HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-09-01_COW_MEETING CANCELLEDPage 1 of 1 (Cover Pages)
Comm ittee of the Whole
AGENDA
Thursday, September 1, 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 August 4, 2022.
5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/APPOINTMENTS
6. MATTERS ARISING
7. CORRESPONDENCE
7.1 Email from John Saunders requesting consideration to provide a Port-a-Potty at the location of a
food truck at Exit 8.
8. BY-LAWS AND POLICIES
8.1 Policy Update – Tax Exemption Policy P-25.
8.2 Request for Direction prepared August 21, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation –
Municipal Land Use By-Law and Village Land Use By-Law Amendments.
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. IN CAMERA
11. ADJOURNMENT
344
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Minutes of
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Via YouTube Live from 151 King St, Chester, NS
On Thursday, August 4, 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: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO
Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk
Jennifer Veinotte, Communications & Outreach Officer
Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations
Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator
Nick Zinck, GIS Technician
Fred Whynot, Director of Public Works
Tami Clarke, Administrative Coordinator (Infrastructure & Operations)
Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor
Regrets: Dan McDougall, CAO
Gallery: There were four people in the public gallery
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS
Addition:
Reschedule Grants Workshop.
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 345
2022-333 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church the August 4,
2022, Agenda and Order of Business for the Committee of the Whole be approved as
amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC INPUT
Heather MacIntosh, Stanford Lake Road read an email that she indicated she would forward to
the Municipality for distribution to Councillors. Ms. MacIntosh outlined five concerns in the
email regarding:
1. Density – it is higher 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.
2. There is no environmental assessment required by the municipality on a project like this.
The Department of Environment will be “asked for comment” later in the process. If
wetlands are destroyed: “any alteration needs to be compensated.” She feels that this
development will have a devastating impact on the natural environment and pristine
woods, with walking trails, streams, and wetlands.
3. The developers have no experience whatsoever with a development of this size and
scope. 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?
4. 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.
5. Pulling well water for these hundreds of new residents will have a significant impact on
the aquifer of Chester surroundings and the Village.
Warden Webber thanked Ms. MacIntosh for her comments. He also indicated that the project
details/plans have not come to Council yet, so we have no more information than the general
notion of what is to take place but does understand her concerns.
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 346
It was noted that the proposal must go through the process and that there will be public
hearings and any concerned resident is able to provide input. However, Council is not able to
get too deeply into it until the details of the project are known.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
4.1 Committee of the Whole – July 21, 2022 – Warden Webber.
2022-334 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the minutes of the
July 21, 2022, meeting of Committee of the Whole be approved as circulated. ALL
IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
There were no public presentations.
MATTERS ARISING
6.1 Broadband Verbal Update – Strategic Initiatives Coordinator.
Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator was present to provide a verbal update
commenting on the various phases throughout the Municipality indicating the number of civic
addresses involved if known. The projects have been, or will be, taking place in Blandford,
New Ross, Deep Cove, East River, Chester Surround, Canaan, Chester Grant, Hubbards Area,
etc. He outlined the estimated timelines for the projects if they were known.
The majority of these projects are all Bell with access to fibre. The Municipality provided
funding the Chester Surround project and has paid 85% of that funding to date with the
remainder to be paid upon completion.
Develop NS has announced a satellite program that is estimated to service 3,700 homes
throughout NS that do not have an internet solution and they will provide a one-time rebate
to cover the one time cost up to $1,000 for hardware and installation. As of August 2,
residents can go online and check to determine if they have service or are eligible for the
rebate.
Comments were made that included:
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 347
The Satellite Service announcement signals the end of program in trying to move fibre
connections out to areas.
The funds set aside for the gap areas could be used to pay for the hardware of the
hookup for the satellite solution. It needs to be determined if it would be paid to the
homeowner or provider. It could be a lending service similar to the well program.
Staff was directed to bring back a report to Council outlining options for funding of satellite
hookups for homes that are not in serviced areas.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator indicated that he would be updating the Voices and
Choices page for Councillors and the public.
6.2 Request for Direction prepared July 7, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management –
Governance & Electoral Boundary Review.
Present were Jonathan Meakin (Strategic Initiatives Coordinator) and Nick Zinck (GIS
Technician) to review the Request for Direction regarding the Governance & Electoral
Boundary Review. The slideshow and information were provided in the online agenda
package.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator and GIS Technician reviewed the slide presentation with
mapping, outlining the requirements, process, community engagement, and consultation to
determine an application and study that will be submitted to the Nova Scotia Utilities &
Review Board (NSUARB) to confirm or change the structure and/or electoral boundaries (by
December 31, 2022).
There were five options available and reviewed for Council’s consideration:
Option 1A – three minor variations for adjustments to District 2, and corresponding
adjustments to Districts 1 and 3. Pro: impact on minimal number of districts. Con: defers
growing disparity of voter power among districts to the next Review process in 2030.
Option 1B – District 2 Western Boundary line shifted East; and District 3 Boundary Line shifted
Northeast. Pro: impact on minimal number of Districts. Con: defers growing disparity of voter
power among Districts to the next Review Process in 2030.
Option 1C – District 2 Southern boundary line shifted North and Western Boundary line
moved east: District 3 boundary line shifted Northeast. Pro: impact on minimal number of
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 348
Districts. Con: defers growing disparity of voter power among Districts to the next Review
process in 2030.
Option 2 – Alignment of Community Boundaries and Polling Districts for a +/-10% parity.
Pros: improved parity of voting power for more districts and aligns with community
boundaries, and longer-term fix. Con: more community engagement and communications
required due to impact on more communities.
Option 3 – Alignment of Community Boundaries and Polling Districts (for a +/-5% parity).
Pro: improved parity of voting power for more districts, alignment with community
boundaries, long-term fix. Con: more community engagement and communications required
due to impact on more communities.
Included in the presentation was a table of rural municipalities and their information, i.e.,
Mayor or Warden System and number of voters per district. The timeline was reviewed.
