HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-11-10_Public Hearing Agenda Package.pdf MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
A G E N D A
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of amendments to the Chester Municipal Land Use By-law to rezone a portion of PID 60422888
from Settlement Residential Two Zone to Mixed Use Zone.
10 November 2022, 6:30 p.m.
Municipal Council Chambers, 151 King Street, Chester
1. CALL TO ORDER (CHAIR)
a. The Agenda
b. General Rules of Conduct
c. Council’s decision governed by Chester Municipal Planning Strategy
2. COMMENTS BY MUNICIPAL SOLICITOR
3. OVERVIEW BY PLANNER
a. Location and nature of proposal
b. Municipal Planning Strategy
c. Summary of Advertisements and Meetings related to the draft amendments
d. Recommendations
i. Draft Amendments
4. PRESENTATION BY DEVELOPER
a. Larry Swinamer and James Boudreau on behalf of Larex Management Ltd.
5. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON THE PROPOSAL
a. In Favour
b. Opposed
c. Any other comments
6. CLOSING REMARKS (CHAIR)
7. DECISION OF COUNCIL / DEFERMENT OF DECISION
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
PUBLIC HEARING REPORT
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner
DATE: November 10, 2022
SUBJECT: 2022-402 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council
conduct First Reading of the intent to amend the Municipal Land Use By-Law to rezone a
portion of PID 60422888 from Settlement Residential Two (SR2) Zone to Mixed Use (MU)
Zone and conduct a public hearing. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION: Discussion was held on the legal grounds of accepting or not accepting a
recommendation from a committee and it was confirmed that Council has the option to
move forward regardless of the recommendation. Council can still make the decision to
move forward; the key is that Council has considered the amendment. ALL IN FAVOUR.
MOTION CARRIED.
(A) DETAILS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Request from: Application submitted by Larex Management Ltd. to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 from
Settlement Residential Two Zone to Mixed Use Zone.
Council received the application and request on July 28, 2022 and directed staff to schedule a Public
Information Meeting, and prepare a Staff Report for consideration by the Municipal Planning Advisory
Committee.
Request date: July 28, 2022.
Nature of amendments:
Be it enacted by the Council of the Municipality of Chester as Follows:
Amend Schedule A of the Municipal Land Use By-law – Zoning Map to reflect the rezoning of PID
60422888, resulting in the entire property being subject to the provisions of the Mixed-Use Zone.
Purpose of amendments:
The request to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 has been proposed in support of a planned commercial
subdivision. The stated intent is to develop 8-12 lots adjacent to Highway 103 to be developed and managed by the
Applicant.
(B) MEETING DATES
July 28, 2022 – Application and Request for Direction considered by Council
August 31, 2022 – Public Information Meeting (Hubbards Area Lion’s Club)
September 21, 2022 – Municipal Planning Advisory Committee
October 13, 2022 – Council 1st Reading
November 10, 2022 – Public Hearing
(C) DOCUMENTATION Reports:
July 28, 2022 – Request for Direction – Request to Rezone PID 60422888
September 21, 2022 – Staff Report – Request to Rezone a Portion of PID 60422888
October 13, 2022 – Staff Report – Updated with MPAC Motion & Public Hearing Dates
November 10, 2022 – Public Hearing Report
Advertisements (Progress Bulletin):
August 25, 2022: Notice of Public Information Meeting
September 14, 2022: Notice of Municipal Area Advisory Committee Meeting
October 19, 2022: Notice of Public Hearing (1st Notice)
October 26, 2022: Notice of Public Hearing (2nd Notice)
November 3, 2022: Notice of Public Hearing
Other notifications:
August 9, 2022 – Early notice of Land Use By-law Amendment sent electronically to Halifax Regional
Municipality
October 13, 2022 – Notice of Public Hearing sent electronically to:
o Halifax Regional Municipality
October 19, 2022 – Neighbour Notification Package sent all properties within 30m of the subject
property (PID 60422888)
October 13, 2022 – Sign posted at entrance to the site to advise of Public Hearing
Copies of all Progress Bulletin Advertisements posted on Municipal Website and Municipal Office
doors
Social Media postings
Fees paid: All required fees have been received: $300.00 Application Fee and $500.00 Advertising Deposit
(D) WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
1. Matt Parliament
2. Sarah Haliburton
3. Mike Fairchild
4. Cathy Mellett & 16 additional names
5. Mathias Groza
6. Leigh Gillam
7. Heather Grandy
8. Michelle and Daniel Everson
9. Robert Champagne
10. Cathy Mellett
11. Nancy Mckinnell
12. Stephen Kimber
13. Robert Champagne
14. Richard Elliott
15. Joan Kaizer
16. Allison Lewis
17. Ted Ross
18. Cathy Mellett
19. Richard Elliott
20. Stephen and Colleen Blacker
21. Undated Flyer submitted by Richard Elliott
22. Amber MacLean
23. Ted Ross
24. Richard Elliott
25. Cathy Mellett
26. Bill Doane
27. Stephen Anderson
PLANNING MATTERS REPORT
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2022
DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation
SUBJECT: Request to Rezone a portion of PID 60422888
ORIGIN: 2022-327
Date: October 6, 2022 Prepared by: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner
Date: October 6, 2022 Reviewed by: Dan McDougall, CAO
APPLICATION OVERVIEW
Applicant: Larex Management Ltd. Zone: Settlement Residential Two Zone & Mixed Use Zone
Proposal: Rezone entire parcel to MU Rezoning Required: X Yes _ _ No __ N/A
Location: Hubbards, N.S. (PID 60422888) Neighbour Notification: Notice of Public Hearing will be sent to
neighbouring property owners within 30m of the subject property
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Staff are seeking Council approval of the following motions in accordance with the Options section of this
report:
Motion 1:
1. That Municipal Council direct staff to return to the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee to obtain a
new motion, in compliance with Policy p-109, regarding the application to rezone a portion of PID
60422888.
Motion 2:
1. That Municipal Council confirm their intent to renew the application to amend the Municipal Land Use
By-law to rezone a portion of PID 60422888, thereby renewing the 120 day timeline for publishing first
notice of a Public Hearing in accordance with Section 21 (2) of the Municipal Government Act
CURRENT SITUATION
Larex Management on behalf of 3220572 Nova Scotia Limited and James Boudreau Limited has submitted an
application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 from Settlement Residential Two (SR-2) Zone to Mixed Use
(MU) Zone. The lot is currently split-zoned and the request is seeking to have the lot fall completely under the
regulations of the Mixed Use Zone. The stated intent of the request is to facilitate a future commercial
subdivision and development of highway orientated services potentially including but not limited to gas station,
retail outlets, home renovation retailers and others.
