Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-09-15_COW_Website Agenda Package.pdfPage 1 of 2 (Cover Pages) Comm ittee of the Whole AGENDA Thursday, September 15, 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 5.1 9:00 a.m. – Mahone Islands Conservation Association - Sydney Dumaresq, John Meisner, and Bryan Palfreyman. 5.2 9:15 a.m. - South Shore Tourism - Stephanie Miller Vincent, Peter Cullen, and Joanne Cooper. 5.3 9:30 a.m. - FBM Architecture Report “Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester”. a. Slide Presentation. b. Architecture Report. 6. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Request for Direction prepared August 21, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Municipal Land Use By-Law and Village Land Use By-Law Amendments. 6.2 Quarterly Report – Financial & Information Services. 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. BY-LAWS AND POLICIES 8.1 Flag Raising & Protocol Policy P-103 – Intention to amend policy in Section 3.03. a. Current Policy. b. Policy with proposed amendments. 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. IN CAMERA Page 2 of 2 (Cover Pages) 11. ADJOURNMENT APPOINTMENTS 9:00 a.m. Sydney Dumaresq, John Meisner, Bryan Palfreyman – Mahone Islands Conservation Association 9:15 a.m. South Shore Tourism (Stephanie Miller Vincent, Peter Cullen, and Joanne Cooper) 9:30 a.m. FBM Architecture Final Report The Grant Workshop (continuation) will follow the Committee of the Whole Meeting 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 PO Box 427, Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia B0J 2E0 www.mahoneislands.ns.ca MICA MISSION: To protect and conserve the natural environment of the islands and shoreline of Mahone Bay and the traditional, social and recreational opportunities valued by its various communities. MICA-MODL PUBLIC MOORING PROJECT SUMMARY For presentation to MOC Council September 15, 2022 1. MICA Partnered Acquisitions: Green: MICA Yellow: NCC Owned. 2. Background: • When MICA acquired these islands and properties with our partners, there were very few private boat moorings with the exception of several in Backmans Island cove and several off the LIPS islands placed by the island owners. • Traditional public use is by anchoring and by direct beach landing for smaller boats. • There has been significant increase in the number of private moorings around MICA islands the past several years. • MICA is against the placement of these private moorings for the following reasons: – They ‘stake a private claim’ by the owner. – They can restrict access to the shore. – Most are set in preferred popular locations. – They reduce space available for anchoring. – Unattended or abandoned moorings are a hazard. – They are contrary to everything MICA and our partners have worked for in acquiring these islands for public use. • MICA has discussed the issue with NSDNRR who have advised that we begin with an education program regarding our objections to these private moorings. MICA has been doing that through newsletters and at MICA events for several years. • MICA has recently been working with MODL on a plan for establishing Registered Public Moorings at strategic locations around MICA islands in response to this issue. 3. Registered Public Moorings: • MODL- MICA received permission from NSDNRR for MODL to register a quantity of moorings around MICA islands in selected locations as provided by MICA. These moorings would be available for public use. • In the initial application, two moorings were proposed for Squid Island. Birch Island wasn’t included, as we had not acquired the island at that time. • MODL will own the moorings. • MODL will develop and manage the tendering and procurement process including supplier criteria. • MODL and MICA have agreed on the mooring specifications. • MICA has agreed to share 50% of the capital cost for the identified moorings. • The moorings would be identified with a distinctive colored ball which would be marked: PUBLIC MOORING. • There would be a tag attached to the pennant that would state the following: o THIS IS A REGISTERED MOORING FOR PUBLIC USE PROVIDED BY: ▪ THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF LUNENBURG (MODL) and ▪ THE MAHONE ISLANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION (MICA) o IT IS INTENDED FOR DAY USE. o PLEASE DO NOT MONOPOLIZE ITS USE AND HAVE CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS. o THE MOORING IS A 2000 LB CONCRETE BLOCK. o IF YOU ARE NOT A MICA MEMBER, PLEASE JOIN. o PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER DONATING TO MICA. o AND PLEASE ENJOY YOUR VISIT. o FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE REFER TO: o www.mahoneislands.ns.ca o USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. • The moorings would be inspected on a regular basis by a qualified contractor contracted by MODL. 4. Future Plan: • It is MICA’s goal that over time, the only moorings that would be off MICA islands and properties would be Registered Public Moorings. • This will require a communications campaign over the winter and spring. • MICA would intend to fundraise through our membership and supporters to help offset the cost to MICA. The above provides a background and general information on the current public mooring project between MODL and MICA. As this is a work in progress project, some details may change. September 8, 2022 Subscribe Past Issues Translate RSS Keeping you informed of the latest news from the Mahone Islands Conservation Association 11 Find Us on Facebook MICA 2022 Summer Newsletter Dear MICA Members: We hope you are finding opportunities to enjoy the MICA islands this summer. Hopefully this beautiful weather continues and we have a warm fall as well. Following are several updates from your MICA Directors: 1. PUBLIC MOORINGS: The Mahone Islands Conservation Association (MICA) and the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg (MODL) are pleased to announce a joint venture to create a number of public moorings. These will be located off islands brought into public ownership by MICA in partnership with the Provincial Government and MODL. It has always been the intention that these islands be accessible to the general public. However their popularity has created some challenges as boating activities have significantly increased in recent years. MICA has communicated Subscribe Past Issues Translate RSS It is expected that there will be about 20 public moorings this year. They will be provided and installed by a qualified marine contractor to standard specifications. The rating of the mooring will appear on an attached mooring pennant tag and usage will be completely at the boat user/owner's risk. While the use of the moorings will be provided free of charge it is hoped that users will make donations to MICA to help offset costs and help fund more moorings as space and funds allow. It is also requested that moorings be equitably shared so that access to the islands is available to as many as possible. It is our goal that over time, the only moorings that would be present around MICA islands in the Municipality of Lunenburg would be PUBLIC moorings provided by MODL and MICA. MICA, MODL and the Province believe that it is important that islands purchased with public funds and by private donation are accessible by the general public. This is why they were purchased as part of Nova Scotia's heritage. We hope that our initiative will allow the boating public to better enjoy the beauty of our Mahone Bay islands. Congratulations MICA members and supporters. 2. MICA STEWARDSHIP CHAMPIONS: Our MICA Stewardship Champion program continues this year. We thank all our MICA Champs for accepting this responsibility and are very pleased to introduce them. Our MICA Champs are keeping their eyes on their assigned islands, conducting inspections, reporting back and helping with the general stewardship. Let's help them make their job easy. 3. MICA CORPORATE SUPPORTERS: We extend our sincere thanks, appreciation, and recognition to our 2022 MICA Corporate Supporters to date. Most are long time MICA supporters which has been so important and so crucial in allowing MICA to have partnered in island and property acquisitions including our most recent — Birch Island earlier this year and the Mahone Islands Conservation Association Oakland Conservation Area (MOCA) two years ago. Please patronize them when you can. Subscribe Past Issues Translate RSS MICA Corporate Supporter. 4. CALLA I E A AUCTI N: Unfortunately, because of the uncertainties around COVID for the fall, we have cancelled the 2022 GDA. We believe the engagement of MICA members is very important and we are planning several smaller 'fellowship' get- togethers for the summer and fall that can be held outdoors. The first will be at Saltbox Brewery Company, Mahone Bay on Thursday July 21 from 6 — 8 pm. You can enjoy an outdoor or indoor experience. Please plan to attend for a MICA Social, to catch up on the latest MICA news and to have a chat with your MICA friends and maybe you will win a prize! 5. ICA E E SHIP: Just a reminder, if you haven't already, to please update your MICA membership renew your membership and encourage your friends who may enjoy our islands and to join. And if you wish to donate to support our mooring program and our future acquisitions please do so by: a. cheque to MICA, PO Box 427, Mahone Bay, NS BOJ 2E0, or b. online at www.mahoneislands.nseca through CanadaHelpseorg. Subscribe Past Issues Translate RSS Thank you MICA members. We truly appreciate your ongoing support. MICA Board of Directors Mission To protect and conserve the natural environment of July 11, 2022 is is curd shoreline of Mahone Buy, and the traditional, social and recreational opportunities valued by its various communities. Subscribe Past Issues Translate RSS forward to a friend friend on facebook Copyright © 2022 Mahone Islands Conservation Association, All rights reserved. unsubscribe from (chimp his list update subscription preferences 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 101.111; 111111111111111111111111 no, Hummur COLLARORATION AND BUILDING ON COLLFCTIVE STRENGTHS. INVFSTEMFNTS AND RESOURCES F0 MARKET OUR RFGION CIL\ RTI\G .\ COURSE TO GROW .\W.\RFAESS NOVA SCOTIA S SOUlHl SIIORE IS VISITSOUTI isi IORLC1A WHENEVER YOU CAN, PUT YOUR $ \\ III IZ I 1 OUR iiLART IS. LIVELOC;\L FAT LOCAL. SHOP L 0 C 4A L. COME FILL YOUP BUCKET TO OVEPFLOWING WITH ALL THINGS SOUTH SHORE. #SOUTHSHOPENMCE GUTH 4RE 3 SOUTH SHORE IS THE PLACE TO 13E FOR UNIQUE EXPERIENCES, ES TO PEST YOUR HEAD, AND SEAFOOD,.. WELL... YOU'LL WANT A BIGGER )OD! COME FOR HIKING, BIKING, KAYAKING, SURFING, PADDLE BOARDING, AND TIME TRAVELING BACK TO A PLACE IN OUP COLOURFUL HISTORY. FILL YOUR BUCKET (AND YOUR SOUL WITH LIVE LOCAL ENTERTAINMENT, WHIMSICAL APT, WHITE SAND, AND SOOTHING SPA VISITS, COLLECT MEMORIES AND MOMENTS TOPPED WITH A SCOOP OF LOCAL ICE CREAM AND CHASED WITH A SHOT OF SOMETHING THAT'LL HAVE YOU SPEAKING LIKE A PIRATE, GET A HANDLE ON SUMMER WITH THE GOOD FOLKS AND FINDS ALL OVER THE SOUTH SHORE, V 5ITSOUTH5H0PC.CA SCAN AND MAKE A PLAN! WEEKLY CONTESTS AND EVENTS. S \fl5 T 30UTH5H()PE CA Wc arc Social. Wc arc ti1king aboLit you. Wc are bcing followcd \pril 2021 -\larch 2022 FU\DI\G .\\D PROJECTS ACOA Regional Relief and Recovery 55 di1 Atlantic Chamber of Commerce 48 500 ACOA Lobster Crawl 12 734 Discover Nova Scotia/ Develop Halifax Patio Lanterns 45 000 ACOA Tourism Relief Fund 39 685 Destination Canada/Tourism Nova Scotia 90 000 Total Funding $291 360 April 2022-MarCh 2023 Fu DING iV\D PRO*1 'S ACOA Tourism Relief Fund Bucket List Marketing Evergreen Festival Activities Nova Scotia Lobster Crawl Labour Shortage Human Resources Mi kma ki Project $446 59 Tourism Nova Scotia 130 000 Total Funding $576 590 STRONGER TOGET 90 MEMBERS ACOA 8 MUNICIPALITY, REGIONS TOURISM NOVA SCOTIA AND TOWNS TOURISM INDUSTRY OF NOVA SCOTIA 2022 WORKING LA130R.\"1 IV1_.Y 1 1\ I` \l I L I I L I .n I LE �\ OPPOR'I`U\LI "IO SI-Ia\RI'. WILL \\D G \I\ FROM 1301\R1) .\L)VISOR COMV_LT"1 P.ARTICI P 10 I\CLUSION i\\L) I;1;ATURFS 1 CAV_PA1GNS Built Form and Character-Defining Elements Study for Chester Village Municipality of Chester, Committee of the Whole, September 15, 2022 Presenter: David Paterson, Planner, FBM Built Form and Character-Defining Elements Study for Chester Village - OVERVIEW Building Height Roof Shape Massing Materials Garages Landscape and Trees 1. Analysis + Principles Winter/Spring 2022 2. Engagement May 2022 3. Policy Considerations September 2022 Previous Engagement History, Heritage and Legacy Buildings Street Types and Character Areas Frequently Observed Character Elements Guiding Principles for Compatibility Housing Needs/Concerns Commercial Core Connection to Water Waterfront Zones Scale and Impact of Development Discussion Paper Survey Public Meetings Stakeholder Meetings Village Planning Advisory Committee Previous Engagement on the “Chester Look” •“Waterfront,” “Dwellings” and “Trees” •Tidiness •Walking experience •Village destinations and amenities •Historical buildings Street types and Character Areas Frequently Observed Character Elements Guiding Principles for Village Character and Compatibility Continuity and ChangeTimeless and Authentic Design Sensitive to Landscape and Seascape Appropriate and Complementary Community Engagement •Agreement with Principles, Character Areas and Frequently Observed Elements •Specific Objectives: •Scale and Pace of Change •Design, Style, Materials, Windows, Massing, Height and Roofs •Landscape, topography and connection to water •Housing Options •Supporting the Village Core Commercial Area •Maintaining sense of pride and community General Feedback: •Survey •Two community meetings •Stakeholder meetings (Merchants, Garden Club, Heritage) •Village Planning Committee 60 interactions Policy Considerations - Building Height and roof shape •Methods for calculating height •Height precincts •Roof slopes Policy Considerations - Aggregated massing •Maintain requirement for aggregated massing for structures over 1,500 sq ft footprint Policy Considerations - Materials and glazing •Remove limit on vertically-oriented siding •Limit on lower-quality or less sustainable materials •Size limit for glazing per building face Policy Considerations - Garages •Limit attached garage width •Require that attached garage be set back behind pedestrian entrance of house •Limit width of driveways Policy Considerations - Landscaping and Trees •Setback variance to promote tree retention •Landscaping requirements in new development •Advocate for tree retention within street rights of way •Potential for tree protection bylaw •Take a tree inventory Policy Considerations - Housing •Additional options for second suites •Additional housing options (age in place in Chester) •Name change for the Estate Residential zone •Review lot size minimums in Estate Residential zone •Promote design for sustainability and accessibility Policy Considerations - Walkable Village Commercial Core and connection to water •Promote a cluster of walkable destinations (“walkable streets overlay”), requiring pedestrian-oriented ground level uses •Potential for Water Street sidewalk or boardwalk •Potential for Tancook Island ferry dock repurposed as a destination Policy Considerations - Waterfront zones (Waterfront Residential and Marine Industrial) •Review Waterfront Residential zone’s max width of building •Review Marine Industrial zone land use restrictions and consider additional commercial options, or potential for a “Marine Commercial” zone •Limits to fencing where they impact views to the water Policy Considerations - Regulatory options for managing development scale/impact •Potential for Heritage Conservation District •Additional municipal heritage property registrations •Design regulations when abutting heritage •Maximum size for houses (i.e. footprint precincts, or relative to nearby structures) •Differentiate levels of project complexity •“low complexity” for small structures and additions (as of right) •“medium complexity” for larger structures and/or sensitive locations (as of right with design checklist) •“high complexity” for unique proposals (development agreement) Thank You Built Form and Character-Defining Elements Study for Chester Village Municipality of Chester, Committee of the Whole, September 15, 2022 Presenter: David Paterson, Planner, FBM – paterson@fbm.ca, 902-429-4100 Consultant team TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT STUDYJoin us at an upcoming event to learn more and share your ideasSIZE: 5X7 INCHES, BLACK AND WHITE - draft The Municipality of Chester is working with CBCL and FBM on a Traffic Improvement Study, with analysis and engagement events happening in August. The primary objective of the project is to provide recommendations on ways to improve traffic flows. This includes vehicular movement and parking, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and mobility aided forms of transport. It is also looking at the municipal sidewalk cafe initiative. Please join us at an Event! Meet the team at Picnic In the Park Lordy Park, Aug 17, 5-7 pm (come by the tent anytime. Staff will also be on hand to discuss Parade Square Beautification) Attend the workshop being held at ____ ____ ____ _____ August _, from 3 to 5 pm Insert image or VoC Map ?2” x 2.5” For more information and ways to submit comments, visit voicesandchoices.ca. Note: The discussion at these events will focus on the Village of Chester. The study is also looking at Traffic Improvements in the the Hubbards/Fox Point area, and we will host a separate event to dicuss the Hubbards and Fox Point area of the municipality. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester S ep tem b er 2 0 2 2 About the Consultant team Fowler Bauld and Mitchell (FBM) is a Halifax-based architecture, planning and interior design firm that has been in continuous operation since 1917 with a broad range of projects locally and nationally. Novita Interpares is a Lunenburg-based heritage planning and design consultancy that has carried out over 1,200 projects in villages, towns, and cities across Canada. CBCL is a multidisciplinary engineering and environmental consulting firm based in Atlantic Canada, offering services in building science, coastlines, environmental, geotechnical, sustainability, and transportation sectors. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT STUDY Join us at an upcoming event to learn more and share your ideas SIZE: 5X7 INCHES, BLACK AND WHITE - draft The Municipality of Chester is working with CBCL and FBM on a Traffic Improvement Study, with analysis and engagement events happening in August. The primary objective of the project is to provide recommendations on ways to improve traffic flows. This includes vehicular movement and parking, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and mobility aided forms of transport. It is also looking at the municipal sidewalk cafe initiative. Please join us at an Event! Meet the team at Picnic In the Park Lordy Park, Aug 17, 5-7 pm (come by the tent anytime. Staff will also be on hand to discuss Parade Square Beautification) Attend the workshop being held at ____ ____ ____ _____ August _, from 3 to 5 pm Insert image or VoC Map ? 2” x 2.5” For more information and ways to submit comments, visit voicesandchoices.ca. Note: The discussion at these events will focus on the Village of Chester. The study is also looking at Traffic Improvements in the the Hubbards/Fox Point area, and we will host a separate event to dicuss the Hubbards and Fox Point area of the municipality. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction and Approach 1 2.0 Analysis of Character-Defining Features in Chester Village 3 3.0 What We Heard 25 4.0 Policy Considerations 31 Executive Summary Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 v Executive Summary Study Context and Approach The Municipality of Chester worked with a multi- disciplinary consultant team to develop a Built Form and Character-Defining Elements Study for Chester Village (The “Study”). Municipal staff are currently working on a review of the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law. The Study is primarily intended to support this review. In recent years, a significant topic of debate and concern in Chester Village is a perceived loss of the traditional character. This concern is often raised when new development or changes to existing planning regulations are being discussed. The purpose of this Study is to come to a more objective understanding of village character and to propose regulatory or policy considerations towards respecting and sustaining positive aspects of this character. This Study provides: •An approach to character and guiding principles; •An analysis of elements that contribute to the existing character of the Village; •Stakeholder and Community engagement; and •Policy Considerations. The analysis and community engagement for this Study focuses on three areas: •Site Design and Relation to Context •Building Design •Social and Community Needs The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, developed by Parks Canada and Provincial governments, serves as a Canadian set of best practices for planning for historic places. Standard #11 in this document reflects how planners should consider potential new development within a historic place. It reads: “Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place.” Citing this standard, when considering new changes or development in Chester Village, it is important to understand the character-defining features that ought to be protected or highlighted. It is not necessarily desirable for new development to mimic historical styles. That is to say, the new can be distinct from the old, recognizing contemporary ways of building can be appropriate so long as compatibility is addressed. What is important is to understand the nature of what makes something either compatible and incompatible. New development can respond to current and future needs, especially where that may relate to changing housing needs, amenities and destinations, accessibility, sustainability, construction practices, and affordability. The Plan Review has the opportunity to guide positive change. The following Guiding Principles are provided to assist in assessing new developments or policy directions that relate to community character. Appropriate and Complementary •Contribute positively to the historical context of the village •Have a scale that relates to the site, topography and neighbouring buildings Sensitive to Landscape and Seascape •Respect the landscape and location of buildings, tree cover, vegetation, rockwalls and fences •Consider views to and from the ocean Timeless and Authentic Design •Consider principles of proportion, form, composition and texture •Avoid pastiche and “faux” architectural design Continuity and Change •Respect historical context while also reflecting contemporary needs, including housing options, carbon footprint, durability, and accessibility Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 vi Frequently observed character elements The following elements are commonly observed in the village. Site Design and Relation to Context 1.Topography of rolling hills, with sloping sites common 2.Street grid in the central village, with views to the water along many streets. Streets in the Activity Core include sidewalks, while other streets are narrower with more trees 3.Building setbacks are often shallow in Activity Core, slightly deeper in rest of the Central Village, and deepest in Estate areas 4.Mature trees line the streets 5.White picket fences, hedges, stone walls defining edges of properties 6.Gardens, hedges and plantings 7.Pathways and walkways 8.Access to water’s edge 9.There are prominently sited parks, churches and graveyards Building Design 10.Predominantly residential scale – 1 ½ to 2 ½ storey 11.Significant stock (75 or more) of houses greater than 100 years old 12.Style: Strong New England influence, with Cape Cod roof and gables. Other identifiable styles are common, including more modern buildings 13.Roofs: Mostly peaked roofs, mostly steep, a few low sloped 14.Many distinctive chimneys 15.Dormers common, especially shed style 16.Small additions are common, creating aggregated massing 17.Wide verandas common 18.Closed in veranda (solarium) common 19.Outbuildings common 20.Minimal decoration on facades - plain and simple 21.Houses predominantly white and natural wood finish, though some are colourful 22.Cladding is predominantly horizontal wood siding or shingles, though other materials are used, including stone and stucco 23.Prominent use of 6 over 6 windows Social and Community Aspects 24.There are a large number of seasonal summer residents, and the village is comparatively quiet in winter 25.The village is generally tidy and well-kept 26.There is a compact commercial area 27.There are a small number of accommodations options, as well as short term rental (airbnb, etc) Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 vii Land Use and Architectural Character Areas The Character areas map indicates the focus areas of the Study. The following character areas are identified with reference to settlement and lot patterns, architectural qualities, and zoning. The Central Village contains a variety of residential, commercial and institutional uses, with a variety of lot sizes. The Village Commercial Core contains the commercial heart of the village, as well as apartments, offices, cultural uses, and accommodations, with public access to water nearby along attractive streets. The Waterfront Residential Zone contains a number of waterfront dwellings, docks and boathouses. The Marine Industrial Zone is indicated, with uses limited to specific water-related industrial and commercial uses. The Large Sites Residential area generally has larger lots , with larger houses with extensive landscaping. Houses often (but not always) have a view overlooking the water and are sometimes accessed by private road. Community engagement The goal at this stage of engagement was to share information and discuss objectives related to character in Chester village. Engagement was completed between May 5 and May 30, with over 50 interactions via survey, community meetings and stakeholder meetings. Common themes that emerged through engagement on village character are noted as Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O) and Threats (T) for character in Chester. S W O T • Sense of community and knowing neighbours • Mix of building styles and attractive architecture • Intact historical buildings • Living history of the village, with a connection to the ocean • Pride in landscapes, trees, and gardens • Walkability, Services and Amenities in a clustered village • Continued mix of buildings sensitive to scale and character • New housing options, such as secondary suites • Reinforce vitality in the core of the village and along the waterfront • Limited options to downsize from large house • Housing affordability and lack of options • Demographics change and gradual loss of families • Suitability and accessibility of older buildings • Negative perceptions: upkeep of some properties • Loss of trees and landscapes • New development insensitive in scale • Impacting views to and from the water • Construction impacts (i.e. duration of construction) • Cost of living increases • Short-term rentals impacts • Infrastructure and water I RURURURURURURURURU RURURU LR MUMUMU MUMUMUMUMU Ce n t r a l Pr i n c e Vi c t o r i a Gr a n i t e Union Regent Tremont Main Lighthouse Route / H w y 3 Pleasant South Na u s s P t R d Millenni u m D r i v e Pig Loop Rd Golf Cour s e R d V a l l e y R d Wa l k e r R d Ki n g Qu e e n Du k e Land Use/Architectural Character Areas Waterfront Zones Highway 3 Development Area Central Village Marine Industrial Waterfront Residential Village Commercial Core Large-site Residential (”Estates” zone) Hwy 3 Development Area Ha d d o n H i l l R d Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 viii Policy considerations The following considerations, organized among 10 themes, are presented for the municipality in response to the Study findings. Many of these considerations are specifically focused on the land use bylaw as the most common tool used by the municipality to control new development, however, other tools for fostering positive aspects of character can be considered as well. THEME 1: Building Height and Roof Shape •Consider alternative methods for calculating height, such as using average grade as the base of the height, and/or considering allowable height with some relation to the grade at the street. •Consider height precincts for variation in maximum heights in different areas of the village in a way that considers topography, context, and views. There is the potential that height may be defined slightly differently in different contexts, for example with water view sites or sites with very steep topography. •Consider different methods for encouraging high sloped roofs, while still permitting low-sloped roofs. THEME 2. Aggregated Massing •Consider maintaining current requirement that buildings with a footprint greater than 1,500 sq ft achieve aggregated massing with varied roof lines. THEME 3. Materials and Glazing •Remove limit on vertically-oriented siding, considering instead whether lower-quality or less sustainable materials ought to be limited in some development scenarios. •Consider a size limit for glazing per building face. •Consider that the above restrictions might only be triggered on public-facing aspects of a building (i.e. from the street or from the water), and/or in larger developments, or development on sensitive sites. THEME 4. Garages •Limit attached garage width to maximum dimension. •Require that attached garage be set back behind the principal front plane or pedestrian entrance of house. •Limit width of driveways. THEME 5. Landscaping and Trees •Explore flexibility in building setbacks through variance to promote tree retention. •Define soft landscaping requirements and tree species in new development, considering both aspects of character and climate resilience, while also promoting retention of existing trees. •Advocate for street tree retention and planting with Department of Public Works on street rights of way. •Explore potential for a tree protection bylaw. •Complete a tree inventory to assess health of trees and canopy in the village. THEME 6. Evolving Housing Needs •Explore additional options for second suites on a lot or in a structure. •Consider permitting additional options for low-rise apartments, townhouses, and smaller houses so as to promote options to age in place in Chester with a greater variety of housing options. •Name change for the Estate Residential zone. •Review lot size minimums in Estate Residential zone. •Promote design for sustainability and accessibility. THEME 7. Walkable Village Commercial Core and Enhancing Connection to the Water •Explore requirements in the land use bylaw that are specific to the Village Commercial Core with the aim to promote a cluster of walkable destinations (“walkable streets overlay”). •The walkable streets overlay may include a requirement that new development provide uses at ground level such as restaurants, shops, tourism- related services, accommodations, personal services, retail stores, cultural establishments, etc. for a minimum of 50% of the street frontage. •The walkable streets overlay may be accompanied by maximum setback requirements, parking, loading or other design requirements. •Explore potential for Water Street to include sidewalk or boardwalk, along with the potential for Tancook Island ferry dock to be repurposed as a destination with events, boat tours, and vendors. THEME 8. Waterfront Zones •Review the Waterfront Residential zone’s 20% max width of building and related regulations. •In the Marine Industrial zone, consider how these lands can better serve as a connection to Chester’s connection to the water, through additional uses not to include dwelling uses (Potential for a “Marine Commercial” zone to permit restaurants, and boat rentals, for example, in addition to existing Marine Industrial uses). •Explore limits to fencing where they impact views to the water. This may include height or material requirements in the waterfront residential zone. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 ix THEME 9. New Regulatory Options for Managing Scale and Impact of Development •Scope a potential Heritage Conservation District for the Central Village as an option to preserve older structures and the scale of existing development. (Requires further analysis and community engagement) •Recognizing a large number of pre-1920 houses, consider pursuing property-specific registration as municipal heritage properties. This might be incentivized by administrative or financial supports for heritage properties owners. •Consider specific design regulations applying to properties that abut heritage properties. •Explore a maximum footprint or maximum gross floor area per main building in all zones. The building size may be determined through a precincts map that considers each area of the village, or it may be considered relative to lot size, or relative to existing structures on a block. •Consider development situations for which it is desirable to use development agreement mechanisms, rather than an as-of-right process. •Consider three levels of project complexity, “low complexity,” “medium complexity,” and “high complexity.” Low complexity processes encompasses small scale development (e.g. under 1,500 sq. ft footprint), renovations and additions. A medium complexity process could be triggered for example in cases where development is proposed at a larger footprint and/or at a location considered sensitive (such as a waterfront or adjacent to a registered heritage property). In medium complexity projects, burdens relating to materials or landscape quality may be increased recognizing the potentially larger impact of the project. High-complexity processes may be triggered in specific scenarios for commercial or multi-unit development that are seen as requiring a development agreement process, community engagement, and approval from council. THEME 10: Additional Considerations •Ground water supply as a consideration prior to approval of new development. •Development of accommodations as well as a need to address nuisance and housing supply impacts from short-term rentals such as Airbnb. •Negative community impacts as a result of lengthy construction projects. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 x 1.0 Introduction and Approach Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 1 1.1 Study Context and Approach The Municipality of Chester worked with a multi- disciplinary consultant team to develop a Built Form and Character-Defining Elements Study for Chester Village (The “Study”). The consultant team comprised FBM, Novita Interpares, and CBCL. The work was completed between January and July 2022. Municipal staff are currently working on a review of the Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law. The Study is primarily intended to support this review but findings may also pertain to the Heritage Properties Bylaw, and other municipal and community- based programs and initiatives. In recent years, a significant topic of debate and concern, is a perceived loss of the traditional character of Chester Village. This concern is often raised when new development or changes to existing planning regulations are being discussed. The purpose of the Study is to come to a more objective understanding of village character and to propose regulatory or policy considerations towards respecting and sustaining positive aspects of this character. For further details on the Plan Review and results of the survey, visit voicesandchoices.ca/villagereview. Alongside this Study, Staff are reviewing planning for the Highway 3 area, with community meetings in August 2022. Plan Review Feedback (prior to the Study) In Summer 2021, The Chester Village Plan Review survey (251 responses) asked questions about the “Chester look.” The top 3 things respondents cited as contributing to the Chester look were “Waterfront,” “Dwellings” and “Trees.” Further notes about what was unique in Chester included: •Tidiness, green space and gardens; •The walking experience, sidewalks and pathways; •Traditional architecture, including Cape Cod roofs, New England style houses; •Low height of buildings; •Connection to ocean, wharves, and the Lido pool; and •Key amenities and destinations, including the Lordly House, Zoé Vallé Memorial Library, the Rope Loft, Churches, Yacht Club, and the Fo’c’sle Tavern. The opinion expressed in the survey strongly supported the need to preserve the architectural heritage in Chester Village. At the same time, opinion was divided as how to achieve this. Some thought the municipality should seek stricter controls on architectural design, while others expressed concern that greater architectural controls may place an unnecessary burden on property owners. Study Contents This Study provides: •An approach to character and guiding principles (See 1.0); •An analysis of history, streetscape and architectural styles, materials and design elements that contribute to the existing character of the Village (See 2.0); •Stakeholder and Community engagement in May 2022 reflected community objectives in considering character and change (See 3.0: “What We Heard”); and •Policy Considerations for how future development can be compatible with the village character into the future (See 4.0). Approach to Character Chester Village is a historic place, with elements of both heritage and character. Nova Scotia Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage defines heritage as “that which society inherits from previous generations and deems worthy of taking special measures to preserve for future generations.” (Heritage Properties Program, cch. novascotia.ca/exploring-our-past/heritage-property, accessed July 21, 2022) Accordingly, the province’s Heritage Properties Act allows for the identification, protection and rehabilitation of cultural heritage properties in the province. The Municipality of Chester has a municipal Heritage Bylaw in place, and there are over 20 municipally registered heritage properties in Chester Village (See map, Figure 2.6, next chapter). There are, in total, over 100 buildings that are older than 1920, however most of these are not registered as municipal heritage properties. Character is related to heritage but also encompasses several other considerations. This includes more recent buildings, relations to streets, landscape elements, relation to the water and topography, as well as a sense of familiarity, comfort and social interaction. Character should be understood as an evolving story. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 2 The American Planning Association’s Quick Notes: Measuring Community Character provides the following guidance on approaching community character (emphasis added): When urban design experts explain the concept of community character, they typically stress the importance of the physical characteristics of a neighborhood or town, such as the pattern and style of buildings, streets, or open spaces. In contrast, landscape architects emphasize the role of natural features, and sociologists highlight interpersonal and institutional relationships. But the average citizen understands community character on an intuitive level. That is, she knows it when she sees it. The danger of relying solely on intuition is that this can lead residents and business owners to oppose almost any proposed change to their community out of fear that it will negatively affect community character. Communities can approach change (which is inevitable) in a more constructive manner by working to identify the objective characteristics of the physical and social environment that are closely tied to perceptions of community character. This can refocus conversations on concrete measurable characteristics of the community, rather than emotional pleas based on intuition. Taking inspiration from these three categories for observing character, the analysis and community engagement for this Study focuses on three areas: •Site Design and Relation to Context •Building Design •Social and Community Needs Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, developed by Parks Canada and Provincial governments, serves as a Canadian set of best practices for planning for historic places. Standard #11 in this document reflects how planners should consider potential new development within a historic place. It reads: “Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place.” Citing this standard, when considering new changes or development in Chester Village, it is important to understand the character-defining features that ought to be protected or highlighted. This is a precursor to understanding compatibility. It is not necessarily desirable for new development to mimic historical styles - that is to say, the new can be distinct from the old, recognizing contemporary ways of building can be appropriate so long as compatibility is addressed. What is important is to understand the nature of what makes something either compatible and incompatible. New development can respond to current and future needs, especially where that may relate to changing housing needs, amenities and destinations, accessibility, sustainability, construction practices, and affordability. 1.2 Guiding Principles for Village Character and Compatibility The Plan Review has the opportunity to guide positive change. The following principles are provided to assist in assessing new developments or policy directions that relate to community character. •Contribute positively to the historical context of the village •Have a scale that relates to the site, topography and neighbouring buildings •Respect the landscape and location of buildings, tree cover, vegetation, rockwalls and fences •Consider views to and from the ocean •Consider principles of proportion, form, composition and texture •Avoid pastiche and “faux” architectural design •Respect historical context while also reflecting contemporary needs, including housing options, carbon footprint, durability, and accessibility Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 3 2.0 Analysis of Character-Defining Features in Chester Village Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 4 2.1 Timeline of Chester’s Settlement since 1760 The development of Chester has generally reflected the following eras: 1760 - 1776 The Planters: The Settlement of Shoreham (Chester) 1783 - 1812 Loyalist Era 1812 War of 1812 1815 - 1850 Peace and Opportunities 1850 - 1900 Sunshine and Shadow: Arrival of Americans 1914 - 1950 War era and depression 1946 onward Decline of traditional rural life of fishing and farming SOURCES: Chester Municipality, A History 1759-2000; Chester, A Pictorial History of a Nova Scotia Village. History of Chester 1759-1967 -Chester Branch of the Women’s Institute of Nova Scotia. The original Town Plan - 1761 Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 5 Source of historical photos: “Chester - A Pictorial History of a Nova Scotia Village,” (Aerial photo credit to Mr. Harvey Nauss) PLEASANT KI N G The Captain’s House Zoé Vallé Library An aerial view of the Intersection of King and Pleasant, c. 1925, with the current village commission office at the upper left hand corner of the intersection. Summer homes dot the Peninsula in the background. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 6 2.2 Chester’s Look and Feel Chester is a unique and picturesque village. This character is distinguished by its setting on rolling hills, its relationship to the water, the natural features and landscaping throughout, the New England Influence and continuity in materiality and colour of its buildings including a significant number of heritage and historical buildings. Due to the topography of Chester Village, many buildings have a view or direct connection to the ocean. Chester’s strong boating culture has also contributed to the value of views of the peninsula from the water’s edge. With mature trees lining the streets, the village “feel” is reinforced. Boundaries are often defined by stone walls, hedges or white-picket fences, surrounding private gardens. It is clear that the green spaces of Chester Village are valued by the residents as they are generally tidy and well kept. Several homes use solaria and verandas to connect with the outdoor landscape. As was noted in a response to the resident survey, ““It is apparent to the casual observer that the appearance of older structures within the core of the community constitutes significantly to its overall architectural attractiveness” At the time of writing this report, there are over seventy-five buildings in Chester Village over 100 years in age. This constitutes a significant amount of heritage or ‘legacy’ buildings that contribute to the character of the Village. The majority of these buildings were built by settlers from New England bringing with them styles such as Cape Cod, Georgian, Georgian Cottage Style, Greek Revival and Gothic Revival. The “New England Style” often included somewhat steep roofs, dormers (especially shed dormers), six-over-six glazed windows, and minimal decoration of facades. In keeping with the New England influence, buildings of Chester Village are predominantly wood (either shingles or clapboard siding) and painted with a natural wood or white finish. The village is of a predominantly single-unit residential, with structures predominantly from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 storeys - with a small “downtown activity core”, Chester possesses a village scale throughout. The cottage style architecture as well as the mature trees and well-kept gardens contribute to a pleasingly “quaint” feeling. As shown in the timeline (see. Figure 2.5 below), newer buildings have been constructed in recent decades, some characteristic elements have been included, such as gables and wood siding. Attached garages have become more commonplace. It also appears that new construction may tend to include a larger living space than has previously been the norm. A small number of duplexes have been the result of either new construction or conversion. While Chester has always been stylistically diverse, In recent years contemporary styles of architecture have been built in Chester. Topography and variety Well-kept older homes Extensive landscaping Natural materials Views to the water Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 7 2.3 Streetscape Character When moving through the Village of Chester, distinct Streetscape character types are observed, as shown in Figure 2.1. The streetscape along Highway 3, and when entering the village may be characterized as a “Gateway”. Duke Street, Valley Road, and Victoria Street function as the main access points into the Village from Highway 3, hence their function as a gateway. The Highway 3 area offers services and commercial uses. Duke Street may be considered the Front Door, with more formal pedestrian facilities and access to major institutional uses. Valley Road serves as a vehicle access to the Tancook Ferry parking lot, the Town’s Public Works Yard, and the Municipal Office. Victoria Street, on the other hand, offers a quieter and more residential street accessing residential areas. The “Village Commercial Core” is observed as another streetscape character, defined by its multi-modal focus towards the commercial heart of the Village. The roads feature sidewalks and designated on-street and off-street parking areas, including accessible spaces. Sidewalks invite visitors to patronize the businesses, cafes and restaurants, and during the summer months, they become extended seating areas. There is a time limit on parking, encouraging turnover and movement. The overall impression is one of movement as locals and residents come and go, with the post office and the bank acting as major activity generators. Apart from Duke Street, this is the only area with consistent sidewalk coverage. (See Figure 2.2 for the location of sidewalks). The “Waterfront” represents the key attraction of Chester, with its wharfs, Lido Pool, and the Yacht Club. Water Street, South Street, and to some extent Victoria Street, represent the focal point during Race Week, with visitors and boat crews moving back and forth. Sidewalk coverage is sporadic, and circulation by foot or by motor vehicle alike requires awareness and