Councillor Veinotte indicated that there were only eight rural municipalities reviewed and
wondered what the remaining districts would consist of.
There will be consultation regarding governance and if there are any strong comments from
the public they can be brought forward for debate before any recommendations to the UARB.
In the survey there is a question on the Warden/Mayoral system.
The Deputy CAO indicated that in 2012 there were consultations, and the public was asked in a
poll if they were interested in a mayor system. There were not many comments, so Council
decided at that time not to make a change. In the guide being used, there is a requirement for
that piece of engagement. We must demonstrate that the community has been engaged.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator reviewed the table outlining the number of electors (using
the June 2022 information from Election Nova Scotia). The UARB stipulates +/- 10% and District
2 is currently at 13.2% above the average and needs to be addressed. This then has a knock
down effect for Districts 1 and 3.
Warden Webber and Deputy Warden Shatford noted that they preferred Option 1B. Councillor
Connors indicated that she preferred the plan (Option 3) that does not require more changes
down the line, improved parity amongst all districts.
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 349
Deputy Warden Shatford noted that he prefers the community of interest and some of the
changes would impact the community of interest more and some less. Deputy Warden Shatford
felt there were too many options.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator indicated that staff could put out three options or all five
for public feedback and as part of the analysis can bring that feedback to Council and Council
make a final recommendation on the option to settle on.
The GIS Technician indicated that the first three options will only allow movement for 17 to 18
people to move in before the voter parity is again more or less than the +/- 10% parity. Most
districts are nearly to the max.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator indicate that this does not address the lack of parity and
range for all districts. Options 2 and 3 provide a different approach to align polling district
boundaries to community boundaries. Options 2 and 3 were reviewed in more detail.
Option 3 provides greater parity throughout the municipality at +/- 5%. The percentages,
number of voters, and mapping were reviewed.
Deputy Warden Shatford indicated that he felt it would change the community of interest.
Councillor Veinotte asked how staff would determine boundaries if there were no lines and they
were starting from the start. The GIS Technician noted to get things in parity, he would base it
on community boundaries. Councillor Veinotte noted that starting District 1 at East Chester and
ending at The Lodge would not, to him, be communities of interest – they are different places.
No solution will be “perfect” but there must be a rationale of why the choice was made.
Councillor Church wondered why Council would do anything extreme - District 7 could have 244
new people next year if the proposed Chester Hills development went ahead.
The GIS Technologies indicated that he tried to use community boundaries, but most districts
only have one or two roads going in/out; for example, District 6 has only one road in - Highway
12. He noted that when he started moving lines to include or exclude voters he noticed houses
with zeros – houses with no fulltime residents.
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 350
Deputy Warden Shatford noted that he was expecting something with the least impact and not
an overhaul of the municipality.
Councillor Wells asked for clarity of where his district would change, and it was provided on the
mapping. The Solicitor indicated that the boundary line between District 1 and 3 used to be
Graves Island Road.
Warden Webber asked Councillors if they wanted to make a large-scale change or a minimal
change.
The Deputy CAO indicated that the options can be sent out with Council endorsing one. There
is no decision needed today.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator indicated there would be another draft report to present to
Council with feedback from the community consultation and that would help refine Council’s
final decision. They wanted to provide Council with several options – to just tweak or make a
substantial change. It could be a quick fix now or a fix for the long term.
Option 1 B was chosen by Council to use for consultation.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator indicated that the NSUARB stresses importance of
consultation which is a study to be conducted by Council. Staff proposed a couple of methods –
the Voices and Choices Project page which will include the survey, questions/answers, mapping,
and staff line for questions. The survey would be posted on the Voices and Choices page and
can also be inserted in the Municipal Newsletter in print.
Warden Webber asked if there were any comments on the proposed questions and Councillor
Veinotte suggested changes to the question regarding the warden or mayoral system. It was
agreed to just ask if they want a mayor or warden system – a general question.
Council directed staff to complete the consultation as discussed.
The Strategic Initiatives Coordinator reviewed Next Steps noting that in November staff will
bring the findings and analysis and in December Council will make a decision.
CORRESPONDENCE
There were no items of Correspondence.
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 351
A break was held from 9:59 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
8.1 Request for Direction prepared July 27, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management
Department – Capital Cost Recovery/Infrastructure Development Charges.
Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO reviewed the information included in the Request for Direction
prepared July 27, 2022 regarding Capital Cost Recovery/Infrastructure Development Charges.
There was discussion on the amount of potential development charges as compared to other
municipalities who charge the fee for residential developments, commercial developments,
apartments, townhouses, etc.
It was agreed that charge should be cost neutral to the Municipality and nothing that would
cause the Municipality to make or lose money. Why is there a difference between residential
and commercial fees?
The Deputy CAO provided information on an application for ICIP funding and what the costs
might be per unit if the charge was implemented.
It was agreed that $1,000 is not enough. As well, it was suggested that more information be
provided on the Equivalent Dwelling Unit Charge (EDU) charge for sewer be broken out. If the
Municipality is putting infrastructure in the ground, the idea of a capital charge is valid. The
decision of what should be is difficult. All members were in favour of a capital charge.
The different rates are commensurate with the volume used; it would be more for an
apartment building than a single unit home or a triplex.
It was agreed to direct staff to provide more information on what the EDU charge does cover
and more information on the development fees elsewhere.
8.2 Request for Direction – Dry Wells: Response Planning 2022.
Bruce Blackwood, Fire Services Coordinator was present to review the Request for Direction
prepared for the August 4, 2022 Committee of the Whole meeting.
It was noted that staff have started to receive calls regarding wells that are low in water.
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 352
It was also noted that the precipitation forecast from September 5th indicates mainland NS will
be above normal but the situation in the east could be dry.
The program was not initiated in 2021, but in 2020 there was a major problem. The program
was outlined for the benefit of Councillor Wells.