BACKGROUND
Current zoning for properties around Exit 6 was established during the Municipal Plan review which concluded in
January 2020 with the adoption of the new Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law. When considering zoning for
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 2
the Exit 6 area, staff originally proposed the Mixed-Use Zone, however, based on discussions in the community
and concerns expressed regarding commercial developments along Highway 3 this approach was altered to
include the Settlement Residential Two Zone. This approach has resulted in the current scenario where the
subject property is split zoned between the MU and SR-2 Zones (Map 1).
The subject property is approximately 30.5 acres in total area. Surrounding land uses include a cluster of
residential properties immediately West of the site. Two properties in residential use directly abut the site, with
approximately 9 additional properties in residential use near the site or directly across Mill Lake Road No. 1.
The Southern
property
boundary abuts
land owned by
the Crown to
facilitate the
expansion work
on Highway
103. A future
public road
access will be
constructed
south of the
site to provide
vehicular
access.
The Eastern
boundary
includes a small
section of
waterfrontage
on Sawler Lake,
with the
remainder
being bounded
by
undeveloped,
forested land.
The North
boundary abuts
a large
undeveloped
parcel of land, which includes a small watercourse that flows across the site in the far North-Eastern corner.
Staff conducted a site visit on August 16th to photograph the site in its current state and get a feeling for
conditions on the ground. The site is currently undeveloped with a mixed forest composition. There is a small
pathway crossing the property, but otherwise remains in a natural state.
Figure 1 - showing PID 60422888 and surrounding land use
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 3
As noted above, there is a
small watercourse in the
Northeast corner of the lot.
This watercourse is protected
in the Municipal Planning
Strategy and Land Use By-law.
All development that requires
a development permit must
be at least 20m from the
ordinary high-water mark of
the watercourse. Additionally,
Sawler Lake is protected by
the Lakefront Overlay
(Appendix C: Watercourse
and Waterbodies Map). This
ensures that all new dwelling
units and developments other
than a small accessory
structure, must be setback at least 20m from the ordinary high water mark.
There are no known species at risk on or near the subject property (Appendix D: Species at Risk). The site also
appears suitable for development in most areas. There are the noted setbacks from watercourses and
waterbodies in addition to several areas of steep slopes that would likely need to be avoided or terraformed to
create a suitable building site (Appendix E: Slope Map). Nothing found during the site visit or review of existing
conditions has caused significant concern for staff regarding the suitability of the site for the proposed use of a
commercial subdivision.
DISCUSSION
The request to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 is generally in keeping with the policies and provisions
contained in the Municipal Planning Strategy. Both the Settlement Residential Two and Mixed Use Zones are
permitted within the “Settlement Area” Designation of the Municipal Planning Strategy. This allows the rezoning
to be completed without need to amend the Municipal Planning Strategy.
The Settlement Residential Two Zone has more regulations and controls, particularly in relation to the size of
commercial and light industrial developments permitted by right. The SR-2 Zone allows most commercial and
light industrial developments up to a maximum 100m2 of floor area by Development Permit or up to 500m2 of
floor area by Site Plan Approval. Conversely, the Mixed Use Zone allows most commercial and light industrial
uses up to 2000m2 by Development Permit and those greater than 2000m2 require a Development Agreement.
The SR-2 Zone requires Site Plan Approval for 3 or more dwelling units on a lot. In the MU Zone, Site Plan
Approval is required for 5-11 units on a lot and a Development Agreement is required for 12 or more units on a
lot.
The SR-2 Zone limits the size and intensity of non-residential land uses, with the intent of primarily supporting
residential uses interspersed with complimentary commercial and light industrial uses.
Figure 2 - showing existing lot conditions, mixed forest and undeveloped
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 4
The MU Zone was designed to
support a wide array of land
uses and intensities, with a
variety of approval processes
determined by the size of the
development. The MU Zone was
intended to maintain the
existing rural development
pattern found primarily
between Highway 103 and the
coastline, while offering basic
land use controls for new
development to reduce land use
conflicts where possible. The
MU Zone is most often found
around Highway 103 Exits and in
areas outside Hamlets and
established residential
neighbourhoods such as
Marvin’s Island, Marriot’s Cove
Road and Forest Village Drive.
The MU Zone is used as a “fill in”
for areas between communities
that have expressed a desire for
more rigid controls.
Access
While not required to be
contained in the request to
rezone, staff understand that the proposed access to the site is
to be provided via a new public road (Figure 5). This new road
would intersect with Mill Lake Road No. 1 and provide access
to the southern property boundary.
Mill Lake Road No. 1, Highway 103 and the new road are all
under ownership of the Provincial Department of Public Works.
All approvals for access points and traffic control issues rest
with Public Works. If the development proceeds with
subdivision approval to create lots for sale and/or
development, a copy of the approval from Public Works would
need to be submitted with the subdivision application to
indicate there is approved access for each proposed new lot.
Figure 4 - showing approximate location of new public road
Figure 3 - Showing PID 60422888 with current zoning
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 5
There is no Municipal sewer
or water serving the lot. It is
anticipated that the
development will be served
by a series of on-site septic
systems. On-site septic
approvals are issued by Nova
Scotia Environment. A copy of
the approval from NSE must
be submitted prior to a
subdivision application being
approved.
Proposed Use and Draft
Layout – Commercial
Subdivision
In the letter of request to
rezone the property, the
Developer states the intended
use of the property is for
commercial uses via a
planned subdivision. The
following images have been
provided by the Developer. It
should be noted that the
design and intended use of
the site is subject to change
and there is no obligation on behalf of
the Developer to undertake the
development as shown (figures 5 & 6).
The images below show the proposed
access road, to be constructed to
provide access to the site and continue
West, parallel to Highway 103, to
provide road access to existing residents
of Sawler Lake. This work will be carried
out by or in conjunction with the
Provincial Department of Public Works.
The Developer will be responsible to
construct the roadway to serve the new
commercial uses within the interior of
PID 60422888.
The layout of lots and structures on the
lot is subject to Municipal Subdivision
approval, which includes confirmation
Figure 5 - DRAFT access plan (subject to construction and approval by NS Public Works)
Figure 6 - Proposed layout of commercial subdivision (subject to
Subdivision Approval)
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 6
from Nova Scotia Environment that an on-site septic system can be designed to serve the lot. Additionally,
confirmation from Nova Scotia Public works will be required to confirm access to the new lots from the public
roadway. Subject to those approvals, the Developer has provided Figure 6 to show the intended layout and
design of the commercial subdivision.
PLANNING STRATEGY POLICY ANALYSIS
Policy Analysis & Staff Comment:
Policy V-10
Council intends to control land use and
development in a manner that will lessen
conflicts between land uses and in a
manner that is compatible with the
existing pattern of land use in the
Municipality.