negotiation between road users. This is especially the case on streets like Water Street, which see both a high volume of walking and vehicle traffic in the summer. The three main streetscape characters are joined by “Connecting Tissue” in terms of Queen Street, King Street and Central Street, which serve as transition spaces between the streetscape character areas. Older homes varying in architectural expression offer a tranquil setting to stroll. Gateway Connecting Tissue (Valley Rd) Connecting Tissue (Queen Street approach to the commercial core) Water Street Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 8 The Residential Fabric is throughout the village has a consistency in its straight grid block layout. The rolling topography and heavier vegetation introduce variation in terms of vistas and the sense of the street. Without sidewalks, and with a generally narrower roadway, there is a need for pedestrians and motorists to share space, and there is also a strong connection between the street and landscaping of adjacent residential properties. This fabric contains both large houses and buildings, as well as smaller homes. Residences vary in their setbacks, lot coverage and scale, but the streets are the same. Commercial Core Commercial Core Tree-lined street (Prince Street) Typical Residential fabric Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 9 Figure 2.1 (Source: CBCL) Figure 2.2 (Source: CBCL) Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 1 0 I RURURURURURURURURURU RURURU LR MUMUMU ER Ce n t r a l Pr i n c e Vi c t o r i a Gr a n i t e Union Regent Tremont Main Lighthouse Route / H w y 3 Pleasant South Na u s s P t R d Millenni u m D r i v e Pig Loop Rd Golf Cour s e R d V a l l e y R d Wa l k e r R d Ki n g Qu e e n Du k e Land Use/Architectural Character Areas Waterfront Zones Highway 3 Development Area Central Village Marine Industrial Waterfront Residential Village Commercial Core Large-site Residential (”Estates” zone) Hwy 3 Development Area Ha d d o n H i l l R d water are all nearby along attractive streets. The Waterfront Residential Zone is indicated, containing a number of dwellings, docks and boathouses. The Marine Industrial Zone is indicated, with uses limited to specific water-related industrial and commercial uses. The Large Sites Residential area corresponds with the Municipality’s Estate Residential zoning. This area generally has larger lots (usually over 1 acre in size). There tends to be larger houses with extensive landscaping. Houses often (but not always) have a view overlooking the water and are sometimes accessed by private road. Because of this, many houses in this area are predominantly experienced from the water or across harbours, rather than with reference to the road. Character areas identified in Figure 2.3 were identified with reference to settlement and lot patterns, architectural qualities, and zoning. These areas indicate the focus of the Study. The Central Village contains a variety of residential, commercial and institutional zones. It is the oldest part of the village, based on the traditional street grid of the original town plan. There are a variety of lot sizes, and houses are configured on the lots in a variety of ways. The Village Commercial Core contains the commercial heart of the village, as well as apartments, offices, cultural uses, and accommodations. It is comparably more common to find buildings fronting tight together and tight along the street or sidewalk. This is a well-touristed and busy area of the village. Parks, library, institutional uses, churches, museums, docks, and public access to Figure 2.3: Land Use and Architectural character areas 2.4 Land Use and Architectural Character Areas Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 1 1 Selected buildings and style examples - Legacy Buildings Quarter Deck, 1770, Cape Cod Samuel Prescott House, 1811, G oth ic R evival 106 Queen Street, 1902, H atc h Roof House T’other House, 1776, Cape Code House Kit From New England David Nauss House, 1846, Vernacular Robinson House, 1902, L ate VictorianTaffrail Cottage, 1780, Georgian Cottage Style 86 Main St, 1830, G r eek R evival Lordly House, 1806, Georgian The Sail Loft, 1840, Vernacular 1770s 1800s 1900 Timeline continues next page Zoé Vallé Library, 1850, Cape Cod Lavers House, 1860s, New England Colonial Figure 2.4: Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 1 2 65 King St Built 1908 1,154 sq ft living space 15 Fredas Point Drive Built 1903 1.23 acre lot 3,944 sq ft living area 56 Peninsula Road 1.83 acres Built 1903 2,912 sq ft living area 80 Peninsula Road 0.75 acres Built 1914 3,071 sq ft living area 120 Walker Road 1 acre Built 1931 2,579 sq ft living area 102 Peninsula Road 1.41 acres Built 1920 2,974 sq ft living area 106 Nauss Point Road 1 acre Built 1934 2,894 sq ft living area 69 Nauss Point Road 0.75 acres Built 1946 3,002 sq ft living area 180 Walker Road 3.63 acres Built 1958 3,672 sq ft living area 39 Union St Built 1899 2,402 sq ft living space 134 Queen St Built 1914 1,648 sq ft living space 82 Queen St Built 1930 2,162 sq ft living space 144 Prince St Built 1932 1,248 sq ft living space 156 King St Built 1950 872 sq ft living space 1900s 1930s 124 King Built 1930 1,704 sq ft living space 75 Granite St Built 1950 1,724 sq ft living space Contemporary Houses Timeline Images from Google Streetview and Real Estate Listings, square footage from Property Assessment Records. Houses in the Central Village: Houses in the Large Sites Residential Areas: Timeline continues next page 1950s Figure 2.5: Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 1 3 180 Walker Road 3.63 acres Built 1958 3,672 sq ft living area 1960s 1980s 2020s 50 and 52 Pews Drive 2.89 acres Built 1959 4,490 sq ft living area 211 Walker Road 6.99 acre lot Built 1965 6,071 sq ft living area 162 Walker Road 0.75 acres Built 1980 2,986 sq ft living area 22 Fredas Point Drive 3.05 acres Built 1987 9,057 sq ft living area 89 Nauss Point Road 0.8 acres Built 1981 3,434 sq ft living area 206 Walker Road 1.42 acres Built 1995 2,850 sq ft living area 19 Fredas Point Drive 1.24 acres Built 2017 3,792 sq ft living area 153 Union Street (Jib House) 5.56 acres Under construction 2022 8,220 sq ft living space 153 Prince St Built 1966 1,910 sq ft living space 197 Central St Built 1954 1,522 sq ft living space 45 Union St Built 1992 2,293 sq ft living space 19 Main St Built 2003 2,156 sq ft living space 40 Main St Built 2006 1,992 sq ft living space 93 Prince St Built 2013 2,592 sq ft living space 221 Central St Built 1991 1,272 sq ft living space 128 Victoria St (Duplex) Built 2009 3,435 sq ft living space 2000s Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 1 4 Site Design and Relation to Context 1.Topography of rolling hills, with sloping sites common 2.Street grid in the central village, with views to the water along many streets. Streets in the Activity Core include sidewalks, while other streets are narrower with more trees 3.Building setbacks are often shallow in Activity Core, slightly deeper in rest of the Central Village, and deepest in Estate areas 4.Mature trees line the streets 5.White picket fences, hedges, stone walls defining edges of properties 6.Gardens, hedges and plantings 7.Pathways and walkways 8.Access to water’s edge 9.There are prominently sited parks, churches and graveyards Chester Village Frequently Observed Character Elements 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 15 1 9 8 8 5 6 7 5 Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 1 6 Building Design 10.Predominantly residential scale – 1 ½ to 2 ½ storey 11.Significant stock (75 or more) of houses greater than 100 years old 12.Style: Strong New England influence, with Cape Cod roof and gables. Other identifiable styles are common, including more modern buildings 13.Roofs: Mostly peaked roofs, mostly steep, a few low sloped 14.Many distinctive chimneys 15.Dormers common, especially shed style 16.Small additions are common, creating aggregated massing 17.Wide verandas common 18.Closed in veranda (solarium) common 19.Outbuildings common 20.Minimal decoration on facades - plain and simple 21.Houses predominantly white and natural wood finish, though some are colourful 22.Cladding is predominantly horizontal wood siding or shingles, though other materials are used, including stone and stucco 23.Prominent use of 6 over 6 windows 13 13 13 13 16 15 19 20 20 23 23 23 Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 17 14 14 15 16 17 1718 19 21 21 21 21 22 23 23 23 Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 1 8 Social and Community Aspects 24.There are a large number of seasonal summer residents, and the village is comparatively quiet in winter 25.The village is generally tidy and well-kept 26.There is a compact commercial area 27.There are a small number of accommodations options, as well as short term rental (airbnb, etc) 24 25 25 25 24 26 26 26 27 Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 1 9 Figure 2.6: Registered Municipal Heritage Properties (Data Source: Municipality of Chester) Mapping analysis A mapping analysis is provided to support the observed character areas. Figure 2.6 illustrates the location of municipally registered heritage properties. Figure 2.7 provides a “heat map” of lot sizes whereby smaller properties are darker. Smaller lots can generally be expected to have a greater concentration of premises close to one another, compared to areas of the village with larger lots. Figure 2.8 maps percentage of site coverage, indicating which lots have a greater amount of the lot covered, either with main structures or accessory structures. Figure 2.9 indicates the scale of buildings, when considering building footprint, with darker outlines indicating buildings that have a larger footprint. There tends to be a concentration of heritage buildings, small lots, and a higher density of site coverage in the Central Village, focused on the Commercial Core. There are many buildings with a footprint greater than 139 sq m (or 1,500 sq ft), especially when looking at institutional structures, buildings in the Commercial Core, and houses in Large Sites Residential areas. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 2 0 Figure 2.7: Variation of lot sizes Figure 2.8: Mapping analysis - Building coverage percentage on lots Data Source for building footprints: Municipality of Chester Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 2 1Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 2 1 Figure 2.9: Mapping analysis - Building Scale Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 2 2 Current Zoning and Architectural Controls in the Chester Village Notes: 1. For roof slopes 4 in 12 or less, 2 m is deducted from max height 2. Max total building width is 20% of lot frontage in this zone 3. Max coverage is based on lot size as follows: under 372 sq m 40% max 372 to 744 sq m 30% max 744 to 1488 sq m 20% max over 1488 sq m 15% max 4. One side 3.5 m, other side 1.5 m KEY ZONING REQUIREMENTS (figures in m) Estate Residential (ER) Waterfront Residential (WR) Central Village Residential CVR) Central Commercial (C) Min front yard 7.5 5 3 0 Min side yard 7.5 3.5 2 3 Note 4 Min flanking yard 7.5 n/a 3 0 Min rear yard 7.5 3.5 3 3.5 Max building height 10 1 7.5 1 10 1 10 1 Min lot area (sq m)3716 744 744 557 Min frontage 152 6 6 6 Max site coverage n/a n/a (Note 3)n/a The existing Chester Village Land Use Bylaw contains a number of architectural controls. Height, setback, and coverage requirements are noted on Table 2.1. See Figure 2.10 for the village’s zoning map. The following general requirements are also noted as relevant for the Study: •There is a maximum height penalty of 2 m for buildings with a roof less than 4 in 12 pitch (i.e. in a zone that typically allows 10 m height, max height is reduced to 8 m if the roof is low-slope) (16.34) •Public views of buildings must be chiefly clad with materials with a horizontal orientation, such as shingles, clapboards, brick or stone (“so that vertical siding or roofing materials do not dominate”) (4.6.1(a)(ii)) •Varied massing: Structures with a ground floor (footprint) greater than 139.4 sq m (1,500 sq. ft.) must be designed with varied massing and roof lines, to give the effect of breaking up the overall visual mass of the structure. (4.6.1(a)(iii)) •Two-unit dwellings must have entrances located in separate masses so that entrances appear to be in different sections of the building (4.6.1(c)(ii)) •In the Central Village Residential zone, there is a max of one two-unit dwelling per block (5.6.6) •In the Estates zone, a second dwelling unit is permitted but it may not exceed 56 square metres (600 sq. ft.) in floor area. (5.3.7) •Accessory Structures are permitted, but may not exceed 65% of the footprint (ground floor area) of the principal structure on a lot and they may not exceed 6 metres (20 feet) in height. Table 2.1: Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 2 3 ER WRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWR III SCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCASCA WRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWR I ERERERERER CVRCVRCVRCVRCVRCVR RIRIRI RURURU I HCHCHCHC HCHC WRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWR ERERER RURURURURURURURURURU RURURU RURURU LR HCHC LRLRLRLRLR LRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLR LRLRLRLRLRMUMUMU SR1SR1 CI2 SUSUSUSUSUSUSU MUMUMUMUMU Zoning Map (Map Data source: Municipality of Chester) Zones Ce n t r a l Co m m e r c i a l Ce n t r a l Vi l l a g e Re s i d e n t i a l Co n s e r v a t i o n Ar e a Es t a t e Re s i d e n t i a l Hi g h w a y Co m m e r c i a l In s t i t u t i o n a l Lo w D e n s i t y Re s i d e n t i a l Ma r i n e In d u s t r i a l Me d i u m D e n s i t y Re s i d e n t i a l Pa r k s a n d Re c r e a t i o n Re s t r i c t e d In s t i t u t i o n a l Ru r a l Si n g l e Un i t Re s i d e n t i a l Sp e c i a l Co m m e r c i a l Wa t e r Ac c e s s Wa t e r f r o n t Re s i d e n t i a l Figure 2.10: Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 24 3.0 What We Heard Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 2 5 The goal at this stage of engagement was to share information and discuss objectives related to character in Chester village. Engagement was completed between May 5 and May 30. The following tools were used. (Number of interactions indicated in parentheses): •Online survey (20) •Meetings with stakeholders, Chester Village Commission, and the Village Planning Advisory committee (10) •Two hybrid in-person/virtual community meetings at the Legion on May 18 (22 in-person, 3 online) •Emails and phone calls The consultant team delivered presentations to facilitate discussions, while further information was made available via a Discussion Paper online. Public meetings were attended by senior staff and the local area councillor. The following questions were asked on the online survey and at events: •Are there character-defining features in Chester Village that we missed? •Do these character areas generally match how you perceive the Village? •Do you agree with the preliminary guiding principles? Why or why not? •Are you likely to move in the next 5 years to a different residence? What are the key reasons for you to either stay or leave in your current residence? •What should be some of the specific objectives among elements relating to “Site Design,” “Building Design,” and “Community & Social Needs”? Below are summaries of the responses we received to these questions. 