As there are no Council meetings scheduled until September, it was agreed to direct staff to
start the water program once the number of dry well reports hits a trigger point of 30.
8.3 Copy of letter dated May 4, 2022 from the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg to
Minister Brad Johns regarding Enforcement of the Off-Highway Vehicles Act.
Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO indicated that at a recent RCMP Advisory Board meeting, the
RCMP advised that the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg had forwarded a letter to
Minister Brad Johns regarding Enforcement of the Off-Highway Vehicles Act. They suggested
it would be helpful if this Municipality also sent a letter.
Councillor Connors commented that the Provincial Strategy has been recently released and
Council may wish to review that to determine if there is something there that would be useful.
Councillors commented on the use of ATVs on the trail. It was noted that without information
to identify the drivers, it is difficult to get a conviction/ticket to the offender.
Following a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed a letter should be forwarded.
2022-335 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Connors a letter be
forwarded to Minister Brad Johns regarding the enforcement of the Off-Highway
Vehicle Act. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
8.4 Reminder of Public Hearing this evening at 6:30.
Warden Webber reminded members of the Public Hearing being held this evening at 6:30 p.m.
regarding Lakeside Zone rezoning at Sherbrooke Lake.
8.5 Continuation of Grants Workshop.
It was agreed to continue the Grants Workshop on September 15th, either following
Committee of the Whole meeting or in place of it.
Committee of the Whole (continued) August 4, 2022 353
IN CAMERA
There were no “In Camera” items for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
2022-336 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff, the meeting
adjourn. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. (10:38 a.m.)
___________________________ ___________________________
Allen Webber Pamela Myra
Warden Municipal Clerk
1
Pam Myra (she/her)
From:John Saunders
Sent:July 20, 2022 9:20 AM
To:Pam Myra (she/her)
Subject:#External: Request for Porta Potty at Exit 8 park and ride
Good Morning Pam
Please forward this request to the councilors concerned for making this decision. Many Thanks
My name is John Saunders and I am a Chester resident living in the Kwyet Waters Retirement Community @ 3.6 kms.
from the Park and Ride located just of Hwy 103. across from the RCMP station.
I am currently building a Food Truck, Mickey Finn's "Food Truck O' The Irish", and will be locating my Truck at the Park
and Ride across from the RCMP station. I am requesting that the Chester Council explore the possibility of having a
Porta Potty placed at this location by the Chester Municipality. I will be in operation at least within the next 3 weeks and
will operate my business until the end of November. Next year my business will run from April 1 until Nov 30. I will
probably operate the Truck also as as many Saturdays and Sundays that I can, depending on any private catering that I
have, that falls on a weekend. Thus I could be there 7 days a week.
This location is prime for my Food Truck as there are 2 cement plants, Bonny Lea Farm, The South Shore Quarry, and
the Municipal Recycle and Dump just 15 minutes down Windsor Rd. I will have highway access to both on and off ramps
of the Hwy 103, numerous local businesses are located in that area, and direct traffic coming and going into the Village of
Chester.
I hope to have my workers on site at my Truck and open from @ 10 am to 6 pm, if not later, depending on how the
demands of the business operations proceed. There are numerous cars that park there on a daily basis and of course
car sharing drivers return them to the park and ride to pick up their vehicles, and then travel back to their homes. The
traffic pattern is a very busy line of Truck Drivers, business people, and private residents, that will take the opportunity to
stop and purchase food from my truck, and it would be an opportune place to have this washroom facility available for
them.
I would be willing to help pay for this project is you feel it necessary. I know that I will be busy given the publics
opportunity to stop by during their travels and purchase food for their enjoyment. Having a washroom facility available for
the customers of my Food Truck would be a definite asset for all included. There would obviously be a huge cross
section of customers arriving from local workers to travelling families. There is no opportunity for restaurant quality food
to be purchased between Bridgewater and Tantallon on Hwy 103, as anyone wanting to must travel off the highway and
into the local towns located off 103
I look forward to your consideration with my request and would be available if needed to be present at your next meeting
. If you need any further information please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
John G. Saunders
Mickey Finn's "Food Truck O The Irish"
28 Kwyet Lane Windsor Rd
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.
Tax Exemption Policy
Policy P-25
Municipality of Chester
2022-09-01
Core Municipal Values
Engage in economic, environmental, cultural, and
social initiatives that support sustainable
communities
2021-2024 Strategic Priorities Framework
•Governance & Engagement – Priority Outcomes
1. Ensure municipal service delivery is efficient and effective, communicated, and accessible
2. Ensure municipal bylaw and policy frameworks reflect current and changing needs
Current State
Low-income residents can apply for an exemption each year on their property taxes,
which will be provided to them based on the following criteria:
Income (from 2020 tax return) Maximum Exemption (21/22)
Less than, or equal to $16,208 $771
Between $16,209 and $20,221 Between $462 and $771
Between $20,222 and $27,204 Between $309 and $462
Notes:
•Above numbers are from the 2021/22 fiscal year update of the policy, for which the application period ended on March 31, 2022
•Exemption cannot be greater than tax bill (general residential rate, plus waste collection rate)
•Income and exemption thresholds are reassessed annually
Current State – Annual Adjustments
•In recent years (except 2020), both adjustments have used the average of the annual NS CPI increases reported in the 12 months of the previous calendar year
•If this measure is used for the 2022/23 fiscal year, the increases would be 4.1%
•The “annual increase in CPI for Nova Scotia” (ie. Dec 2020 to Dec 2021) is 4.8%
•The “annual increase in the average residential tax bill” for 2022/23 is 7.9%
Recommended Changes - Annual Adjustments
•Goal: to align annual adjustment amounts to the most relevant benchmarks
•Income thresholds
•Average Weekly Earnings – seasonally adjusted - % change year-over-year (from NS Finance
and Treasury Board Economics and Statistics)
•Standardized and consistent
•Change in average income is more directly related to the threshold that is being adjusted
•2021 vs. 2020 is 1.3% increase in average NS weekly earnings
•Maximum Exemption
•PVSC assessment cap, adjusted for change in tax rate (general residential + waste collection)
•This would ensure that the increase in maximum exemption won’t be outpaced by the
increase to a resident’s tax bill
•2022 Cap = 5.4%, general residential and waste collection rates had no change from last year
•Using this method, 2022/23 maximum exemption amounts would increase by 5.4%
Current State + Options
Legend:
GREEN = 2021/22 actual
ORANGE = recommended (1.3%/5.4%)
BLUE = recent practice (4.1%/4.1%)
PURPLE = current policy (4.8%/7.9%)
A
B
C
Benefit Cliff
What is this?