The proposed rezoning would change from one Community
Character Zone (SR-2) to another zone in the same Character
Area (MU). This indicates that the Municipal Planning Strategy
views the rezoning as being of lesser impact as no change to the
MPS is required. Both zones contain regulations to separate and
buffer differing uses and the rezoning is not anticipated to
result in new or worsened conflict with existing surrounding
uses. It should also be noted that the development could
proceed under the current zoning (SR-2), but would be limited
in the size of the structure permitted on each lot compared to
the MU Zone.
Policy V-11
Land use policies and regulations shall
reflect each area’s:
a) rural or village context;
b) existing land uses;
c) community character;
d) desire for regulation;
e) vision.
The subject property is split zoned between SR-2 and MU.
Properties further inland are zoned MU and those near Highway
103 are zoned SR-2. The request to rezone the entire parcel to
MU reflects the vision for the anticipated type of development
that would occur near Highway Exits. While there has been
some debate on the vision for Exit 6, with some conflicting
comments made about reducing commercial uses near the exit,
the plan establishes the MU Zone as being appropriate for
Highway Exit development.
Policy CC-14
A Settlement Area designation shall be
created, which shall generally be placed
on the more densely-populated areas
primarily south of Highway 103 that have
experienced modest development
pressures. The extent of the Settlement
Area shall be identified on the
Generalized Future Land Use Map.
Both the SR-2 Zone and the MU Zone occur and are permitted
within the Settlement Area. Rezoning from SR-2 to MU keeps
the designation the same and therefore no amendment is
required to the Municipal Planning Strategy.
Policy CC-15
The intent of the Settlement Area
designation is to:
a) permit a mix of uses that can
foster cohesive development of
moderate density;
b) provide a varying level of
regulation which recognizes the
diversity of the different
development patterns within the
Settlement Area;
The proposed development relates directly to Policy CC-15.
The SR-2 Zone is similar to the MU Zone, but contains smaller
permitted commercial developments. Both zones allow
Commercial, Residential and Light Industrial uses, in
acknowledging the longstanding approach to mixed use
development in the Municipality.
The request to rezone states that the intended use of the site is
to subdivide and create a commercial development virtually
adjacent Highway 103.
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 7
c) prepare for development,
especially near major highways;
d) encourage development
compatible with the Area’s
character;
e) ensure that commercial and light
industrial development is well-
designed and does not create
highway strip development;
f) safeguard the natural
environment, especially water
quality.
The MU Zone contains yard setbacks and other requirements
that are designed to ensure the development is acceptable to
the community and is in keeping with the Municipal Planning
Strategy.
The draft site plan (Figure 6) from the developer appears to
show intent to create an easily accessible commercial
development that maintains setbacks, space between
structures and appears to exceed requirements on buffering
from neighbouring uses.
Existing protections, including the Lakefront Overlay and
Watercourses, Water Bodies and Wetlands, in the Land Use By-
law provide protection to Sawler Lake and Mill Brook.
Policy CC-24
Within the Mixed-Use Zone, it shall be
the intent of Council to:
a) allow a range of residential,
commercial, institutional and light
industrial uses;
b) provide modest setbacks for
certain rural uses, commercial and
light industrial uses and forestry
processing; prohibit heavy
industrial uses and fur farming.
The proposed use would see development of a commercial
subdivision in keeping with policy CC-24. Additionally, the
development will adhere to the setback requirements of the
MU Zone to create separation from any nearby properties not
in commercial use.
Policy CC-25
In the Mixed-Use Zone, a development
permit shall be required for:
a) low density residential
developments;
b) small commercial, institutional and
light industrial developments;
c) forestry processing;
d) small campgrounds, RV Parks and
tourist accommodations.
The proposed development is expected to occur through
subdivision of the lands and the issuance of development
permits for each structure. The proposal does not envision
commercial development at a scale that would require a
Development Agreement, per the regulations of the Mixed-Use
Zone.
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 8
Policy A-32
When considering amendments to a land
use by-law or a subdivision by-law,
Council shall consider the following:
a) that the amendment meets the
intent of the Municipal Planning
Strategy and the intent of any
relevant Secondary Planning
Strategies;
b) that the amendment conforms to
all relevant Municipal By-laws;
c) that the applicable public
consultation program has been
followed and residents’ opinions
have been carefully considered;
d) that the amendment is in the best
interest of the Municipality.
a) The proposed rezoning of a portion of PID 60422888
from Settlement Residential Two to the Mixed Use Zone
is in keeping with the policies and intent of the
Municipal Planning Strategy.
b) The proposal appears to conform with all Municipal By-
laws.
c) The required Public Participation Program, detailed in
MPS Policy A-3 will be followed. To date this includes
holding a Public Information Meeting in the community.
Future steps include signage posted on the property, a
mail out to property owners within 30m of the property
and a duly advertised Public Hearing before Council
votes on the proposal.
d) The proposal to create a commercial subdivision aimed
at serving local residents and the travelling public is in
keeping with policy provisions and could result in
substantial commercial growth around Exit 6. This has
positive tax implications and also will serve to attract
residents to the area by providing convenient amenities
and services.
Policy A-33
When evaluating a rezoning application,
Council shall consider other potential
developments and uses that may be
permitted as a result of a proposed zone
change.
If the rezoning proposal is approved, the entirety of PID
60422888 may be developed subject to the Mixed Use Zone
regulations contained in the Municipal Land Use By-law.
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 9
Policy A-34
Applications for a Land Use By-law
amendment shall show:
a) the location, area, and dimensions
of the subject property;
b) the proposed location, dimensions,
height, and proposed use of all
buildings;
c) the means by which the site is to
be serviced by sanitary and storm
sewers, water, electrical service
and other utilities;
d) the location of any parking stalls,
driveways, walkways, lighting,
fencing, refuse containers, and
snow storage;
e) landscaping elements including
existing and proposed shrubs and
trees;
f) architectural features where such
features are regulated by the
planning document;
g) additional reports or
environmental studies as
requested by the Municipality.
a) This report contains a map showing the extent of the
property.
b) The proposal is seeking approval to rezone PID
60422888, no approval to develop or construct
structures is being sought at this time. It is anticipated
that the planned development will be facilitated
through a future subdivision into smaller lots and then
issuance of development permits for as-of-right
development. The Application form states 10-12 lots
are desired with 8+ buildings. A draft layout has been
provided and is shown in Figure 6.
c) There are no municipal services in the vicinity of the
site. The site will be served by on-site water and septic
systems with approvals issued by Nova Scotia
Environment. Copies of these approvals would be
submitted to support the application to subdivide the
lot.
d) Not applicable. The application to rezone does not
include detailed site design. This work is anticipated to
occur following rezoning at the subdivision and
permitting stage.
e) Not applicable. The application to rezone does not
include detailed site design. This work is anticipated to
occur following rezoning at the permitting stage.
f) Not applicable. There are no architectural controls for
as-of-right development in either the SR-2 or MU
Zones.
g) To date there have been no additional studies or
information requested by staff. The request letter
(Appendix A) and Figures 5 & 6 (supplied by the
Developer) provided sufficient information to
complete the staff report and policy analysis.