3.1 Overview of May 2022 Engagement May 18 community meetings Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 2 6 Are there character-defining features in Chester Village that we missed? Many respondents had minor additions or comments, but generally felt the list was comprehensive. Do these character areas generally match how you perceive the Village? Most respondents felt the character areas were accurate. Some did not feel that the term “estate” area had the right connotation as there are many moderate homes with local residents year-round in this area. Do you agree with the preliminary guiding principles? Why or why not? Most agreed with the guiding principles, but many expressed concerns around implementation. Some disagreed with the principle that new construction ought to be distinguishable from historical buildings, instead believing that new construction should be indistinguishable from older buildings and that contemporary architectural design should be discouraged. Are you likely to move in the next 5 years to a different residence? What are the key reasons for you to either stay or leave in your current residence? (Survey question) The majority of survey respondents (70%) noted that they are unlikely to move in the next 5 years. A number of key themes came up in consideration of this question, both with regards to community strengths (i.e. reasons to stay), as well as threats (i.e. reasons to leave). Strengths identified (i.e. reasons to stay): •Knowing neighbours and having a longstanding sense of community •Family history in the community •Walkability •Proximity to services, such as health clinic, school, amenities, parks, shops and waterfront Issues and threats identified (i.e. reasons to leave): •Replacement of existing older homes and gradually losing neighbours •Short-term rentals do not contribute to community cohesiveness •Parking congestion •Desire to downsize •Concerns around health and mobility •Desire to realize capital from selling house •Neglect of neighbouring properties •Increased cost of living What should be some of the specific objectives among elements relating to “Site Design,” “Building Design,” and “Community & Social Needs”? The following are the key themes of the objectives described by respondents to the survey and the comments we heard at community meetings and stakeholder meetings: Scale and pace of change is seen as a threat. Some newer designs are seen as too large and not sympathetic to the village character. •Residents have experienced modest buildings being replaced by much larger ones, and that this shift in scale changes the street character. •Residents perceive that there have been insensitive additions to older homes. •Desire for consideration of a max footprint •Some expressed a desire to explore a Heritage Conservation District beginning in a small area, which might include the southern half of the central village, and inclusive of Nauss Point and the Peninsula. The following goals were expressed in support of the proposal to consider a Heritage Conservation District: »Area has a high concentration of older homes »Area homeowners are perceived to be receptive to the idea. This is especially the case if the proposal is accompanied with financial assistance in maintaining older homes. »An aspect of the proposed heritage conservation district is that it covers an area with mixed age of buildings. One aspect proposed is not necessarily a ban on demolitions, but a rule that if an existing building is torn down in the proposed Heritage Conservation District the replacement allowed would not be permitted to 3.2 What We Heard Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 2 7 be larger in floor area than the existing structure. »The overarching value of the conservation district idea is to consider the buildings, and landscapes in Chester to be a community asset, and to slow the pace of change, especially demolitions and erosion of sense of character. »The conservation district is considered to potentially relate to landscape features as well, for example by exploring tools to support tree retention and planting of certain species in landscape design. »Concerns raised for the concept of a Heritage Conservation District included administrative costs and burdens, as well as negative impacts, limits or burdens on property owners. •Other options to address scale and pace of change concerns were raised by the consultant team: »Seeking additional registration of properties as municipal heritage, given the large number of unregistered buildings over 100 years old. »Modelling Land Use Bylaw changes after the Town of Annapolis Royal Land Use Bylaw, which includes a requirement that development on properties abutting registered heritage receive feedback from the Heritage Advisory Committee to guide built form compatibility with heritage neighbours. »Introducing a variable limit on new structure footprint size (e.g. new structures may be no more than 25% larger than the footprint of the average size structure on a block, or no more than 10% larger than the largest existing footprint on the block). »Introducing a max footprint for single family dwellings. Design and Style •Analysis indicated a mix of styles throughout the village study area, with Cape Cod and New England related styles being prominent, while more contemporary designs are also found. Some commented on the positive nature of a mix of styled and building eras, recognizing individuality throughout building eras and contemporary designs from recent decades, while others felt that more contemporary designs were out of place. •Concerns around buildings being “out of character” usually were associated with questions of scale, prominence along the waterfront and within the topography, use of materials, including expansive glazing and exposed concrete, and roof shape. Materials and Windows •The limit on vertical siding in the land use bylaw was in response to a specific building that was unpopular for its vertical metal siding. The rule may be seen to have unintended consequences, such that, for example, a board and batten house cannot be built, and such a house would not necessarily be undesirable to permit. •Use authentic and eco-friendly and high quality materials - some feel there should be no manufactured homes, no vinyl or plastic siding. However: being strict about the materials and only permitting premium finishes will discourage anyone but the wealthy to come here. •Suggestion to limit glazing to a maximum dimension or ratio on building faces. •Controls over materiality should have consideration for what aspect(s) of a building are in the public view (non-public views are of a lesser concern). For example, buildings in the Village are most often seen from streetfronts, whereas Estates area houses may often be viewed from the water. Roof shape •Some commented that low slope and flat roofs should not be permitted, while others felt that they could be appropriate, if they permit a better view to the water. Landscape and topography •A connection to how the building sits in the site and topography is important. Consider views of neighbours, scale/setback in comparison to neighbours, as well as noise, light and traffic. Regulatory burden, flexibility and special uses: •Ensure the regulations do not inadvertently prevent desirable outcomes. For example, so asked to ensure that uses like a mosque, a small apartment building or another retirement residence, not be precluded due to architectural controls. Support for home owners •Financial help maintaining historical buildings is desired. Commercial Areas •Encourage additional commercial services in the Central Village commercial area. This might include a larger general store, grocery, family restaurants, and other uses. •There is a recognized history of buildings converting back and forth from residential to commercial, but Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 2 8 there has been a perceived reduction in the critical mass of the community-serving and visitor-serving retail in the centre of the village (i.e. Pleasant, Queen and Duke). •Facades in the downtown should be required to add to the current rhythm and aesthetic. For new commercial uses (e.g. the Hotel proposed), look to encourage something that reflects the village, not a generic chain concept style. •Vitalization of the Central Village sees support with the potential for Water Street to have an added boardwalk. With the Tancook Island ferry gone, the dock could be taken over by the municipality or Develop Nova Scotia and become maintained as a destination – it can have events, boat tours, food trucks, vendors. Waterfront Residential areas •Fences in some cases block views at houses and wharves – consider additional regulations around height, materiality and opacity. • In the waterfront residential zone, the 20% width restriction is perhaps not the best way to preserve views. What’s more important is the view from the street to the water, and this has more to do with roof height and shape, and topography relative to the elevation of the street. •Consider moratorium of construction of new dwelling units in the Waterfront Residential zone. Marine Industrial area •Marine industrial zone should be a consideration. This is the only area that does not allow residential. Is it important for character to limit it so it is only marine-related commercial uses, and not dwellings? Housing options •Mix of generations and housing options is needed, including generally smaller and more affordable units. Allow for modestly sized additional secondary suites and other housing options including granny flats, small cottages at the back of residential lots and flats over garages. •Families with children seen as a thing of the past but there could be a resurgence especially for people to work from home or commute to Halifax. •It may be desirable to allowing more secondary suites options, or for people to buy and subdivide. Outbuilding design •Outbuilding design should be complementary to primary buildings. Sustainability •Promote sustainable building practices. Accessibility •Important for aging in place and catering to retirees – accessibility is often associated with downsizing. Streets, street character and parking •People are encroaching on the streets with trees, gardens, boulders, etc – some landscaping is good, but some is not. •Parking should be managed, with summer parking at school or rink and shuttled at Race Week. •There used to be many more trees on Queen Street – the preservation of trees should be emphasized with both the municipality and the Provincial Dept of Public Works. Other topics •The Estates residential zone has a negative connotation with the word estate – some houses in the area are modest. Consider providing a generic name e.g. “large-site residential.” •A tree protection bylaw should be considered. •Regulations for short-term rentals are important – issues raised include noise, parking, loss of workforce housing, weakened sense of community from lack of consistent occupants. •Important to address parking and truck movement. •Ensure upkeep and maintenance of properties. •Ground water supply is a concern. •Long-term construction impacts has been a problem – explore ways to ensure construction does not take so long. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 2 9 S W O T • Sense of community and knowing neighbours • Mix of building styles and attractive architecture • Intact historical buildings • Living history of the village, with a connection to the ocean • Pride in landscapes, trees, and gardens • Walkability, Services and Amenities in a clustered village • Continued mix of buildings sensitive to scale and character • New housing options, such as secondary suites • Reinforce vitality in the core of the village and along the waterfront • Limited options to downsize from large house • Housing affordability and lack of options • Demographics change and gradual loss of families • Suitability and accessibility of older buildings • Negative perceptions: upkeep of some properties • Loss of trees and landscapes • New development insensitive in scale • Impacting views to and from the water • Construction impacts (i.e. duration of construction) • Cost of living increases • Short-term rentals impacts • Infrastructure and water 3.4 Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O) and Threats (T) for character in Chester Figure 3.1 provides a summary of the common themes that emerged through engagement on village character. Figure 3.1: Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O) and Threats (T) for character in Chester Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 30 4.0 Policy Considerations Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 3 1 The following considerations are presented for the municipality in response to the Study findings. Many of these considerations are specifically focused on the land use bylaw as the most common tool used by the municipality to control new development. However, many complementary programs can be considered to provide other means to preserve and enhance character. These alternatives (which are not thoroughly discussed in the Study) can include further supports for culture, heritage and beautification. THEME 1: Building Height and roof shape Policy Considerations: •Consider alternative methods for calculating height, such as using average grade as the base of the height, and/or considering allowable height with some relation to the grade at the street. •Consider height precincts for variation in maximum heights in different areas of the village in a way that considers topography, context, and views. There is the potential that height may be defined slightly differently in different contexts, for example with water view sites or sites with very steep topography. •Consider different methods for encouraging high sloped roofs, while still permitting low-sloped roofs. Discussion: Considering that there is often a significant topography for sites in Chester village, many houses are built on a slope with an exposed foundation either on a side, front or back of the house. The downslope is sometimes used as a secondary entrance or carport. Where houses are on sites that slope down towards the water, it is common for a house to have an additional story exposed on the water side and capitalize on these views. In its definition of height, the Chester Village Land Use Bylaw uses a relatively stringent criteria, insofar as height is measured between the lowest elevation of ground around the building to the peak of roof. In other jurisdictions it is more common to use the average finished grade around the structure as the basis for height. There is a sensitivity for larger scale structures being built, especially within the view to or from the water. The topography of Chester does allow for buildings 4.1 Policy Considerations Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 3 2 to be recessed within a slope, and this has often been practiced in historical buildings. However the current way of measuring height does not encourage buildings to do this, since the partially recessed floor is fully considered as part of building height. Using an average finished grade as the basis for height may encourage recessed structures. Another consideration is for maximum heights is to vary heights in different areas of the village in a way that considers topography, context, and views. There is the potential that height may be considered differently in different contexts, for example with water view sites or sites with very steep topography. In some cases, it may be important to consider building height as experienced either from the street or from the water. In some cases, the height experienced at the streetline, or with reference to the grade of the street, is the most important consideration (although this may be less the case for buildings that are well setback from the street.) For peaked roofs, it is sometimes common practice to measure height up to the midpoint between eaves and peak, as doing so may encourage steeper rooflines. Within the current Land Use Bylaw, the maximum height of a building is reduced by 2 m for buildings with a roof slope less than 4 in 12 slope. It was noted in Chester Village that a steeply sloped roof is common but also that many roofs on older buildings are low sloped. Many have a variety of slopes due do dormers or mansard roofs. The 4 in 12 slope is not common as part of legacy buildings over 100 years old, though it did appear in structures built after the 1960s. Steeper sloped roofs might be achieved by measuring height to a midline of a roof for steeply sloped roofs, or with three height limits that vary based on slope (e.g. low slope, mid slope, high slope max height categories). Through engagement, it was noted that many structures, including some iconic structures, currently do not conform with these height regulations. They either have a height greater than 10 m (as defined currently) or a height that exceeds 8 m but with a low sloped roof. The non-conforming structures are not necessarily considered to be out of character. Varied roof shapes, including gables, are a characteristic of Chester. The newer infill building represents an approximate slope of 4 in 12. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 3 3 THEME 2. Aggregated massing Policy Consideration: •Consider maintaining current requirement that buildings with a footprint greater than 1,500 sq ft achieve aggregated massing with varied roof lines. Discussion: As a historical village, renovations to buildings are often experienced and noticed through aggregated massing to break up the size of a building. Newer buildings that exceed 1,500 sq ft in footprint are required to break up the massing to match this aspect of character. It appears that the current regulation of requiring varying rooflines for buildings exceeding 1,500 sq ft footprint should be maintained. Building on Water Street with aggregated massing. This house also has a significant prominence of attached garage Jib House with varying roof line to conform with aggregated massing requirement. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 3 4 THEME 3. Materials and glazing Policy considerations: •Remove limit on vertically-oriented siding, considering instead whether lower-quality or less sustainable materials ought to be limited in some development scenarios. •Consider a size limit for glazing per building face. •Consider that the above restrictions might only be triggered on public-facing aspects of a building (i.e. from the street or from the water), and/or in larger developments, or development on sensitive sites. Discussion: While the current land use bylaw requires a building to predominantly be clad with horizontally oriented cladding, this precludes some design options, and some buildings clad in stucco or vertically oriented wood are non-conforming. Through community engagement, discussion considered the quality of building materials, especially with the legacy of buildings predominantly clad in wood. At the same time, new building materials may present more sustainable, affordable or lower maintenance options. Concern was raised for contemporary buildings with expansive glazing, seeing such treatments as out of character. Glazing is also a sustainability consideration, as large areas of low insulative glazing increases the costs of heating and cooling as well as the carbon footprint of houses. Scale is important – larger and more prominent houses should have a stronger emphasis on quality of design and materials than necessarily should be the case for more modestly sized structures. Glazing maximums can be considered, while consideration should be given that solaria and views to the water are a key aspect of life in Chester. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 3 5 THEME 4. Garages Policy Considerations: •Limit attached garage width to maximum dimension. •Require that attached garage be set back behind the principal front plane or pedestrian entrance of house. •Limit width of driveways. Discussion: Historically, buildings in Chester rarely had attached garages and more often had detached garages. Many buildings have established carports either under a deck or to the side of buildings. A trend in new house development is to prioritize vehicle storage and include an attached garage. While garages tend to be modest in Chester Village, it is noteworthy that some newer construction has a dominant garage door, and over time this may begin to alter the character of the village to a more suburban feel. Policy considerations may include limiting the width of driveways to a certain proportion of the frontage, so as to maximize soft landscaping opportunities. The width of garage door max be given a maximum dimension in proportion to the width of the principal front plane of the house. Garage doors may be required to be setback from the principle plane, set under the entrance, or made perpendicular. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 3 6 THEME 5. Landscaping and Trees Policy Considerations: •Explore flexibility in building setbacks through variance to promote tree retention. •Define soft landscaping requirements and tree species in new development, considering both aspects of character and climate resilience, while also promoting retention of existing trees. •Advocate for street tree retention and planting with Department of Public Works on street rights of way. •Explore potential for a tree protection bylaw. •Complete a tree inventory to assess health of trees and canopy in the village. Discussion: Trees in Chester are central to the look and feel of the village, however they remain largely unprotected from a regulatory standpoint. Trees are often within the road right of way, however many prominent trees are on private land. Further, little is known about the health of the tree inventory, nor the needs for trees that are resistant to climate change or extreme weather. It is often common for new construction to clear a large area of land when a new house is built to accommodate construction. Without controls for landscape, new development may have minimal landscaping, for example by opting for hardscaping with little to no trees. The potential exists to require certain landscape standards in new design. This could include a certain amount of tree density or trees species to be planted with new development, or a limit on hardscaping. These requirements could be relaxed where existing trees or plantings are preserved. A landscaped front yard area may be required in relation to the size of the development (e.g. a landscaped front yard area at a ratio of 25% of a building’s floor area must be provided in certain areas of the village) . A requirement to have a landscape architect work on larger building can help to ensure the landscape design is a strong design consideration. In some circumstances, minimum setbacks further make it challenging to preserve trees and so some flexibility may be considered in setbacks through the variance process when it comes to site-specific considerations of existing trees, views, context, and topography. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 3 7 THEME 6. Evolving housing needs Policy Considerations: •Explore additional options for second suites on a lot or in a structure. •Consider permitting additional options for low-rise apartments, townhouses, and smaller houses so as to promote options to age in place in Chester with a greater variety of housing options. •Name change for the Estate Residential zone. •Review lot size minimums in Estate Residential zone. •Promote design for sustainability and accessibility. Discussion: The options for two-unit dwellings (duplexes) and secondary or garden suites remains limited under the current land use bylaw, even though there appears to be a demand for these kinds of housing options. In the Central Village Residential Zone, only one two-unit dwelling per block is permitted. There is a requirement for entries to duplexes to be in distinct massings, with the entrances to each dwelling unit located in separate masses so that the entrances appear to be in different sections of the building. This may be awkward to interpret and design for, and it is not clear that entries being in distinct massings is a critical design requirement in relation to character. While townhouse development at Millennium Drive appears to be convenient and popular as an option for living, such a form of development is not permitted within the Central Village, which is where many of the walkable destinations and amenities exist. The possibility to explore townhouses, rowhouses or low-rise apartments in specific locations in the village could be an option to consider. This would allow for people to “age in place” – that is to be able to stay within the village core without the need and cost of maintaining a single unit home. This could also be an option for people seeking smaller homes or one-level/accessible living. In the Estate Residential zone, the word “estate” has an elitist connotation and it is not necessary for the name of the zone to carry this connotation. In the Estate Residential zone, the minimum lot size for lots connected to central sewer is 3716 sq. m. (40,000 sq. ft. or 0.92 acres). In this zone, only a single dwelling plus a secondary dwelling unit of no more than 600 sq ft is permitted. This is a relatively large minimum lot size, and it may be desirable in areas that are provided sewer services to allow for property owners to subdivide and/or have greater options for additional units. New housing options should promote design that consider sustainability, in terms of materials and energy performance, as well as accessibility. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 3 8 THEME 7. Walkable Village Commercial Core and enhancing the connection to the water Policy Considerations: •Explore requirements in the land use bylaw that are specific to the Village Commercial Core with the aim to promote a cluster of walkable destinations (“walkable streets overlay”). •The walkable streets overlay may include a requirement that new development provide uses at ground level such as restaurants, shops, tourism- related services, accommodations, personal services, retail stores, cultural establishments, etc. for a minimum of 50% of the street frontage. •The walkable streets overlay may be accompanied by maximum setback requirements, parking, loading or other design requirements. •Explore potential for Water Street to include sidewalk or boardwalk, along with the potential for Tancook Island ferry dock to be repurposed as a destination with events, boat tours, and vendors. Discussion: Large areas of Chester Village are zoned Core Commercial. Much of this area is used as residential houses, and there has been a history of structures converting between residential and commercial use over their lifespan. In some commercially zoned areas, commercial uses are sporadic. The Village Commercial Core (as indicated on Figures 2.1 and 2.3 , previous chapter) however is predominantly commercial in nature, with a strong cluster of retail storefronts, with approximately 5 storefronts on Duke, and 10-15 each on Pleasant and Queen. The area is vibrant, especially in summer, and the village has seen increased investment in sidewalks in recent years. If there is development in the Village Commercial Core in the future, it is desirable that it is designed to strengthen the retail, service and destination nature of the area. There is also a potential to strengthen connections to the water, especially at Water Street. This might include a sidewalk or boardwalk. There is also the upcoming potential to repurpose the Tancook Island ferry dock as a destination with events, boat tours, public art, seating, and vendors. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 3 9 THEME 8. Waterfront zones Policy Considerations: •Review the Waterfront Residential zone’s 20% max width of building and related regulations. •In the Marine Industrial zone, consider how these lands can better serve as a connection to Chester’s connection to the water, through additional uses not to include dwelling uses (Potential for a “Marine Commercial” zone to permit restaurants, and boat rentals, for example, in addition to existing Marine Industrial uses). •Explore limits to fencing where they impact views to the water. This may include height or material requirements in the waterfront residential zone. Discussion: The Waterfront Residential zone contains a mix of dwellings, boathouses, and docks. The zone permits buildings at a 20% max width relative to lot width. This zone appears to have been largely built out and there appears to be little opportunity for further development. The maximum building height is 7.5 m (25 ft). Given their location, these structures are highly visible to and from the water. Considerations around sea level rise as well as views to and from the water should be incorporated when considering any new changes to the of building and related regulations. This can include regulations for fences, so as to ensure views from the street to the water is considered. The Marine Industrial zone in the back harbour is a part of the working waterfront, relating to the village’s shipbuilding history and ongoing sailing and boating culture. The area serves community needs through boat storage and maintenance. Dwelling uses are not permitted here, and consideration should be given to ensuring this remains the case, as conversion to dwelling would preclude these services. There may be consideration for a wider variety of commercial uses (e.g. restaurant and boat rental) through a Marine Commercial zone, which would provide additional opportunities for people in Chester to connect with the water. This should be considered with regard for any potential conflicts with desired marine industrial uses to remain at the back harbour. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - September 2022 4 0 THEME 9. New regulatory options for managing scale and impact of development Policy Considerations: •Scope a potential Heritage Conservation District for the Central Village as an option to preserve older structures and the scale of existing development. (Requires further analysis and community engagement) •Recognizing a large number of pre-1920 houses, consider pursuing property-specific registration as municipal heritage properties. This might be incentivized by administrative or financial supports for heritage properties owners. •Consider specific design regulations applying to properties that abut heritage properties. •Explore a maximum footprint or maximum gross floor area per main building in all zones. The building size may be determined through a precincts map that considers each area of the village, or it may be considered relative to lot size, or relative to existing structures on a block. •Consider development situations for which it is desirable to use development agreement mechanisms, rather than an as-of-right process. •Consider three levels of project complexity, “low complexity,” “medium complexity,” and “high complexity” (See “Discussion” and Figure 4.1)” Discussion: Community engagement highlighted a general concern with development that is perceived as incompatible with character as being out of scale with the existing village fabric. The current land use bylaw is seen as relatively permissive towards development that may be larger in scale compared to the context. Elements of setback, landscape, view and topography are also key. Structures that are shrouded or set back tend to be less concerning than those that are prominent, and it becomes challenging for the land use bylaw to consider site- specific elements, such as context, topography, views or adjacencies. A number of considerations emerged out of this conversation, as detailed in the bullets above. While there is a concern for managing development that may be incompatible, at the same time it is important to not precluding desirable or needed uses. These could include new and emerging housing options, commercial spaces, or institutional uses. Changes in regulations should also avoid placing undue burden on minor construction or renovations. With this consideration, the municipality may consider three levels of project complexity, “low complexity,” “medium complexity,” and “high complexity.” Low complexity processes encompasses small scale development (e.g. under 1,500 sq. ft footprint), renovations and additions. For low complexity projects, burdens relating to material quality or landscape quality, noted previously in this Study may be lower or may be removed. A medium complexity process could be triggered for example in cases where development is proposed at a larger footprint and/or at a location considered sensitive (such as a waterfront or adjacent to a registered heritage property). In medium complexity projects, burdens relating to materials or landscape quality may be increased recognizing the potentially larger impact of the project. There is the option to require a self-evaluation checklist