•A benefit cliff occurs when a small increase in income leads to a total loss of a government benefit
•In policy P-25, this occurs at $27,205 of income (someone earning $27,204 gets a $309 benefit, while someone earning just $1 more gets no benefit)
Concerns
•Creates an unfair application of benefits
•Can disincentivize people from earning a higher income
Solution
•Create a new income threshold bracket at the top of the scale, where the benefit trails off to zero
•Recommend setting this threshold at $29,590
•Top of lowest NS income tax bracket (24.32% combined Fed.+Prov. income tax)
•Equivalent to someone working full-time at $14.23/hour
Removing the Benefit Cliff
For each dollar earned in this
range, max. benefit will reduce by
16 cents (earning them a net of 60
cents, after tax)
A
B
“Slope” Analysis
LEGEND:
A – For each $ earned
(pre-tax), max benefit is
reduced by 8.0 cents
B – For each $ earned
(pre-tax), max benefit is
reduced by 2.3 cents
“Slope” Correction
RECOMMENDATION: remove the
mid-point income threshold and
benefit amount.
This will ensure the policy does not
remove benefits from residents at
the lower end of income at a
greater rate, than it does for
residents in the middle range
Options from RFD
Legend:
GREEN (option #4) = 21/22 actual
PURPLE (option #3)= Continue practice of
recent years (4.1%/4.1%, no other
changes)
ORANGE (option #2 @ 0%) = No bracket or
benefit increase, remove cliff, smooth
curve
BLUE (option #1)= Recommended
(1.3%/5.4%, remove cliff, smooth curve)
Impact of recommended changes
If each of the recommendations presented here are adopted, the income thresholds, and benefit limits
for 2022/23 will be as follows:
Income Threshold Maximum Benefit Notes
Up to $16,419 $813 Lesser of $813 or Gen. Res. + SW rates
Between $16,420 and $27,558 $326 to $813 Max. benefit $813 less ~4.4 cents per dollar
earned above $16,419
Between $27,559 and $29,590 $0 to $326 Max. benefit $326 less ~16.0 cents per dollar
earned above $27,558
Above $29,590 $0 No exemption
Other Amendments - Appeals
Current wording:
•P-25 does not include any areas of judgment or subjective factors (either the resident
meets the criteria for an exemption, or they do not)
•We do occasionally get people missing the deadline for application, and while this does not
occur frequently, there could be room for leniency in the policy
RECOMMENDATION:
“6.0 Residents who would otherwise have qualified for an exemption, but who have missed
the deadline for application, may submit a written request to the CAO, for special approval.
This appeal process will be available until June 30.”
•This will allow a three-month period for late applications to be accepted, pending CAO approval
Other Amendments – Communication
What do we do now?
•Newsletter
•Online
•Councilors
Recommended change
•Include a new row in the application form:
•“Do you wish to be contacted when applications are open for next year? (Y/N)”
•“How would you like to be notified (phone/mail/email): ___________________________”
Benefits
•Reminder for residents who have received an exemption in one year, to apply in the following year
•Prevents qualified residents from missing a benefit they would otherwise have received
Questions?
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Tim Topping, CPA, CA, Director of
Financial and Information Services
Date August 12, 2022
Reviewed By: Date
Authorized By: Date
CURRENT SITUATION
MODC’s Tax Exemption policy provides low-income tax exemptions as allowed under section 69 of the
Municipal Government Act (MGA). Section 7.0 of the current policy has the following guidance for annual
adjustment of income levels and exemption amounts:
7.0 Annually tax exemption income levels and the exemption amounts will be adjusted as follows:
(i) Annual adjustments in the income levels, below which an exemption for taxation is
granted, will be adjusted by either the annual increase in CPI for Nova Scotia or to the
extent that council considers appropriate.
(ii) Annual adjustments in the scale of exemption amounts granted will be adjusted by either
the annual increase in the average residential tax bill for the general tax rate and waste
collection and disposal area rate or to the extent that council considers appropriate.
The annual increase in CPI (March 2021 to March 2022) for Nova Scotia is 6.8%.
The annual increase in the average residential tax bill is 7.9%
On April 14, 2022, the annual budget of the Municipality for 2022/23 was approved with an annual
budget for low-income tax exemptions of $104,000, which is consistent with the previous fiscal year. This
document looks at options for amending the tax exemption amounts granted by the Municipality for
individuals with low income.
In addition to the annual updates to income thresholds and exemption amounts, administration has
identified the following areas where policy P-25 could be improved to better serve residents:
1. Income and exemption benchmark alignment
2. Income thresholds and exemption amount adjustments
3. Deadline dates (initial application and appeals)
4. Communications in the following year
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
SUBMITTED BY: Finance Department
DATE: September 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Amendments to Policy P-25 Tax
Exemption
ORIGIN: Annual review of low-income exemption
amounts
2 Request For Decision
RECOMMENDATION
1. Income and exemption benchmark alignment
To modify the benchmarks used in annual income thresholds and maximum benefit amounts, to better
align the benchmarks used to the measures being adjusted.