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 10
Policy A-35
When considering amendments to the
Land Use By-law, Council shall be satisfied
that the proposal is appropriate with
respect to:
a) compatibility of the proposed land
uses permitted within the
proposed zone;
b) compatibility of the development,
and potential developments, with
adjacent properties in terms of
size, lot coverage and density;
c) potential compatibility issues with
nearby land uses resulting from
lighting, signage, outdoor display
and storage, traffic, vehicle
headlights, and noise;
d) the adequacy of sewer services,
water services, waste management
services and stormwater
management practices;
e) efficient use of existing and new
municipal infrastructure;
f) proximity to and impact on
heritage sites and archaeological
sites;
g) the proximity and capacity of
schools;
h) the adequacy and proximity of
recreation and facilities;
i) the adequacy of the road network
in, adjacent to, or leading to the
development;
j) the potential for erosion or for the
contamination or sedimentation of
watercourses;
k) environmental impacts such as air
and water pollution and soil
contamination;
l) previous uses of the site which
may have caused soil or
groundwater contamination;
m) suitability of the site in terms of
grades, soil and bedrock
conditions, location of
watercourses, water bodies or
wetlands;
n) the ability of emergency services
to respond to an emergency at the
a) The proposed use of the site for highway oriented
commercial uses is permitted within the Mixed Use
Zone. These uses are also permitted in the Settlement
Residential Two Zone, however, size limits apply and a
Development Agreement is required for larger
commercial developments. Both zones are within the
Settlement Character Area, with the proposed change
representing a slight relaxation in regulations.
b) The proposed commercial subdivision is not anticipated
to impact the undeveloped lots on the North, East and
Southern boundaries. There are a cluster of properties
in residential use to the West of the site. The SR-2 and
MU Zone both permit a mix of residential and
commercial/light industrial uses. Setbacks within the
zone and the requirement that very large developments
adhere to a Development Agreement process are
intended to ensure that potential land use conflicts are
minimized or avoided. Based on the draft lot layout
plan (Figure 6) and given setbacks required in the MU
Zone are designed to provide buffering between any
new development and existing residential properties,
no compatibility issues are anticipated.
c) Similar to b) above, once the property is rezoned all
development would need to comply with all provisions
of the Land Use By-law. The types of uses permitted in
the SR-2 Zone and MU Zone are very similar, therefore,
the rezoning is not expected to create or worsen
conflicts between uses as the development could occur
on the lot with existing zoning and reduced building
footprints. Additionally, more than half the lot is
already zoned MU meaning the development as
envisioned can proceed on that portion of the lot.
d) There are no municipal services in the vicinity of the
site. The site will be served by on-site water and septic
systems with approvals issued by Nova Scotia
Environment. Copies of these approvals would be
submitted to support the application to subdivide the
lot.
e) Not applicable. No municipal infrastructure exists or is
available to the subject property.
f) Not applicable. No known heritage or archeological
sites are near the subject property.
g) Not applicable.
h) Not applicable.
i) As discussed in this report, access to the site will be
provided by public roads owned and maintained by the
Province. A new public road is anticipated to be
constructed to provide access to the Southern property
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 11
location of the proposed
development;
o) the proposal and the proposed
zone support the intent of this
strategy; and
p) the financial ability of the
Municipality to absorb any costs
relating to the amendment.
boundary and intersecting Mill Lake Road No. 1. If new
roads are created within the subject property, those
would be private or designed and built to the Municipal
standard if intended to be turned over to the
Municipality. The process to turn over a road to the
Municipality is usually negotiated during Subdivision
approval and would require that the road be designed
and constructed in accordance with the Municipal
Specifications.
j) As shown on Appendix E, there are some areas of the
sight with steep slopes. These should be mitigated or
avoided to prevent erosion during development of the
site. There is a small watercourse which intersects the
Northeastern portion of the lot. All uses that require a
Development Permit must remain 20m from the
watercourse. Additionally, no new dwellings are
permitted within 20m of Sawler Lake as per the
regulations of the Lakefront Overlay contained in the
Municipal Land Use By-law.
k) Not applicable. The rezoning does not involve
development of the site. This will all occur following the
rezoning through subdivision approval and application
for development permits. During this time all standard
provisions of the Land Use By-law will apply. In addition
other levels of government, including Provincial Nova
Scotia Environment have regulations and authority
relating to pollution and erosion during construction
activities.
l) Not applicable. There are no known previous uses of
the site. Aerial photography and records reviewed in
preparing this report would indicate the site has been
undeveloped for a substantial period if it has ever been
developed.
m) As noted above, Appendix E shows the existing slopes
on the site. Watercourses and waterbodies are
protected by the Lakefront Overlay and Wetlands,
Waterbodies and Watercourses provisions of the
Municipal Land Use By-law, including setbacks from the
high water mark. There are no know issues with
geology, bedrock conditions or soil.
n) No issue anticipated. With the development proposed
to be served by public roads, there are no concerns
from staff in terms of emergency response.
o) Yes, both the SR-2 Zone and MU Zone support a wide
variety of commercial uses. The MU Zone specifically
supports larger commercial uses by development
permit.
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 12
p) No costs to the Municipality are anticipated as a result
of the rezoning. Future subdivision and commercial
development at the site may be accompanied by a
request that the Municipality take ownership of the
new road serving the commercial development. This
would require negotiation with Council, likely at the
time of Subdivision approval.
By voting to approve or reject this rezoning proposal,
Council is making no indication and is under no
obligations to take over any newly created roads. Those
negotiations would follow the rezoning and will
constitute a separate process. The estimated
maintenance costs for the road are not possible to
calculate at this time without additional details and
design work is completed.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
A Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday September 8, 2022. The meeting was held at the Hubbards
Area Lion’s Club, beginning at 6:30pm. Approximately 65 members of the public attended the meeting. Staff
recorded notes from the meeting and a complete record is attached as Appendix F.
MUNICIPAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
A meeting of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (MPAC) was held on Wednesday September 21, 2022
beginning at 6:00pm in Municipal Council Chambers. Staff presented a report to the Committee and several
members of the public requested time to address the committee.
Following discussion, the Committee passed* the following motion (*See Consideration of the MPAC Motion
Section below):
2021-023 MOVED by Councillor Abdella Assaff, SECONDED by Ross Shatford for the
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee recommend that Council approve the request to rezone
a portion of PID 60422888 from Settlement Residential Two Zone to the Mixed-Use Zone.
MOTION CARRIED
A complete record of the meeting (draft minutes), including public comments, submissions and questions is
attached to this report as Appendix G.
CONSIDERATION OF THE OF MPAC MOTION
Following the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee meeting staff have become aware that a previously
unrecognized procedural error occurred during voting. The error had the potential to affect the outcome of the
vote and as such, deserves attention from Council before proceeding with this file.
