colonial estate. While the architecture did not align with the Cape Cod and Gothic Revival styles that were prevalent at the time of construction, the Jib House was well-known by local residents and was a landmark in the community. Records indicate that in 1989 the property was recognized by the municipality as having heritage value. In 1998, the municipality contacted the owners at the time to inquire whether there was any interest in pursuing heritage registration. No further action was taken, and in 2017 the original Jib House was demolished, with construction beginning on a more contemporary-style home. Some have argued that this new home is representative of the larger homes that the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy seeks to avoid allowing. Had this property been registered as a Municipal Heritage Property, it is unlikely that the redevelopment currently taking place would have been permitted. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 OPTIONS 1. Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. 2. Direct staff to take no action. No report will be drafted, and the unregistered properties listed in the heritage files will remain open. 3. Other (please specify) IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental None Strategic Priorities None Work Program Implications It is estimated that this report will take the Summer Co-op Student 1 – 2 weeks to complete if approval is granted to move forward. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 APPENDIX A: LIST OF UNREGISTERED HERITAGE PROPERTIES Civic # Street Community Also Known As 3234 Highway 329 Aspotogan James Backman House 52 New Harbour Road Blandford 72 David Collicutt Road Canaan 1 Walker Road Chester The Heron’s Nest 15 Water Lane Chester 25 Union Street Chester Freda House 153 Union Street Chester The Jib House 3966 North Street Chester Cottnam Smith Home 24 Bywater Lane Chester Basin The Fitch Home 394 Lacey Mines Road Chester Basin Croft Home 5144 Highway 3 Chester Basin D’Aubin House 5274 Highway 3 Chester Basin Big Oaks Inn 165 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 278 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 281 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 123 East Side Martins River Road Martins River Langille Home REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: June 2, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Unregistered Heritage Properties ORIGIN: Staff Date: May 16, 2022 Prepared by: John Gamey, Summer Co-op Planning Student Date: May 17, 2022 Reviewed by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO CURRENT SITUATION A review of the municipality’s heritage files has shown that there are 16 properties currently listed as “unregistered”. There are several reasons for a particular property being left unregistered, including:  A form was not filled out to complete heritage property registration;  A property was recommended for heritage registration, but this was not pursued by property owner(s);  A property owner contacted the municipality requesting that their property be registered, but no further action was taken;  Council refused registration. In an effort to (a) identify properties that may still be suitable for registration as Municipal Heritage properties, and (b) close files on properties that are no longer suitable or desired for registration as Municipal Heritage Properties, it is recommended that the Summer Co-op Planning Student compiles research on these properties into a formal report to be presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED MOTION/ACTION Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. Of these 16 properties, 5 are located in the village, with the other 11 located throughout the municipality (see Appendix A). In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that Council or the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. BACKGROUND Chester is well-known for its historical buildings and architectural styles, which play a significant role in defining the municipality’s character. To preserve these historically significant structures, the Municipality has the Heritage Property By-law (By-law 076), which allows for the formal registration of qualifying structures as Municipal Heritage Properties. Currently, there are 45 registered Municipal Heritage Properties in the municipality. Once a property is registered, approval from Council is required to make substantial structural alterations. The goal of this process is to protect the outside appearance of the heritage property. Indoor renovations are not regulated for Municipally registered heritage properties. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 In 2018, the Senior Planner contacted five of the current owners of these unregistered heritage properties, explaining to them that their home had been recognized as having heritage value, and that it was still possible to register the property. Of these five properties, three appear to have been previously registered (e.g. evidence of heritage plaquettes, requests made for alterations) despite not having completed all official documentation. None of these five properties have been added to the list of registered heritage properties since being contacted by the Senior Planner. Planning & Development would like to finalize the status of these five properties, as well as the eleven other unregistered properties identified in the heritage files. DISCUSSION The Municipality of Chester values its history, with the Municipal Heritage Properties program working as a tool to protect this history. A variety of official documents and reports compiled on behalf of the municipality indicate a desire from residents to maintain the architectural style and character of Chester, particularly in the Village. Examples of this include:  Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy  September 2021 Resident Survey  Highway 3 Plan  FBM Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study As the Village Plan Review unfolds, discussion concerning the protection of Chester’s historical architectural style and how that fits in with future development in the municipality continues. While economic and population growth are both considered desirable, a high level of concern exists among residents with regard to developing in a way that aligns with Chester’s historical character. While the Municipal Heritage Properties program only protects a small number of properties in the municipality, it is a tool that furthers the goal of architectural and historical preservation. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a property officially registered as a heritage property. In terms of advantages, the property is protected from major alterations which serves to maintain Chester’s unique character. Further, property owners have the ‘prestige’ of owning a heritage property. In terms of disadvantages, the perception that it can be difficult for property owners to alter their property as they envision, as approval is required prior to exterior alterations of registered heritage properties. A review of a deregistered heritage property also showed that difficulties may arise in accessing financing and insurance on heritage properties, as the cost to re-build them with the same materials can be quite high. A strong case that highlights the argument for registering heritage properties in Chester is the case of 153 Union Street. Originally built in 1902, what became known as the ‘Jib House’ was of late Georgian style structure, reminiscent of a southern United States colonial estate. While the architecture did not align with the Cape Cod and Gothic Revival styles that were prevalent at the time of construction, the Jib House was well-known by local residents and was a landmark in the community. Records indicate that in 1989 the property was recognized by the municipality as having heritage value. In 1998, the municipality contacted the owners at the time to inquire whether there was any interest in pursuing heritage registration. No further action was taken, and in 2017 the original Jib House was demolished, with construction beginning on a more contemporary-style home. Some have argued that this new home is representative of the larger homes that the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy seeks to avoid allowing. Had this property been registered as a Municipal Heritage Property, it is unlikely that the redevelopment currently taking place would have been permitted. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 OPTIONS 1. Direct the Summer Co-op Student to draft a report outlining the current status of the 16 unregistered properties on file. In this report, each property will either be categorized as (a) pursuable for heritage registration or (b) no longer suitable for heritage registration. It is envisioned that this report will conclude with a number of heritage files to officially close, as well as a number of properties that the Heritage Advisory Committee can consider next steps for. 2. Direct staff to take no action. No report will be drafted, and the unregistered properties listed in the heritage files will remain open. 3. Other (please specify) IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental None Strategic Priorities None Work Program Implications It is estimated that this report will take the Summer Co-op Student 1 – 2 weeks to complete if approval is granted to move forward. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 APPENDIX A: LIST OF UNREGISTERED HERITAGE PROPERTIES Civic # Street Community Also Known As 3234 Highway 329 Aspotogan James Backman House 52 New Harbour Road Blandford 72 David Collicutt Road Canaan 1 Walker Road Chester The Heron’s Nest 15 Water Lane Chester 25 Union Street Chester Freda House 153 Union Street Chester The Jib House 3966 North Street Chester Cottnam Smith Home 24 Bywater Lane Chester Basin The Fitch Home 394 Lacey Mines Road Chester Basin Croft Home 5144 Highway 3 Chester Basin D’Aubin House 5274 Highway 3 Chester Basin Big Oaks Inn 165 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 278 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 281 Marriots Cove Road Marriots Cove 123 East Side Martins River Road Martins River Langille Home