Amend section 7.0 as follows:
7.0 Annually tax exemption levels and the exemption amounts will be adjusted as follows:
i) Annual adjustments in Annually, the income levels, below which an exemption for
taxation is granted, will be adjusted by either the annual increase in CPI seasonally
adjusted year-over-year percent change in average weekly earnings for Nova Scotia
or to the extent that council considers appropriate
ii) Annual adjustments in Annually, the scale of the exemption amounts granted will be
adjusted by either the annual increase in the average combined change in the PVSC
CAP rate and the change in residential tax bill for the general tax rate and waste
collection and disposal area rate or to the extent that council considers appropriate
2. Income threshold policy improvements
To increase the income thresholds by 1.3% and exemption amounts by 5.4%, AND to add a new top
income bracket to remove the impact of the “benefit cliff” that currently exists in the policy, AND to
remove the middle income threshold from existing policy:
Amend section 2.0 i), ii) and iii) as follows:
2.0 The Municipality shall grant an exemption as follows:
i) For owners with an Income Level of $16,208 $16,419 or less the tax exemption shall be
the lessor of $771 $813 or the tax on the general tax rate and the waste collection and
disposal area rate only;
ii) For owners with an Income Level of $16,208 $16,419 to $20,221 $27,558 the tax
exemption shall be the lessor of $771 $813 less the bracket’s change in the exemption
amount ($309 $487) prorated for the income above $16,208 $16,419 divided by the
bracket’s income size* or the tax on the general tax rate and the waste collection and
disposal area rate only.
* i.e. $771 – (((income - $16,208) / ($20,221 - $16,208)) x ($771 - $462))
* i.e. $813 – (((income - $16,419) / ($27,558 - $16,419)) x ($813 - $326))
iii) For owners with an Income Level of $20,221 $27,558 to $27,204 $29,590 the tax
exemption shall be the lessor of $462 $326 less the bracket’s change in the exemption
amount ($153 $326) prorated for the income above $20,221 $27,558 divided by the
bracket’s income size^ or the tax on the general tax rate and the waste collection and
disposal area rate only.
^ i.e. $462 – (((income - $20,221) / ($27,204 - $20,221)) x ($462 - $309))
^ i.e. $326 – (((income - $27,558) / ($29,590 - $27,558)) x $326)
3 Request For Decision
Amend Schedule A as follows:
SCHEDULE A
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER – PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT
YEAR DISTRICT ACCOUNT EXEMPTION AMOUNT NUMBER
2021/22
2022/23
I/We, ____________________ & ____________________, property owners of ____________________ in the County of
Lunenburg, Province of Nova Scotia, and is our principal residence, make oath and say as follows:
1. That the total income before deductions of all assessed owners, their spouses (including Common
Law Spouses) who occupy the property as their principal residence, family members residing at the
same household, who contribute to household expenses and those who hold an interest in the
property and contribute to household expenses was as follows during the calendar year 2019 2021.
Any Allowance paid pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act (Canada) or pension paid pursuant
to the Pension Act (Canada) is not to be included in a person’s total income for this purpose.
___ Combined Income was $16,207 $16,419 or less; OR
___ Combined Income was between $16,208 $16,420 and $20,220 $27,558; OR
___ Combined Income was between $20,221 $27,559 and $27,204 $29,590 AND
3. Deadline dates
To remove the reference to the 2019/20 fiscal year deadline extension, and to update the appeals process
for qualified residents who miss the March 31st application deadline:
Amend section 3.0 as follows:
3.0 iii) Apply for the exemption each year prior to March 31st of the Municipal taxation year, with
the exception of the 2019/20 fiscal year – the deadline for applications will be June 30, 2020.
Amend section 6.0 as follows:
6.0 A refusal to grant an exemption pursuant to this Policy may be appealed to Council Residents
who would otherwise have qualified for an exemption, but who have missed the deadline
for application, may submit a written request for appeal to the CAO, for special approval.
This appeal process will be available until June 30th
4. Communications in the following year
To update the application form to include the option for qualified residents to be contacted directly upon
amendment of the policy:
Add the following as section 3 to Schedule A:
3. Would you like to be contacted directly when policy P-25 is amended for the following fiscal year?
Yes___No___
4 Request For Decision
How would you prefer to be contacted? (phone/mail/email):________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Section 69 of the MGA states that Council may, by policy, grant an exemption from taxation, in the
amount or to the extent set out in the policy, for a person whose income is below the amount set out in
the policy and may prescribe a scale of exemptions related to income.
Historically, the income thresholds and exemption amounts have been increased annually to align with
the 12-month trailing average of year-over-year changes in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). In 2020/21,
the thresholds and exemption amounts were increased by 25% to help alleviate some of the financial
burden low-income residents were experiencing, at least in part due to the impacts of the Covid-19
pandemic.
In 2021/22, tax exemptions were granted in the amount of $83,292 versus a budget of $104,000. The
budget amount has remained at $104,000 for 2022/23. Tax exemption expenses for the last five years
were as follows:
- 2021/22 $83,292
- 2020/21 $95,473
- 2019/20 $53,491
- 2018/19 $51,786
- 2017/18 $33,978
The exemptions provided in 2021/22 break down as follows:
Income Number of
Exemptions Granted
Cost of
Exemptions
Less than $16,209 41 $25,845
Between $16,209 and $20,221 33 $17,307
Between $20,222 and $27,204 99 $40,139
Total 173 $83,292
On April 14, 2022, the annual budget of the Municipality for 2022/23 was approved with an annual
budget for low-income tax exemptions of $104,000.
DISCUSSION
Given the actual cost of this program in 2021/22 ($83,292), the current 2022/23 budget of $104,000 would
be sufficient to absorb an additional 25% growth of use in the program above what was experienced last
year.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy – N/A
Financial/Budgetary
Increasing the income limits and exemption amounts will likely increase the costs associated with the
program. A year-over-year cost increase of 25% has been provided for in the 2022/23 budget.