According to Section 21 (2) of the Municipal Government Act and Policy P-109 Council and Committee
Procedural Policy, Section 10.4, the Chair of a Committee of Council is expected to vote on the matter being
considered. This runs counter to past practice for the Village Planning Advisory Committee, Municipal Planning
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 13
Advisory Committee and most if not all other Municipal Committees, where the Chair would only vote to break a
tie. As such, the Vice Chair of MPAC, acting as Chair for the September 21st meeting was not aware that he
should participate in the vote. As the result of the vote was 4 in favour with 3 opposed, the Chair’s vote may
have caused a tie, meaning the motion would have been defeated.
This effectively means that Council does not have a motion or recommendation from MPAC that was passed in
accordance with Municipal policy. Therefore, staff recommend sending the matter back to a meeting of the
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee with the intent of receiving a new motion and recommendation from
the Committee in accordance with Council policy.
Alternatively, Council may choose to proceed, by recognizing that the role of MPAC is to provide advice to
Council on planning matters. Council may consider the recommendation as having been received, regardless of
the outcome and is under no obligation to act in keeping with a duly passed recommendation from MPAC.
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT: 120 DAY TIMELINE FOR LUB AMENDMENTS
Related to the above decision on whether a new motion from MPAC should be sought, consideration for MGA
Section 210 (6) may be required. This section states that if an application to amend a Land Use By-law, which
does not require subsequent amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy, has surpassed 120 days between
the time of a completed application and the first published notice of the Public Hearing, the application shall be
deemed refused.
The application form and fee were received on June 30, 2022, meaning that the first notice of the Public Hearing
would need to be published no later than October 28, 2022. If Council determines they wish to send the file back
to MPAC for a new motion, staff also suggest Council pass a motion to confirm the application will surpass the
120 timeline, but that Council deems the application to remain open until a Public Hearing is called and a
decision is made.
Alternatively, if Council determines they are satisfied with the current motion from MPAC, a date for a Public
Hearing may be set and advertisements published prior to the expiration of the 120 day timeline.
OPTIONS
Staff are seeking direction from Council. If Council is prepared to give 1st reading, staff are requesting a second
motion to establish the date for the Public Hearing
Motion 1:
1. That Municipal Council direct staff to return to the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee to obtain a
new motion, in compliance with Policy p-109
2. That Municipal Council give 1st reading to the draft amendments to rezone a portion of PID 60422888
from the Settlement Residential Two Zone to the Mixed-Use Zone.
3. That Municipal Council reject the request to rezone a portion of PID 60422888.
Motion 2:
1. That Municipal Council confirm their intent to renew the application to amend the Municipal Land Use
By-law to rezone a portion of PID 60422888, thereby renewing the 120 day timeline for publishing first
notice of a Public Hearing in accordance with Section 210 (6) of the Municipal Government Act.
2. That Municipal Council refuse to renew the application, thereby deeming the application refused.
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 14
3. That Municipal Council set the date for the Public Hearing on this matter (can be no earlier than
November 3rd).
IMPLICATIONS
By-Law/Policy
The policy analysis contained in this report outlines the connections and impacts of Municipal Planning Strategy
Policy. While the rezoning may support additional Municipal activities and priorities, no direct connection to
additional policies or By-laws has been made at this time.
Financial/budgetary
No costs to the Municipality are anticipated as a result of the request to rezone PID 60422888. The potential for
the Municipality to be asked to take ownership of a new road would represent an indirect cost but is not directly
tied to the rezoning file. No estimated costs are available as the road is yet to be designed.
Environmental
None anticipated. The site is in an area without Municipal wastewater service or Municipal streets.
Strategic Priorities
The request to rezone PID 60422888 will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of
the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework:
Priority Outcomes: Economic Development
Promote and grow the Municipality’s economic sectors.
Position the Municipality as Nova Scotia’s south shore community of choice for residents, businesses,
and organizations, and as an international tourism destination.
Priority Outcomes: Governance & Engagement
Ensure municipal bylaw and policy frameworks reflect current and changing needs.
Work Program Implications
No significant impacts are anticipated. Staff time to follow-though the rezoning process is the only anticipated staff
commitment.
Has Legal review been completed? Yes.
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
Communication to date has followed policy and process of the Municipality.
In compliance with Municipal Planning Strategy A-6 Early Notice to Abutting Municipalities has been
sent to Halifax Regional Municipality to allow submission of comments or discussion prior to Council
considering the proposal.
The Public Participation Program approved by Council as Municipal Planning Strategy A-3 is being
followed, including advertisements for this Committee meeting appearing in Progress Bulletin, being
posted to Municipal Office doors, Municipal Website and Municipal Social Media channels.
o A Public Information Meeting was advertised and held on September 8, 2022 at the Hubbards
Area Lion’s Club
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 15
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A – Letter of request to rezone PID 60422888
Appendix B – Map showing PID 60422888 rezoned to Mixed Use Zone
Appendix C – Map showing watercourses and waterbodies in relation to PID 60422888
Appendix D – Map showing known locations of species at risk in relation to PID 60422888
Appendix E – Slope Map of PID 60422888
Appendix F – Record of comments and questions from Public Information Meeting held September 8, 2022
Appendix G – Draft Minutes (including public comments) of MPAC Meeting held September 21, 2022
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 16
Appendix A – Letter of request to rezone & Application for Land Use By-law amendment
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 17
Appendix B - Map of subject property if rezoned to Mixed Use
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 18
Appendix C – Map showing watercourses and waterbodies in relation to PID 60422888
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 19
Appendix D – Map showing known locations of species at risk in relation to PID 60422888
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 20
Appendix E – Slope Map of PID 60422888
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 21
191
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Notes of Public Information Meeting of the
Held at Hubbards Lions Club
On Thursday, September 08, 2022
Senior Planner, Garth Sturtevant opened the meeting at 6:30 pm.
PRESENT
There were 65 people in attendance.
Staff Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner
Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development & Recreation
Darlene Scott, Administrative Assistant
Erin Lowe, Senior Economic Development Officer
Council Councillor Shatford, District 2
Senior Planner, Garth Sturtevant presented the group with a presentation
Highlights from the presentation:
A request to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 from SR-2 to MU was submitted by Larex
Management on behalf of 3220572 Nova Scotia Limited
The site is intended for a future commercial subdivision servicing Highway 103 and Hubbards
residents
The property is approximately 30.5 acres in area
PID 60422888 is currently a split zone, half MU and SR-2
Currently no direct road frontage
Site is undeveloped and consists of mixed forest
Stated agreement with Provincial Dept. of Public Works to provide public road access
Intended access is at the southern boundary from Mill Lake Road No. 1
Site is directly abutted by two properties in residential use, several other residential lots to the
West of the site
Rezoning requires an amendment to the Municipal Land Use By-Law-requires no amendments
to the Municipal Planning Strategy
Any subdivision of the lot and issuing of permits would follow the rezoning process, which
would ensure road access and septic approval
Appendix F – Comments and Questions from Public Information Meeting (Sept. 8, 2022)
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 22
Both of the zones fall with the same character area in the Planning Strategy. Both fall within the
Settlement Character area. It has 4 zones in it and all have a different level of regulations. They
are all intended to be at or near highway 103 exits or between 103 and the coast.