as part of the application intake for a medium complexity project; an example checklist is provided as Figure 4.1, which references the principles and character aspects identified in this Study. High-complexity processes may be triggered in specific scenarios for commercial or multi-unit development that are seen as requiring a development agreement process, community engagement, and approval from council. THEME 10: Additional Considerations Discussion and considerations: A number of related considerations emerged through engagement. These include concerns around ground water supply as being a necessary considerations prior to approval of new development. Community members were also concerned around the development of accommodations as well as a need to address nuisance and housing supply impacts from short-term rentals such as Airbnb. Community members also noted that some development has progressed very slowly, with a completion time of several years, lengthening the time for construction impacts. There is the potential to consider means to penalize development that proceeds at an unduly slow pace. Built Form & Character-Defining Elements Study for the Village of Chester - Septmeber 2022 4 1 Moderate Complex ity Projects:Self-evaluation D esign Checklist for Applicants P ri n c i p le D es i g n R es p o n s e:H ow have principles informed the proposal? Appropriate and Complementary •Contribute positively to the historical contex t of the village •H ave a scale that relates to the site, topography and neighbouring buildings Sensitive to Landscape and Seascape •R espect the landscape and location of buildings, tree cover, vegetation, rockwalls and fences •Consider views to and from the ocean Timeless and Authentic D esign •Consider principles of proportion, form, composition and tex ture •Avoid pastiche and “faux ” architectural design Continuity and Change •R espects historical contex t while also reflecting contemporary needs, including housing options, carbon footprint, durability, and accessibility Th em e Co n s i d erati o n s f o r p ro p o n en ts S elf -ev alu ati o n Compatible building dimensions in relation to adjacent areas: •B uilding footprint •B uilding setbacks •B uilding height •D o the building dimensions (footprint, setbacks, height) generally align with those of neighbouring primary buildings? __ / 4 0 D esign elements: •Aggregation of massing elements •R oof shape and materials •Siding materials •G laz ing and windows •O ther stylistic elements and ornament •Sustainable design •Is the massing of larger elements broken up into smaller components so feel more human scale? •Is there a consideration of the roof shape and style? •Are high quality glaz ing options use that reflect the character of the area and the use of the building, including for desired daylighting? •Are materials and stylistic elements of a high quality and do they reflect elements seen in Chester? •Are there design choices that will reduce the carbon footprint for constructing and maintaining the building? __ / 2 0 H igh quality site design: •Landscaping and trees •Paths •Fences •O utbuildings/ garage •Is a landscape architect involved? •Are ex isting trees and landscaping elements retained where possible? •D o planting species and design choices represent sustainable landscaping techniques and do they reflect plantings also seen in the nearby contex t? __ / 2 0 Contex tual consideration: •R elationship to topography •R elationship to street •Consideration of views from the streets and public space •Consideration of views to and from the water •H ow does the building respond to the topography and its location on the site? •W hat face(s) of the building will be on public view? •W hat views are created and what views are blocked, including views from the water? •H ow is the relationship to the relationship to the street (and sidewalk) considered? __ / 2 0 Compatible designs are anticipated to self-evaluation with a score above 70 / 10 0 TO TAL __ / 10 0 Figure 4.1: Draft Design Checklist 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 1 FINANCE DEPARTMENT – 1st QUARTER REPORT For the three-months ended June 30, 2022 A separate Information Services report will outline Information Services activities. Q1 ACHIEVEMENTS  Report to Audit Committee completed o Unqualified audit opinion provided from Grant Thornton o Audited Financial Statements approved by Audit Committee (July 21) and Council (July 28)  Posting of Council and CAO quarterly remuneration and expenses on Web site  Interim Tax bills issued  2023/23 Operating and Capital Budgets, including tax rates, approved (April 14)  Bylaw #72 Private Street Improvement & Maintenance amended, including reducing admin fee to 5% (May 19)  Detailed review of Bylaw #74 Tax Exemptions for Organizations presented to Council and direction received to repeal and replace with new Policy (June 9)  Spring Debentures submitted to the Province, and funds received (Landfill equipment purchases)  Annual Expenditure Report (AER) completed and submitted to the Province  Preliminary scoping for implementation of PS3280 Asset Retirement Obligations  METRICS for first quarter of 2022/23 fiscal year April to June 2022 By-law 148 Water Supply Loans - # loans 0 new loans (total of 16 active) By-law 148 Water Supply Loans - $ value approved (max $150,000 per year) $0 new this year (total $110,500 outstanding) Interim tax bills issued April 26, 2021 13,782 bills Outstanding interim tax bills as at Aug 26, 2022 $1,217,565 or 12% of total bills issued Non-tax Invoices Processed 1,230 (10% increase from Q1 21/22) PRIORITIES FOR Q2 2022/23  Amend Policy P-25 Low Income Tax Emptions  2022/23 Capital and Operating Budget Revisions  Investment activities  Complete scoping work for PS3280 Asset Retirement Obligations  Complete 2021/22 Provincial submissions (CIP, FIR, SOE), due September 30  Continue work on procurement process updates – PO Module implementation 2 2022/23 COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR FINANCE (FIS) PRIORITIES SPECIFIC ACTIONS & NOTES RESPONSIBLE TIMING LEAD SUPPORT PROCUREMENT STRATEGY Implement PO module FIS IAO Q2/3 2022/23 P-cards and Procurement policy review/revision FIS CSM Q4 2022/23 INVESTMENT POLICY Implementation of approved policy Detailed long-term cash flow analysis to be prepared to facilitate effective use of invested funds FIS CSM Q2/3 2022/23 TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW REVIEW Draft new policy to replace Bylaw #74 FIS CSM Q3/4 2022/23 TAX SALE OPTIONS REPORT Research alternative options for carrying out Tax Sales FIS CSM Q3 2022/23 STREETLIGHTS Document practices and rationale FIS IAO Q3 2022/23 GIS Mapping of existing streetlights, area rates FIS IAO Q4 2022/23 Definitions of council priorities coding: HIGH | NORMAL | LOW have been taken from the 2021-24 Strategic Planning and Priorities work. This Work Plan does not capture Department operational priorities & projects nor day-to-day work programs that affect the Municipality’s organizational capacity or resources Q1 2022/23 CAPITAL BUDGET UPDATE Capital spending to June 30, 2022, was $123,238, which is lower than the same period in 2021/22 ($349,505), and roughly in-line with the same period of the two preceding years ($133,502 and $147,588). This is primarily due to the timing of major projects (Active Transportation, Landfill cell 3B construction, Compactor purchase). More detailed updates on the status of individual projects, will be provided as part of regular departmental updates to Council. 2022/23 FINANCIAL FORECAST The Operating Fund financial forecast, based upon results for the three months ended June 30, 2022, shows a surplus forecast for the year ended March 31, 2023, of $21,599. The following pages show operating revenues and expenses by program areas. 3 4 5 The projected surplus of $21,599 is due to numerous smaller variances (see previous pages for more details). The largest single projected variance is in the Deed Transfer Tax (“DTT”), where we are still experiencing historic high levels of revenue. The 2022/23 budget for DTT ($1,790,000) is 24% lower than the 2021/22 actuals ($2,364,892), and Q1 2022/23 DTT actuals ($644,709) are 9% higher than Q1 of 2021/22 ($591,516). Given the volatile and unpredictable nature of the real estate market, we are using a conservative estimate of 10% above budget ($179,000 favourable variance). Current projections include 50% of this favourable variance ($89,500) being transferred to the Infrastructure Development Fund. The Operating Fund surplus also includes expenditures for transfers to reserves, and revenues for transfers from reserves. The net transfers to reserves for 2022/23 are projected to be $2,562,251, which is $64,745 higher than budgeted ($2,497,506). This increase is primarily due to the transfer of increased DTT funds. When considering he projected increase in reserve funds, the Municipality is forecasted to have a $2,583,850 surplus for the current fiscal year. CURRENT POLICY Municipality of the District of Chester Flag Raising & Protocol Policy Policy P-103 Effective Date: August 6, 2020 Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council – July 23, 2020 (2020-318) First Notice – Council – July 30, 2020 (2020-335) Second Notice – Council – August 6, 2020 (2020-346) Effective Date: August 6, 2020 Page | 2 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER POLICY P-103 FLAG RAISINGS & PROTOCOL POLICY 1 PURPOSE 1.01 The Flag Raisings & Flag Protocol Policy establishes a framework to govern requests for flag raisings received from the community, and to establish a consistent protocol for the flying of flags at all municipal buildings, properties, and facilities. 2 PRINCIPLES 2.01 The following underlying principles inform this policy: (a) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that flags, as symbols of nations, territories, and community organizations, are important to residents of the Municipality. (b) The Municipality is committed to building upon, while maintaining, the rich heritage of protocol associated with the flying of flags. (c) As a matter of practice, the Municipality has flown flags at half-mast to mark periods of official mourning or commemorate solemn occasions important to the residents. (d) The Municipality understands the importance and symbology of special flag raisings to enhance public awareness for diversity and inclusion of marginalized groups, and to raise awareness of activities such as cultural events and commemorations that are important to members of our community. (e) The Municipality recognizes the need to provide a fair and consistent response, and fair and equitable opportunities for groups or organizations to fly their event flag from a Community flagpole. 3 POLICY 3.01 Official Flags (a) The Municipality will fly three official flags permanently, each on their own flagpole in front of the Municipal Administration Building: the Federal Flag, the Provincial Flag, and the Official Municipal Flag. (b) Notwithstanding the above policy, on the occasion of a visiting dignitary Council may approve the flag of a Nation (foreign governments or United Nations), or another appropriate flag be flown for the duration of the visit to the Municipality. Upon approval by Council the dignitary's flag be shall flown below one of the flags in front of the Administration Building. (c) Official flags shall be flown in a manner consistent with flag etiquette of the Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council – July 23, 2020 (2020-318) First Notice – Council – July 30, 2020 (2020-335) Second Notice – Council – August 6, 2020 (2020-346) Effective Date: August 6, 2020 Page | 3 Federal Department of Canadian Heritage. 3.02 Half-Masting of Official Flags (a) The CAO, or their designee, may approve official flags to be flown at half mast to mark the passing of the following individuals: Across Canada: (i) The Sovereign, or a member of the Royal Family related in the first degree to the Sovereign (spouse, son or daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister). (ii) The Governor-General or a former Governor General of Canada (iii) Prime Minister of Canada or former Prime Minister Within the Province of Nova Scotia: (iv) The current Lieutenant Governor (v) The current or a former Premier Within the Municipality of the District of Chester: (vi) The current or a former Warden. (vii) A current or former Councillor of the Municipality. (viii) A current Municipal employee. (ix) A person in or from the Municipality of Chester who is lost in active service while providing “protective services”, including RCMP, Military Personnel and Firefighters. (x) On November 11, Remembrance Day. (b) Other individuals and events (i.e. national or provincial tragedies, national days of mourning) may be recognized by lowering the flag at the direction of Council or the CAO in consultation with the Warden. Generally, such decisions are guided by the practice of the Province of Nova Scotia. (c) Upon approval of the half-masting of the flag, the CAO or designee, will advise the Warden, Council and Municipal staff, of the name of the individual, the individual’s qualification for recognition under this policy and the date of the funeral or memorial service for the individual. (d) When approved under Section 3.02 (a) or (b), official flags flown on municipal properties will be flown at half mast for a period beginning when the Municipality is notified of the individual's death until sunset on the day of funeral. In the case where no funeral is held, or if there is to be a memorial service, the half-masting should take place from the time of notification of death until sunset the following day and from sunrise to sunset on the day of the memorial service. 3.03 Special Purpose Flags (a) The community flagpole at the office of the Municipality is designated the special purpose flagpole for community organizations that request their flag be flown for Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council – July 23, 2020 (2020-318) First Notice – Council – July 30, 2020 (2020-335) Second Notice – Council – August 6, 2020 (2020-346) Effective Date: August 6, 2020 Page | 4 a certain period. (b) All applications must be reviewed by Council for approval. (c) A special purpose flag shall be flown for a period of up to two weeks, or for the duration of the associated event, whichever is less. No organization will be granted approval to fly a special purpose flag for more than 2 weeks per year to allow fair and equitable opportunities for community organizations and causes to be represented. (d) The Community Flagpoles may be used to fly flags: (i) in honour national or independence days important to the residents of Municipality (ii) in support of fund-raising drives important to the residents of the Municipality. (iii) to celebrate multi-cultural, social, and civic events important to the residents Municipality (iv) to help increase public awareness of the programs, activities, or objectives of community organizations. (e) The Community Flagpoles will not be used to fly flags: (i) of political parties or political organizations. (ii) of religious groups or the celebration of religious event. (iii) that promote or symbolize social or racial intolerance, violence, or hatred. (iv) if the intent is to defame the integrity of Council. (v) representing or advertising commercial operations or organizations. (vi) in support of fund-raising drives that are political or religious in nature. (vii) in support of groups, organizations, or events that promote beliefs contrary to any other Municipal policy. (f) Council may deny requests if the event or organization has no direct relationship of the Municipality. (g) The public will be advised of the significance of the community organization's flag being flown through social media or other communication efforts on the part of the Municipality in collaboration with the community organization. (h) When there is no community organization flag on the community flagpole, a branded municipal flag will be flown. 