5 Request For Decision
Environmental – N/A
Strategic Plan
Revising the low-income exemption amounts will assist the Municipality in advancing the following
Priority Areas of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework:
Governance & Engagement
Priority Outcome 1: Ensure municipal service delivery is efficient and effective, communicated, and
accessible
Priority Outcome 2: Ensure municipal bylaw and policy frameworks reflect current and changing
needs
Work Program Implications – N/A
OPTIONS
Option 1 (recommended): Update the annual benchmarks for changes in income thresholds and
exemption limits as presented here, AND increase the income limits by 1.3% and exemption amounts by
5.4% to align with the newly selected benchmarks, AND remove the second income threshold, AND add a
new top income threshold, AND amend the appeals process, AND add additional communications
options, as presented here, and in the associated presentation.
Option 2: Accept all recommended changes as presented for Option 1, but with changes to the income
thresholds other than 1.3% and/or changes to the benefit maximums other than 5.4%. If this option is
selected, Council should provide (an) alternative percentage(s) by which the amounts will change.
Option 3: Use previously used methodology to increase income brackets and benefit maximums by 4.1%
while rejecting other recommended changes to the policy.
Option 4: Reject all proposed changes and use the same income thresholds and exemption limits as used
in the 2021/22 fiscal year.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft amendments to policy P-25
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
Internal – Finance staff
External – public via website, newsletter, councilors
Municipality of the District of Chester
Tax Exemption
Policy
Policy P-25
Amended - Effective Date: TBD
Fiscal Year 2021/2022/2023
Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 2
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
POLICY P-25
TAX EXEMPTION POLICY
WHEREAS Section 69 of the Municipal Government Act permits a Municipality to grant a tax
exemption for low income earners;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester adopts
the following policy respecting property tax exemptions.
1.0 In this Policy,
1.1 INCOME means a person’s total income (total income before deductions) from all
sources for the calendar year preceding the fiscal year of the Municipality of the District
of Chester, excluding any allowances paid pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act
(Canada) or Pension paid pursuant to the Pension Act (Canada) and includes:
i) The income of all assessed owners, their spouse(s), including common law
spouses who occupy the property as their principal residence;
ii) The income from members of the same family residing in the same household,
who contribute to the household expenses; and
iii) Those who hold an interest in the property and contribute to the household
expenses.
1.2 Owner and those who an interest in the property includes:
i) The person assessed for the property;
ii) A person who holds title including a part owner, joint owner, tenant in common,
or joint tenant of the property; and
ii) A person with a life interest in the property; and
iv) A person with a matrimonial interest.
Not included are those with a leasehold interest and those with an interest under an
agreement of purchase and sale.
1.3 Principal Residence is the ordinary place of residence for greater part of the year of an
owner as well as an owner in a hospital or nursing care facility, unless that person has not
slept at the property for a period of two (2) years or more, or unless the property has
been rented to paying tenants, in either of which events, the property shall be deemed to
cease being the owner’s ordinary place of residence.
Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 3
1.4 SAME FAMILY in section 1.1(ii) is defined as including, but not limited to, children and
step-childrenstepchildren connected to at least one of the legally married or common-law
couples included in section 1.1(i).
2.0 The Director of Finance of the Municipality shall grant an exemption as follows:
i) For owners with an Income Level of $16,208 16,419 or less the tax exemption
shall be the lessor of $771813 or the tax on the general tax rate and the waste
collection and disposal area rate only;
ii) For owners with an Income Level of $16,20816,419 to $20,22127,558 the tax
exemption shall be the lessor of $813771 less the bracket’s change in the
exemption amount $487309) prorated for the income above $16,20816,419
divided by the bracket’s income size* or the tax on the general tax rate and the
waste collection and disposal area rate only.
* i.e. $771 813 - (((income - $16,20816,419) / ($20,22127,558 - $16,20816,419)) x
($771 813 - $462326))
iii) For owners with an Income Level of $20,22127,558 to $27,20429,590 the tax
exemption shall be the lessor of $462 326 less the bracket’s change in the
exemption amount $326153) prorated for the income above $20,22127,558
divided by the bracket’s income size^ or the tax on the general tax rate and the
waste collection and disposal area rate only.
^ i.e. $326462 - (((income - $27,55820,221) / ($27,20429,590 - $20,22127,558)) x
($462 - $309326))
3.0 A person or persons applying for an exemption must:
i) Make an affidavit:
a) Regarding his/her income from all sources in the calendar year preceding
the Municipal taxation year for which the exemption is sought.
Satisfactory verification of income must be presented to substantiate the
exemption. Exemption form attached as Schedule "A”.
b) Verify that any person who either holds an interest in the property or are
family members residing in the same household, whose income is not
included in household income pursuant to clause 1.1 (ii), does not
contribute to paying household expenses.
c) Provide satisfactory verification of income to substantiate the exemption.
Satisfactory evidence includes a CRA notice assessment, GST/HST credit
notice, and copy of tax return prepared by a third-party tax preparer.
iii) Apply for the exemption each year prior to March 31st of the Municipal taxation
year, with the exception of the 2019/20 fiscal year – the deadline for applications
will be June 30, 2020.
Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 4
4.0 The exemption shall only apply to a property where at least one of the assessed owners
occupies it as his/her principal residence;residence.
5.0 Prior to an exemption being granted, all outstanding debts to the Municipality, which are
not a lien on the property, shall be paid in full. This would include any fees such as
building permit fees, landfill tipping fees, recreation fees, etc.
6.0 A refusal to grant an exemption pursuant to this Policy may be appealed to
CouncilResidents who would otherwise have qualified for an exemption, but who have
missed the deadline for application, may submit a written request for appeal to the CAO,
for special approval. This appeal process will be available until June 30th.