Policy Consideration:
The Senior Planner reviewed several policies from the Municipal Planning Strategy (Policies A-32, A-33,
A-34 & A-35) that must be considered whenever an application to amend the Municipal Land Use By-
law is made.
The Process
Application to Rezone received by Council
Public Information Meeting
Staff Report presented to Planning Advisory Committee (Sept.21, 2022 at 6:00 in Municipal
Council Chambers)
Staff Report & PAC Recommendation presented to Council (1st reading)
Public Hearing (property owners within 30m will receive mailed notice)
Council Vote
14 day Appeal Period (any aggrieved party may appeal Council’s decision to the NS Utility
and Review Board
Following the staff presentation the floor was opened to questions. Staff and/or the Developer
would respond depending on the nature of the question:
Q. Is the purpose to service Highway 103, if so, what is wrong with the services in Hubbards,
Tantallon, Chester as it exists? Why do we need a new development to service Highway 103
A. (DEVELOPER) - The decision arrived from the demand. The tenants will make that decision they
will look at the market and if they feel there is sufficient demand, they will make the investment.
Q. When you say Commercial subdivision, do you mean Bluewater businesses or housing?
commercial retail and not residential?
A. (DEVELOPER) - It will not be like Bluewater businesses or housing. It will be commercial and
retail businesses. We are not just in the Land development; we are also into Commercial
building. We see this as a long-term development. The development would build and own the
building and lease them to tenants to keep control over the architecture style and inspiration of
this commercial development.
Q. Will there be condos?
A. (DEVELOPER) - There will be no condo lots, it would not be in our best interest to mix those
types of development
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 23
Q. Can you list any possible tenants or lease agreements that are in place that you may have?
A. (DEVELOPER) - Currently we have no agreements in place
Q. Can you do Commercial developments in the SR-2 zone? Am I correct that without rezoning
you could build a 500 sq metre structure on a lot and with the rezoning of the property you
would be able to build a structure 4 times that size.
A. (STAFF) – That is correct. Both zones permit the same type of uses. The difference comes in with
the size and approval process of these uses. The rezoning would allow larger development per
lot.
Comment: You could do the commercial development that suits our community, but you want more
with less restrictions. It doesn’t stop the developer from what he wants to do, it is just on a smaller
scale. The zone as is controls the size, scale and scope of the project.
Two years ago, the community said they wanted those restrictions on that lot and now the developer
wants more and wants the restrictions taken off.
A. (STAFF) - In 2020 we did bring in a new Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-Law.
Originally the area around 103 was proposed to be Mixed Use Zone. What we had heard at that
time was the community was looking for a more residential development around the highway
exit. The understanding was this request was preliminary around highway 3. The zoning applies
around the highway exit as it is shown and through the property requesting to be rezoned. If the
requested rezone is approved, properties along Highway 3, who expressed concerns with
commercial development, will maintain their current SR-2 Zoning.
Q. Can you still develop if the property is not rezoned? We want some size controls, don’t
want another Tantallon and Lakewood Drive.
A. (STAFF) - That is correct it could still be developed but on a smaller scale.
Q. Why should the community want that?
A. (STAFF) - That is why we have these policy statements and require us to go through this process.
Q. Concerns about the access to the roads as this will increase the traffic, will there be extra
lanes? Will there be parking along the roads as there is a blind spot and a bit of a hill.
A. (STAFF) - All the roads in the area and Mill Lake Road 1 are owned by the province- the
provincial Department of Public Works. They will be giving the approval for the access points
and when they get to the process of subdividing a lot that will all need approval from
Department of Public Works, and they will look at how much traffic there will be and the turning
radius and site stopping distances. They are the responsible body, and I can only assume if the
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 24
demand increases to a point that is crosses a threshold, then they would possibly do an
upgrade, but that is up to them.
Comment:
When the meetings for the Plan Review were held it was a little disappointing on the amount of interest
there was from the community. The zoning was designed similar to look like the Tantallon strip mall.
The SR-2 zoned was requested. Along Highway 3 that was the intent at that time so in order to prevent
it from happening the zoning giving to that area was SR-2. That took in a bigger area than realized. It
included turning off the highway onto the number 3 coming into Hubbards.
Q. When you walk along the path before it was purchased you could see a lot of wildlife, birds,
various types of mosses and large trees. Will the public have access to a conservatist report
of some sort or information around the work that has been done to ensure conservation
affords and whether or not that will be part of the planning process? What amount of forest
will be preserved or will it be clear cut? Is there going to be some consideration for the
wildlife and bird population?
A. (STAFF) - Both the MU zone and the SR-2 Zone require a development permit, there is nothing
in the Land Use By-Law that requires them to submit any environmental studies. There will be
regulations of setbacks that will need to be adhered to. If a site plan or development agreement
was required these types of studies would be required. (DEVELOPER) - The developer advised
before putting in a request to rezone they took a look at the forest for risks.
Q. Can this be requested (environmental studies for developments requiring only a development
permit) if community feels it is important to them?
A. (STAFF) - Not for this project, but you can advocate for changes to the zoning to add those
requirements going forward.
Q. Can the size of the development be limited by not changing the zone from SR-2 to MU?
A. (STAFF) - That is correct. The portion of the lot seeking rezoning would remain SR-2 and be
subject to a smaller size commercial development. The portion of the lot currently zoned MU
could be developed as planned by the Developer.
Q. What type of commercial development do you anticipate for the property?
A. (DEVELOPER) - There are no commitments at this time. The initial demand is to service Highway
103. Could be gas, grocery stores, possible medical services etc. Maybe take advantage of the
lake and have a business for renting/selling kayaks etc.
Q. It seems like a lot of the intent and focus was along the lot adjacent to Mill Lake Road, but
with your comments that you made possibly a marina development it sounds like you are
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 25
trying to access Sawler Lake.
A. (DEVELOPER) - Not suggesting a marina use, but possible kayak rental or sales. There is no focus
on the lake area. The commercial subdivision would occur first.
Q. If there was a service station, what protection is there for the lake if there should be a leak?
A. (DEVELOPER) - The tanks are doubled walled therefore if there was a leak the flow would stay in
between the two walls also there would be alarm that would go on to indicate the flow rate was
going down.