3.04 Municipal Flag (a) Council may consider requests to fly a Municipal flag by residents of the Municipality or organizations. (b) Council will not approve requests for other uses of a Municipal Flag whose group or organization's undertakings or philosophies are contrary to the Municipality’s policies or by-laws, espouse racism, violence, or hatred. (c) The Municipal flag shall not be flown at events or by groups who advocate or Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council – July 23, 2020 (2020-318) First Notice – Council – July 30, 2020 (2020-335) Second Notice – Council – August 6, 2020 (2020-346) Effective Date: August 6, 2020 Page | 5 support social or racial intolerance, the overthrow of any government or civil disobedience. (d) Persons flying a Municipal flag shall ensure that the propriety rights for the Municipality are protected. The Municipality reserves the right to reclaim any Municipal flag. (e) Designated public buildings (Provincial and Federal Governments, Royal Canadian Legions, Fire Departments, Community Halls, Schools, and Libraries) may fly the Municipal flag and would be available free of charge to fly on Federal, and Provincial Government buildings and at cost to other public buildings. (f) Upon approval of council, individuals or organizations may purchase a Municipal flag at cost plus an administrative fee established in the Fee Policy but cannot be purchased for resale. (g) The Municipal flag may be loaned on a temporary basis for a major community function upon the approval of Municipal Council or designated staff. A signing out process shall be in place. 4 PROCEDURES (a) Applications to fly a special purpose flag are to be submitted a minimum of one month prior to the date the group anticipates having the flag flown. A calendar will be maintained by Municipal Clerk, or designee, to confirm availability. (b) Consideration will be given to the order in which requests are received. (c) All requests to fly a special purpose flag must be received in writing and state: (i) The significance of the flag. (ii) The requested duration to fly the flag. (iii) A contact person to coordinate logistics (name, organization, phone number, email). (d) Flag flying requests are approved on a first-come, first-serve basis. (e) Provided that the flag and all necessary ropes and attachments have been provided by the requesting organization, Municipal staff will raise and lower the flag in accordance with the terms of the permission granted. 5 DEFINITIONS 5.01 “CAO” means the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.02 “Community Flagpole” means any flagpole on Municipal property designated for Community Flag Raisings. 5.03 “Council” means the elected officials that make up the Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.04 “Branded Municipal Flag” means the flag of the Municipality of the District of Chester Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council – July 23, 2020 (2020-318) First Notice – Council – July 30, 2020 (2020-335) Second Notice – Council – August 6, 2020 (2020-346) Effective Date: August 6, 2020 Page | 6 that displays the Municipality’s branded logo. 5.05 “Federal Flag” means the Canadian flag. 5.06 “Municipality” means the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.07 “Official flags” means the Federal, Provincial or Official Municipal flag. 5.08 “Official Municipal Flag” means the flag of the Municipality of the District of Chester that displays the Municipal Crest. 5.09 “Provincial Flag” means the Nova Scotia flag. Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Council – July 23, 2020 (2020-318) First Notice – Council – July 30, 2020 (2020-335) Second Notice – Council – August 6, 2020 (2020-346) Effective Date: August 6, 2020 Page | 7 Annotation for Official Policy Book Reason for Adoption Following repeal of Policy P-57 Flag Policy, a new and up to date Flag Raising and Protocol Policy was adopted. Notice of Intention to Adopt Council July 23, 2020 Date of First Notice at Council July 30, 2020 Date of Second Notice at Council August 6, 2020 Effective Date August 6, 2020 I certify that this Policy was adopted by Council as indicated above. _______________________________________ August 11, 2020 Pamela M. Myra, Municipal Clerk Date INTENTION TO AMEND – September 15, 2022 REFER TO FIRST NOTICE OF COUNCIL- September 29, 2022 Amendments:  Addition to 3.03 c  New paragraphs i and j in section 3.03 Municipality of the District of Chester Flag Raising & Protocol Policy Policy P-103 Effective Date: Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Committee of the Whole – September 9, 2022 First Notice – Council – September 29, 2022 Second Notice – Council – October 13, 2022 Effective Date: Page | 2 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER POLICY P-103 FLAG RAISINGS & PROTOCOL POLICY 1 PURPOSE 1.01 The Flag Raisings & Flag Protocol Policy establishes a framework to govern requests for flag raisings received from the community, and to establish a consistent protocol for the flying of flags at all municipal buildings, properties, and facilities. 2 PRINCIPLES 2.01 The following underlying principles inform this policy: (a) The Municipality of Chester recognizes that flags, as symbols of nations, territories, and community organizations, are important to residents of the Municipality. (b) The Municipality is committed to building upon, while maintaining, the rich heritage of protocol associated with the flying of flags. (c) As a matter of practice, the Municipality has flown flags at half-mast to mark periods of official mourning or commemorate solemn occasions important to the residents. (d) The Municipality understands the importance and symbology of special flag raisings to enhance public awareness for diversity and inclusion of marginalized groups, and to raise awareness of activities such as cultural events and commemorations that are important to members of our community. (e) The Municipality recognizes the need to provide a fair and consistent response, and fair and equitable opportunities for groups or organizations to fly their event flag from a Community flagpole. 3 POLICY 3.01 Official Flags (a) The Municipality will fly three official flags permanently, each on their own flagpole in front of the Municipal Administration Building: the Federal Flag, the Provincial Flag, and the Official Municipal Flag. (b) Notwithstanding the above policy, on the occasion of a visiting dignitary Council may approve the flag of a Nation (foreign governments or United Nations), or another appropriate flag be flown for the duration of the visit to the Municipality. Upon approval by Council the dignitary's flag be shall flown below one of the flags in front of the Administration Building. (c) Official flags shall be flown in a manner consistent with flag etiquette of the Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Committee of the Whole – September 9, 2022 First Notice – Council – September 29, 2022 Second Notice – Council – October 13, 2022 Effective Date: Page | 3 Federal Department of Canadian Heritage. 3.02 Half-Masting of Official Flags (a) The CAO, or their designee, may approve official flags to be flown at half mast to mark the passing of the following individuals: Across Canada: (i) The Sovereign, or a member of the Royal Family related in the first degree to the Sovereign (spouse, son or daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister). (ii) The Governor-General or a former Governor General of Canada (iii) Prime Minister of Canada or former Prime Minister Within the Province of Nova Scotia: (iv) The current Lieutenant Governor (v) The current or a former Premier Within the Municipality of the District of Chester: (vi) The current or a former Warden. (vii) A current or former Councillor of the Municipality. (viii) A current Municipal employee. (ix) A person in or from the Municipality of Chester who is lost in active service while providing “protective services”, including RCMP, Military Personnel and Firefighters. (x) On November 11, Remembrance Day. (b) Other individuals and events (i.e. national or provincial tragedies, national days of mourning) may be recognized by lowering the flag at the direction of Council or the CAO in consultation with the Warden. Generally, such decisions are guided by the practice of the Province of Nova Scotia. (c) Upon approval of the half-masting of the flag, the CAO or designee, will advise the Warden, Council and Municipal staff, of the name of the individual, the individual’s qualification for recognition under this policy and the date of the funeral or memorial service for the individual. (d) When approved under Section 3.02 (a) or (b), official flags flown on municipal properties will be flown at half mast for a period beginning when the Municipality is notified of the individual's death until sunset on the day of funeral. In the case where no funeral is held, or if there is to be a memorial service, the half-masting should take place from the time of notification of death until sunset the following day and from sunrise to sunset on the day of the memorial service. 3.03 Special Purpose Flags (a) The community flagpole at the office of the Municipality is designated the special purpose flagpole for community organizations that request their flag be flown for Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Committee of the Whole – September 9, 2022 First Notice – Council – September 29, 2022 Second Notice – Council – October 13, 2022 Effective Date: Page | 4 a certain period. (b) All applications must be reviewed by Council for approval. (c) A special purpose flag shall be flown for a period of up to two weeks, or for the duration of the associated event, whichever is less. No organization will be granted approval to fly a special purpose flag for more than 2 weeks per year to allow fair and equitable opportunities for community organizations and causes to be represented except by resolution of Council. If an observance is recurring, requests can be made to fly a flag on a specific date(s) annually without submitting a request every year. (d) The Community Flagpoles may be used to fly flags: (i) in honour national or independence days important to the residents of Municipality (ii) in support of fund-raising drives important to the residents of the Municipality. (iii) to celebrate multi-cultural, social, and civic events important to the residents Municipality (iv) to help increase public awareness of the programs, activities, or objectives of community organizations. (e) The Community Flagpoles will not be used to fly flags: (i) of political parties or political organizations. (ii) of religious groups or the celebration of religious event. (iii) that promote or symbolize social or racial intolerance, violence, or hatred. (iv) if the intent is to defame the integrity of Council. (v) representing or advertising commercial operations or organizations. (vi) in support of fund-raising drives that are political or religious in nature. (vii) in support of groups, organizations, or events that promote beliefs contrary to any other Municipal policy. (f) Council may deny requests if the event or organization has no direct relationship of the Municipality. (g) The public will be advised of the significance of the community organization's flag being flown through social media or other communication efforts on the part of the Municipality in collaboration with the community organization. (h) When there is no community organization flag on the community flagpole, a branded municipal flag will be flown. (i) In the absence of a representing community organization, and when appropriate, the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Advisory Committee may submit a flag flying request for Council’s review. (j) The Municipality will fly a list of pre-approved flags, without a written request. Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Committee of the Whole – September 9, 2022 First Notice – Council – September 29, 2022 Second Notice – Council – October 13, 2022 Effective Date: Page | 5 These flags are: (i) Pan-African flag – first two weeks of February (African Heritage Month) (ii) Trans flag – March 31 (Transgender Day of Visibility) and November 20 (International Transgender day of Remembrance) (iii) South Shore Autism flag – first week of April (Autism Acceptance Month) (iv) Pride flag – first two weeks of June (Pride Month) (v) All Children Matter flag - September 30 (National Day for Truth & Reconciliation/Orange Shirt Day) 3.04 Municipal Flag (a) Council may consider requests to fly a Municipal flag by residents of the Municipality or organizations. (b) Council will not approve requests for other uses of a Municipal Flag whose group or organization's undertakings or philosophies are contrary to the Municipality’s policies or by-laws, espouse racism, violence, or hatred. (c) The Municipal flag shall not be flown at events or by groups who advocate or support social or racial intolerance, the overthrow of any government or civil disobedience. (d) Persons flying a Municipal flag shall ensure that the propriety rights for the Municipality are protected. The Municipality reserves the right to reclaim any Municipal flag. (e) Designated public buildings (Provincial and Federal Governments, Royal Canadian Legions, Fire Departments, Community Halls, Schools, and Libraries) may fly the Municipal flag and would be available free of charge to fly on Federal, and Provincial Government buildings and at cost to other public buildings. (f) Upon approval of council, individuals or organizations may purchase a Municipal flag at cost plus an administrative fee established in the Fee Policy but cannot be purchased for resale. (g) The Municipal flag may be loaned on a temporary basis for a major community function upon the approval of Municipal Council or designated staff. A signing out process shall be in place. 4 PROCEDURES (a) Applications to fly a special purpose flag are to be submitted a minimum of one month prior to the date the group anticipates having the flag flown. A calendar Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Committee of the Whole – September 9, 2022 First Notice – Council – September 29, 2022 Second Notice – Council – October 13, 2022 Effective Date: Page | 6 will be maintained by Municipal Clerk, or designee, to confirm availability. (b) Consideration will be given to the order in which requests are received. (c) All requests to fly a special purpose flag must be received in writing and state: (i) The significance of the flag. (ii) The requested duration to fly the flag. (iii) A contact person to coordinate logistics (name, organization, phone number, email). (d) Flag flying requests are approved on a first-come, first-serve basis. (e) Provided that the flag and all necessary ropes and attachments have been provided by the requesting organization, Municipal staff will raise and lower the flag in accordance with the terms of the permission granted. 5 DEFINITIONS 5.01 “CAO” means the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.02 “Community Flagpole” means any flagpole on Municipal property designated for Community Flag Raisings. 5.03 “Council” means the elected officials that make up the Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.04 “Branded Municipal Flag” means the flag of the Municipality of the District of Chester that displays the Municipality’s branded logo. 5.05 “Federal Flag” means the Canadian flag. 5.06 “Municipality” means the Municipality of the District of Chester. 5.07 “Official flags” means the Federal, Provincial or Official Municipal flag. 5.08 “Official Municipal Flag” means the flag of the Municipality of the District of Chester that displays the Municipal Crest. 5.09 “Provincial Flag” means the Nova Scotia flag. Policy P-103 - Flag Raising & Protocol Policy (continued)__________________________________________ Notice of Intention to Adopt – Committee of the Whole – September 9, 2022 First Notice – Council – September 29, 2022 Second Notice – Council – October 13, 2022 Effective Date: Page | 7 Annotation for Official Policy Book Reason for Adoption Notice of Intention to Adopt Date of First Notice at Council Date of Second Notice at Council Effective Date I certify that this Policy was adopted by Council as indicated above. _______________________________________ Pamela M. Myra, Municipal Clerk Date