7.0 Annually tax exemption income levels and the exemption amounts will be adjusted as
follows:
i) Annual adjustments in Annually, the income levels, below which an exemption for
taxation is granted, will be adjusted by either the annual increase in CPI
seasonally adjusted year-over-year percent change in average weekly earnings
for Nova Scotia or to the extent that council considers appropriate.
ii) Annual adjustments in Annually, the scale of exemption amounts granted will be
adjusted by either the annual increase in the average combined change in the
PVSC CAP rate and the change in residential tax bill for the general tax rate and
waste collection and disposal area rate or to the extent that council considers
appropriate.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 1.27 cm
Formatted: Superscript
Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 5
SCHEDULE A
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER – PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT
YEAR DISTRICT ACCOUNT EXEMPTION AMOUNT NUMBER
2021/222
022/23
I/We, ____________________ & ____________________, property owners of ____________________ in the
County of Lunenburg, Province of Nova Scotia, and is our principal residence, make oath and say
as follows:
1. That the total income before deductions of all assessed owners, their spouses (including
Common Law Spouses) who occupy the property as their principal residence, family
members residing in the same household, who contribute to household expenses and those
who hold an interest in the property and contribute to household expenses, was as follows
during the calendar year 20192021. Any Allowance paid pursuant to the War Veterans
Allowance Act (Canada) or pension paid pursuant to the Pension Act (Canada) is not to be
included in a person’s total income for this purpose.
___ Combined Income was $16,20716,419 or less; OR
___ Combined Income was between $16,42016,208 and $27,55820,220; OR
___ Combined Income was between $27,55920,221 and $29,59027,204 AND
2. ___ Verification Provided of combined income of $______________. Check one of the following:
___ Notice of Assessment, _____ GST/HST Credit Notice, _____Copy of tax return.
3. Would you like to be contacted directly when Policy P-25 is amended for the following fiscal
year? Yes___ No___
How would you prefer to be contacted? (phone/mail/email): __________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: - THIS IS A LEGAL SWORN AFFIDAVIT AND THE APPLICANTS SIGNATURE(S)
ENDORSED BELOW ARE VERIFICATION THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE IN
ALL RESPECTS.
THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPTION GRANTED WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER THE FINAL TAX BILL IS
PRODUCED AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TAX AND WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL AREA RATE PORTION OF THE OVERALL TAX BILL (I.E. DOES NOT
INCLUDE OTHER AREA RATES).
Sworn to at ______________ in the County of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia on the ____ day of ________,
20___.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Staff Signature ______________________________________
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Hanging: 0.63 cm
Tax Exemption Policy (continued) 6
A Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Signature of Applicant(s)
Nova Scotia or a Municipal CouncillorCouncillor
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, No
widow/orphan control, Tab stops: -0.85 cm, Left + 0 cm, Left
+ 0.63 cm, Left + 1.27 cm, Left + 3.81 cm, Left + 5.08 cm,
Left + 6.35 cm, Left + 7.62 cm, Left + 8.89 cm, Left +
10.16 cm, Left + 11.43 cm, Left + 12.7 cm, Left + 13.97 cm,
Left + 15.24 cm, Left + 16.51 cm, Left + 17.78 cm, Left +
19.05 cm, Left + 20.32 cm, Left + 21.59 cm, Left + 22.86
cm, Left + 24.13 cm, Left + 25.4 cm, Left + 26.67 cm, Left
+ 27.94 cm, Left + 29.21 cm, Left + 30.48 cm, Left + 31.75
cm, Left + 33.02 cm, Left
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
MEETING DATE:
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Development
SUBJECT: MLUB and VLUB Amendments
ORIGIN: Staff
Date: August 21, 2022 Prepared by: John Gamey, Summer Co-op Planning Student
Date: August 21, 2022 Reviewed by: Emily Statton, Planner, Chad Haughn, Director of CD&R
Date: August 23, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO
CURRENT SITUATION
Staff have identified a series of By-Laws that, if amended, would improve the clarity and administration of the
Municipal Land Use By-Law and Village Land Use By-Law. Most of these amendments are minor in nature and
can be accomplished without amending any policies outlined in the Municipal Planning Strategy. The sections
from each Land Use By-Law that staff are proposing amendments to are:
MLUB Section 2.0 – revise definition of ‘Tourist Home’;
MLUB Section 3.2, VLUB Section 3.4 – revise wording to address the adoption of revised maps;
MLUB Sections 4.1.3, VLUB Section 4.5 – add language explaining that certain By-laws are exempt from
LUB provisions, including but not limited to: Mobile Vending, Uniform Signage & Outdoor Dining;
MLUB Section 4.18.1 – use single unit dwelling setbacks as the standard for private storage;
MLUB Section 4.28.1 – (1) clarify that any development on a lot subject to Lakefront Overlay requires a
development permit, and (2) revise lot coverage language;
MLUB Sections 6.3.1 & 6.4.1 – (1) list campgrounds and RV parks as permitted uses in SR-1 and SR-2
zones, (2) limit camp sites/RVs to 10, and (3) impose 10m setbacks equal to those found in the Hamlet
Zone;
MLUB Section 6.4.1 revise setbacks for 3-11 dwelling units on a lot from 1.5m to 3m and Tourism
Accommodations setbacks from 7m to 7.5m to match MU Zone requirements;
MLUB Section 6.5.1 – revise language for larger campgrounds and RV parks to “21 or more sites”;
MLUB Section 9.4.3-add Waterfront Parks not owned by the Municipality by Development Agreement
to list of Permitted Uses and Developments.
If Council wishes to proceed with these amendments, staff will prepare a report for consideration by the
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee. In the following section, additional background information will be
provided for several of these proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND
In both the MLUB and VLUB, zoning maps are provided as separate Schedules – Schedule A Zoning Map for the
MLUB and Schedules A1 and A2 for the VLUB. When property data is updated by the province – a process that
happens semi-regularly – it is possible that discrepancies between property lines and zone boundaries may
occur. To be transparent and clear about this process, it can be acknowledged in both the MLUB and VLUB.
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2
Staff have introduced an Outdoor Dining By-Law, which supersedes the General Provisions found in the MLUB
and VLUB. This should be reflected in the MLUB and VLUB so that there are no contrary provisions.