Q. What about water? Have you done a water study?
A. (DEVELOPER) - We have drilled holes and there would be sufficient water supply for the
development
Q. What about sewer?
A. (STAFF) – Before approval for subdivision is given, a copy of the approval issued by Nova Scotia
Environment will ensure there are adequate on-site septic systems designed for the lots.
Q. Who had you approached?
A. (DEVELOPER) - Nothing is final therefore we are unable to give out that information.
Q. Have you developed any other properties like proposed here?
A. (DEVELOPER) - On a smaller scale, some gas stations and convenience stores. Also, several years
ago completed the Hydrostone Market redevelopment in Halifax.
Q. Who will own the building that are being built?
A. (DEVELOPER) - The structures will be owned by the developer and will be leased to tenants
Q. Why do you need rezone the SR-2 zone so that it will allow for a highway strip development?
A. A Request has been received, as stated previously, the MU Zone allows larger commercial uses
to be built by Development Permit compared to the SR-2 zone. Note: All zones allow
Commercial uses except for Single Unit Residential Zone. Policy is a goal or intent statement of
Council. Council will consider the comments here tonight and will make the final decision on
whether to rezone part of 60422888
Q. Do you have any images of what you have done or envisioned?
A. (DEVELOPER) - No
Q. There is nothing to say that the property won’t be developed with apartments?
A. (DEVELOPER) - The focus is to service Highway 103 and surrounding communities
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 26
Q. Will there be standards for what is going into the development?
A. (DEVELOPER) - The objective layout will be landscaping, trees and architecture.
Q. In respect to architecture control when it comes to a Tim Horton’s, MacDonald’s, Irving etc.
they all have a certain look; how will you control it?
A. (DEVELOPER) - There is flexibility in the architecture in some detailing and building design
features on the exterior.
Q. Do you plan to secure tenants before you build or will there be empty buildings
A. (DEVELOPER) - If we did a multi tenancy for small local business once a certain lease up point is
reached of businesses, construction will start.
Q. Will you lease to other business that are similar to what is already in the community?
A. (DEVELOPER) - The intension is not to hurt other businesses in the area or create internal
competition within the development.
Q. When a commercial development such as what you are proposing comes to the area, do you give
back to the community?
A. (DEVELOPER) - We have interest into contributing to the community. There is a certain
percentage put aside for small initiatives in the community.
Q. There is not a lot of information on where the highway will be coming out. Is there
information that we can obtain.
A. (STAFF) - Information can be found on the province’s website regarding the highway
Q. What is the timeline for breaking ground?
A. (DEVELOPER) - When the twining of the highway is done. First tenant in 2023
Q. Who does the taxes get paid to?
A. (STAFF) - The Municipality of Chester will receive the taxes
Q. Will they be working at night? Hopefully there will be nothing happening between the hours
of 10:00pm and 7:00am.
A. (DEVELOPER) - There would be no working between those hours.
Q. Will there be a buffer between the current property owners and the construction?
A. (DEVELOPER) - The developer advised there would be a buffer left. (STAFF) – at minimum, the
MU Zone requires a buffer of 5m from all property lines.
P l a n n i n g M a t t e r s R e p o r t P a g e | 27
(DEVELOPER) - Note: To get access to the cottages beyond Sawler Lake they will build the Sawler Lake
Road. Mill Lake Road will come up and T into Sawler Lake Road and will come into the development
that way and Sawler Lake Road residences will continue down Sawler Lake Road. The access road will
be the service road. There was a traffic study and that dictates what would need to be upgraded.
Q. With the traffic study what was the volume of traffic?
A. (DEVELOPER) - Would have to look up the information. The hope is to upgrade the Mill Lake
Road, there will be no extra lanes.
Comment: The development is welcomed as it means more jobs, but I have concern what the
development will do to the down town core.
21
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Minutes of Meeting of the
MUNICIPAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 P.M by the Vice Chair.
PRESENT
Members: Lee Harnish, Vice Chair Councillor Sharon Church
Dennis Wood Hugh Harper
Carol Nauss Abdella Assaff
Margeson Reeves Ross Shatford
Staff: Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner
Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development and Recreation
Darlene Scott, Administrative Assistant
Regrets: Leslie Taylor
Absent: Leslie Taylor Hassan Hammond, Chair
Gallery: 11 persons
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1 Approval of Minutes dated June 15, 2022
2021-023 MOVED by Carol Nauss, SECONDED by Ross Shatford to accept the minutes from
June 15th, 2022 as presented. MOTION CARRIED
3. CORRESPONDENCE:
3.1 Email received from Cathy Mellett (with stated support from 16 other names) dated
September 11, 2022, requesting MPAC delay meeting to consider the request to rezone a
portion of PID 60422888 from SR-2 to MU.
Appendix G – Comments and Questions from MPAC Meeting (Sept. 21, 2022)
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Senior Planner read the email received by Ms. Mellett with the Municipal Clerks response
following:
Subject: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103) Hubbards
Good Afternoon, Ms. Mellett.
Thank-you for your letter and input requesting delay of the Municipal Planning Advisory
Committee.
We understand from your letter that you attended the Public Information Session held by staff
on September 8th. The Senior Planner, Garth Sturtevant shared the process that we follow for
these meetings. The Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) is not a decision-making
body. They provide advice to Council regarding applications for Planning Amendments -
including rezoning. Their recommendation goes to Council for a final decision. Council is
required to hold a mandatory public hearing if they wish to proceed with approval of a rezoning.
Once PAC hears the application (and their decision and recommendations are based on the
proposal’s alignment with our Municipal Planning Strategy), it will be sent to Council for their
consideration.
Our next Council meeting will not be until September 29, 2022. If Council were to give notice of
their intention to approve the rezoning, they would then need to set a date for the public
hearing which requires at least 14 clear days (and in this case 21 clear days notice) to the public.
It is unlikely that a public hearing would be held before the middle to end of October.
We understand that you would like a chance to engage and share your thoughts on this
proposal. The public hearing is the chance for the public to do this. A letter can also be
submitted to Council or the PAC. However, at this time, PAC, nor Council, can change the
Municipal Planning Strategy to put in additional requirements for this application. As the
application has already been received, Council and PAC must consider the existing policies and
tools that are in place.
Your letter and this response will be included in the agenda package for the Planning Advisory
Committee. At this time, we confirm the existing meeting date will be maintained.
Pam
PAM MYRA
Municipal Clerk/Director of Human Resources
Office: 902-275-4109
Cell: 902-277-1872
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
From: CATHY MELLETT
Sent: September 11, 2022 9:58 PM
Subject: Subject: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103)
Hubbards
By way of this email, the undersigned residents of the affected area formally request a one-
month delay in the PAC meeting to consider the request to rezone this lot from Settlement
Residential 2 zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. We understand that the proposed date for the PAC
to consider this matter is September 21, 2022, with the staff report available sometime this
coming week.
