HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-08-04_3_COW_Additional Info_McIntosh, H_Email read at Council during Public Input at COW_2022-08-04.pdf1
Pam Myra (she/her)
From:Jennifer Webber
Sent:August 4, 2022 10:23 AM
To:Pam Myra (she/her)
Subject:FW: #External: RE: Input for Municipal Council/Committee of the Whole Meeting
Thursday August 4th
JENNIFER WEBBER
Communications Officer & Outreach Coordinator
Office: 902-275-4107
Cell: 902-277-1169
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
From: heathermac
Sent: August 4, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Communications <communications@chester.ca>
Subject: #External: RE: Input for Municipal Council/Committee of the Whole Meeting Thursday August 4th
Hi Jennifer, would you please distribute the following to Council? Thank you!
Good morning, members of Council and COW,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today, and to read the letter below. I appreciate how open you are to
hearing community members’ concerns.
As one of the committee members mentioned, there is a process, and I’m aware there are a few steps left to take in
creating a draft development agreement. I have met with the planning department and have expressed these concerns,
but I am afraid this feels like a done deal. Hopefully that is not the case.
My goal today was to inform you about the issues surrounding this proposal and share some of the research I’ve done.
If you take away anything from my message, please know that the development agreement is a powerful tool, and it’s
important that we the Municipality use it to best effect. Yes the developers have rights, of course, but given that you are
the stewards of our community and its future, please use it to the full extent of its potential. I’ve heard people say that
the Municipality could be sued if the DA is too stringent. That is a very weak position for negotiating a good agreement.
Within the DA you have the ability to ask for (require) the development that is right for the setting and for the
community.
Best wishes,
This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recogize the sender and know the content is safe.
2
Heather Macintosh
From: heathermac
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 9:45 PM
To: 'communications@chester.ca' <communications@chester.ca>
Subject: Input for Municipal Council/Committee of the Whole Meeting Thursday August 4th
Please relay the following to Councillors during the Public Input Session
at their next meeting: (I am planning to attend and would like to read my
letter into the record)
There is a growing group of community members with concerns about
the proposed 214 unit residential development that will result in the
destruction of a beautiful acreage of forest on Stanford Lake Road. With
only one day’s notice of this meeting, the best I can do is send this letter
based on several conversations with the municipal planners, local
department of the environment, a hydrogeologist, an architect,
environmentalists, and many long-time residents of this community.
FIRST:
The development is huge, and with higher density than ANYTHING
outside HRM (with the apparent exception of former military base Mill
Cove). The scale and density of the development is in direct conflict with
the municipality’s own Municipal Planning Strategy and its “shared goals
and accompanying objectives” to “encourage the protection of water
quality, ensure that identified, potential public drinking water supplies
are protected”, “reduce the impact of development on the natural
environment” and “celebrates its character and heritage by: recognizing
and enhancing the unique character of various parts of the Municipality,
encouraging suitable rural and village settlement patterns, encouraging
design that is traditional in scale and form”, …. “Community Character
Areas express how different parts of the Municipality exist today, and
3
how they will grow and change. Rural and settlement areas will continue
to have low population densities.”
This proposed development is in the “Settlement” area. The design,
which now includes FOUR apartment buildings of three stories each, is
not in character of this part of the municipality. There is nowhere else
that has three-story apartment buildings, with underground and surface
parking. Where is the “traditional in scale and form” part of this
proposal? Mill Cove was a military base already. This is not that. Yes,
Chester wants more housing, especially affordable housing, but this is
not a match.
SECOND:
Do the people here in this room know that there is no environmental
assessment required by the municipality on a project like this? The
developers sat here and stated that an Environmental Assessment was
done. If they had someone look the land over, it was not a true
“environmental assessment” in the way that our community might think
of it. They have never handed that assessment over to the team of
planners here who are working to develop this agreement on your
behalf. The Department of Environment will be “asked for comment”
later in the process. If wetlands are destroyed: “any alteration needs to
be compensated.” There is no question that this development will have a
devastating impact on the natural environment. There are many many
other parts of the municipality that have already been paved and
developed. This is pristine woods, with walking trails, streams, and
wetlands. Old woods, lichen, Mayflowers, berries and hundreds of
species of plants and animals that will most definitely be impacted. You,
the Municipal Council, are the only ones with the ability to protect the
natural environment from the impact of development.
4
THIRD:
The developers have no experience whatsoever with a development of
this size and scope. They have no track record to look at. They have never
done a residential development. Does the municipality want to enter into
a development agreement with a group of people who will be learning as
they go? What happens if something goes wrong? What happens if
they’re not around in a few years and things at the 214 unit development
go downhill?
FOURTH:
Speaking of downhill. The proposal is counting on using septic fields for
214 residential units. Uphill from our community. What is in residential
wastewater? What happens when you create an acid or low oxygen
environment? It changes the water chemistry and that makes it
unpredictable. It could pull out more arsenic from the rock. E Coli,
Prescription drugs, and nitrates will run right through that metamorphic
rock and shale. The recently approved addition of Stanford Lake to the
monitoring program will not likely catch these pollutants due to dilution,
but the residential wells for the families along Stanford Lake Road? Right
between the development and the lake? PFAs (also known as ‘forever
chemicals’)? Building an entire community like this, on rock, uphill,
without a proper wastewater treatment system, would be a disaster.
We’re not asking for more studies on this: it’s well known and ill-advised
to rely on septic in a shallow bedrock area. Multiple monitoring wells
would have to go in down-gradient from the septic system.
FIFTH:
Pulling well water for these hundreds of new residents will have a
significant impact on the aquifer of Chester surroundings and the Village.
5
I urge you to act in the best interest of this community and its future and
create a robust Development Agreement that fully lays out the
obligations of this developer to protect the character of Chester and its
settlement area, protect the environment in the immediate area and the
surroundings, ensure that financial and legal agreements are in place
that provide for contingency funding should this project end up
deteriorating or falling into disrepair over the years, protect the residents
who live downhill from this massive new community. Protect our water:
our drinking water and our coastal waters.
If you cannot or will not do that, I urge you to say no to this project.
Sincerely,
Heather Macintosh and Chris Campbell,
Chester