As it currently stands, if a landowner wants to develop on land that is subject to the Lakefront Overlay but does
not propose to build on area covered by the Lakefront Overlay, a development permit is not required. In these
cases, once construction begins, the Municipality is limited in ensuring that the development does not infringe
on the Lakefront Overlay. Conversely, if the Municipality requires that a development permit is required for all
developments occurring on lots subject to the Lakefront Overlay – regardless of whether the proposed
development overlaps with the Lakefront Overlay – the overlay will be better protected.
DISCUSSION
In Section 2.0 (Definitions) of the MLUB, the definition of ‘Tourist Home’ should add language specifying that the
site “will not function as a residential dwelling unit”. Further, the term ‘Tourist Home’ should be changed to
‘Short-term Rental’, as the latter better reflects current terminology, particularly around Airbnb and Vrbo rental
units. Finally, a line should be added to the General Provisions (Section 4.0) to state that “Short-term Rentals are
subject to the dwelling standards of the zone where the structure is situated.”
In Section 3.2 (Interpretation of Zone Boundaries) of the MLUB, language should be added to acknowledge that
the maps shown in Schedule “A” are revised from time to time to reflect improved data or more accurate
information. When property data is updated by the province, it is possible that discrepancies may arise between
property lines and zone boundaries. This should also be reflected in Section 3.4 (Interpretation of Zone
Boundaries) in the VLUB.
In Section 4.1.3 (Mobile Vending) of the MLUB a line should be added: ‘Other By-laws are exempt from Land Use
By-Law provisions including but not limited to: Uniform Advertising Signage, Outdoor Dining & Mobile Vending.
A section should be created at Section 4.5 (Waivers and Exemptions) of the VLUB to include Mobile Vending and
Other By-laws are exempt from Land Use By-Law provisions including but not limited to: Outdoor Dining &
Mobile Vending.’
In Section 4.18.1 (Private Storage) of the MLUB as currently written, this section uses general language for
setbacks for private storage sheds– “subject to zone standards”. It should be stated that “private storage
buildings shall be permitted in any zone, subject to the zone standards for single unit dwellings (Section 6.2). The
way it is written now, we have different setbacks for different uses, making that requirement difficult to
interpret and leaves room for error. The new wording will mirror the standards for a single unit dwelling.
In Section 4.28.1(a) (Lakefront Overlay) of the MLUB, language should be revised to state that “any development
on a lot subject to the Lakefront Overlay shall require a development permit.” This change clarifies that even if
a landowner wants to develop on their land outside of the Lakefront Overlay, they still require a development
permit. This will ensure that the Lakefront Overlay boundary is respected.
4.28.1(d) refers to “impermeable surfaces must not exceed 25% of total area of the lot including buildings and
hard-surface landscaping”. Change the wording to ““impermeable surfaces must not exceed the total lakefront
overlay area of the lot”. This needed to be clarified to reflect that the 25% limit is intended to be just the area
covered by LF overlay and not a lot coverage for the entire lot.
In Sections 6.3.1 and 6.4.1 (SR-1 and SR-2 Permitted Uses and Developments) Campgrounds and RV Parks are
listed as “any other commercial or institutional use”, which are not subject to setback requirements. Within the
Mixed-Use & General Basic zones, Campgrounds and RV Parks are listed as a permitted used with listed
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3
setbacks. The SR-1 & SR-2 zones were intended to be more restrictive than the MU & GB zones, however in
instance, that is not the case. Campgrounds and RV Parks should be added to the list of permitted Commercial &
Institutional uses within the SR-1 & SR-2 zones. This amendment would create more restrictive setbacks for
Campgrounds and RV Parks in the SR-1 and SR-2 zones, going from the current 1.5m to 10m (equal to current
setbacks in Hamlet Zone). With this change, staff recommend limiting the number of campsites/RVs to a
maximum of 10 sites. This change is intended to mirror setbacks for similar uses in other zones.
In Section 6.4.1 (SR-1 and SR-2 Permitted Uses and Developments) the setbacks for 3-11 dwelling units on a lot,
to be changed to from 1.5m to 3m and change Tourism Accommodations setbacks from the current 7m to 7.5m
to match MU Zone requirements.
In Section 6.5.1 (Mixed-Use Zone Permitted Uses and Developments) of the MLUB, there is language stating that
Campgrounds and RV Parks with more than 21 sites are approved by development agreement and
Campgrounds and RV Parks up to 20 sites to be approved via development permit. This could theoretically leave
a 21 site Campground or RV Park outside of the purview of the Land Use By-law. As such, the language should be
adjusted to “Campgrounds and RV Parks with 21 or more sites”.
In Section 9.4.3 (Lakeside Zone) of the MLUB, ‘Waterfront Parks not owned by the Municipality’ through the
Development Agreement approval process should be added the ‘Permitted Uses and Development’ other list, to
mirror all other zones.
OPTIONS
1. Direct Staff to prepare a report and draft amendments to the Municipal Land Use By-law and Chester
Village Land Use By-law that address the list of housekeeping amendments and schedule a date for a
Public Information Meeting.
2. Direct staff to take no action. No draft amendments will be prepared or proposed. Existing language in
the Land Use By-law will remain, and variances may continue to be issued without supporting MPS
policy to provide guidance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION/ACTION
Direct Staff to prepare a report and draft amendments to the Municipal Land Use By-law and Chester Village
Land Use By-law that addresses the list of housekeeping amendments.
IMPLICATIONS
By-Law/Policy
None outside of additions/amendments mentioned in ‘Discussion’ section
Financial/budgetary
None
Environmental
None
Strategic Priorities
None
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4
Work Program Implications
An increase in development permits being sought is possible as a result of changes to MLUB Section 4.28.1, however any
increase is not expected to be significant.
Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _X_ No __ N/A
ATTACHMENTS
N/A