We understand that there are legislative requirements that must be met in considering any
application for rezoning, to afford applicants fairness and avoid undue delay. Any request for an
amendment to the Land Use By-law which has not reached a Public Hearing within 120 days of
application is deemed refused under Section 210(6) of the Municipal Government Act. This
opens up an appeal mechanism for the applicant.
More than 60 residents attended the Public Information Meeting (PIM) this past Thursday,
September 8th, and there were many unanswered questions from the meeting regarding this
application for rezoning and what could then potentially be developed on the property if the
rezoning were approved. The applicant’s interest is commercial. But as residents, we will have to
live with the impact of this significant recommendation by the PAC and decision by the Council.
We are also entitled to fairness in this process.
We understand that the rezoning is contingent on alignment with the policies of the Municipal
Planning Strategy (MPS) and related maps and bylaws. Any informed discussion must take the
MPS and related documents into consideration. As you know, the MPS and related documents
are quite complex and require time to understand. It also takes time – and significantly more
information than has been provided publicly to date – to assess the impact of the applicant’s
proposed rezoning and the commercial development that they have stated will then follow. It is
our intention to provide a written document for consideration of the PAC that includes an
analysis of what we consider to be the relevant policies of the MPS and zoning bylaws, as well as
implications of the proposed rezoning. A few days is not sufficient to do this work as volunteers,
or to secure the necessary independent planning advice required.
We also plan to present, for consideration by the PAC and Council, alternative planning tools
(some of which may require amendments to the MPS) which should be considered in addressing
the many concerns presented by the community at the PIM a few days ago. As the PAC knows,
once rezoning grants the owner development rights, it is difficult to reverse that process and the
developer’s private interests increasingly take precedence over other public interests, despite
those interests being significantly affected. The decision to rezone is a very important step in
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
this process and should therefore not be taken without allowing adequate time for meaningful
engagement by the members of the public who are most affected.
In summary, as residents of District 2, we are formally requesting a 30-day postponement of any
consideration by the PAC of this application, to let us review the MPS and related documents,
seek other planning advice about this matter, and prepare a written submission, first to the PAC
and then Council. The PAC's recommendation is considered carefully by Council. The PAC not
having the ability to receive our submission could be prejudicial to your recommendation and
ultimately Council’s decision, and it raises questions of procedural and substantive fairness.
Not all of us are familiar with the usual timelines from PIM to PAC meeting in the Municipality of
Chester, but based on the previous, extensive experience that some of us have with Halifax
Regional Municipality and input from some experts we have consulted who have experience
with other municipal governments, this timeline seems very fast. This delay is requested in the
interest of fairness to the community and landholders, and it need not jeopardize the 120-day
requirement under the Municipal Government Act.
Cathy Mellett, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Nancy McKinnell, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Richard Elliott, Mill Lake Road No. 1, Hubbards
Robert Champagne, Mill Lake Road No. 1, Hubbards
Stephen Blacker, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Colleen Blacker, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Pat Lawrence, Mill Lake No. 1, Hubbards
Ted Ross, Mill Lake Road No. 1, Hubbards
Roland Lewis, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Sandra Lewis, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Alison Lewis, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Robert Schwartz, Mill Brook Lane, Hubbards
Tina Schwartz, Mill Brook Lane, Hubbards
Peter Lewis, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Liane Johnson, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Michelle Everson, Mill Lake Water Access, Hubbards
Dan Everson, Mill Lake Water Access, Hubbards
2021-023 MOVED by Councillor Sharon Church, SECONDED by Ross Shatford that the
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee received the email from Cathy Mellett as information.
MOTION CARRIED
4. BUSINESS ARISING:
4.1 None
5. NEW BUSINESS:
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
5.1 Consideration of a staff report and Municipal Land Use By-Law Zoning Map Amendment to
rezone a portion of PID 60422888 from Settlement Residential Two to Mixed Use Zone.
Senior Planner, Garth Sturtevant presented the committee with a staff report.
Highlights from the presentation:
1. Staff is recommending that the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee recommended
that Council approve the request to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 from Settlement
Residential Two Zone to Mixed-Use Zone.
Current Situation
A request to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 from SR-2 to MU was submitted by Larex
Management on behalf of 3220572 Nova Scotia Limited
PID 60422888 is currently a split zone, half MU and SR-2
The site is intended for a future commercial subdivision servicing Highway 103 and
Hubbards residents
Background
Current zoning for properties around Exist 6 was established during the Municipal Plan
Review, staff original proposed the Mixed Use based on discussions in the community
and concerns expressed regarding commercial development along Highway 3 this
approach was altered to include the Settlement Residential Two Zone. This approach has
resulted in the current scenario where the subject property is split zoned between the
MU and SR-2 Zone.
The property is approximately 30.5 acres in area
The site is directly abutted by two properties in residential use, several other residential
lots to the West of the site
The Southern property boundary abuts land owned by the Crown to facilitate the
expansion work of Highway 103
Intended access is at the southern boundary from Mill Lake Road No. 1
The Eastern boundary includes a small section of waterfrontage on Sawler Lake
The North boundary abuts a large undeveloped parcel of land, which includes a small
watercourse that flows across the site in the far North-Eastern corner.
All development that requires a development permit must be at least 20m from the
ordinary high-water mark of the watercourse.
Sawler Lake is protected by the Lakefront Overlay
There are no known species at risk on or near the subject property.
There are noted setbacks from watercourses and waterbodies in addition to several areas
of steep slopes that would likely need to be avoided or terraformed
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Discussion
Both the SR-2 and MU Zones are permitted within the “Settlement Area”
The rezoning can be completed without amending the MPS
The SR-2 Zone allows most commercial and light industrial development up to a
maximum 100m2 of floor area by Development Permit or up to 500m2 with a Site Plan
Approval
The MU Zone allows most commercial and light industrial use up to 2000m2 by
Development Permit and those greater than 2000m2 require a Development Agreement
Site Plan Approval is required for 3 or more dwelling units per lot in the SR-2 Zone.
Site Plan Approval is required for 5-11 units on a lot and a Development Agreement is
required for 12 or more units.
The SR-2 Zone limits the size and intensity of non-residential land uses, with the intent of
primarily supporting residential uses interspersed with complimentary commercial and
light industrial uses.
The MU Zone was intended to maintain the existing rural development pattern found
primarily between Highway 103 and the coastline, while offering basic land use controls
Access
Currently there is no direct road frontage
Stated agreement with Provincial Dept. of Public Works to provide public road access
New road will intersect with Mille Lake Road No.1 and provide access to the southern
property boundary
All approvals for access points and traffic control issues rest with Public Works
Any subdivision of the lot and issuing of permits would follow the rezoning process,
which would ensure road access and septic approval
Proposed Use and Draft Layout-Commercial Subdivision
The Developer states the intended use of the property is for commercial uses via a
planned subdivision.
The proposed access road, to be constructed to provide access to the site and continue
West, parallel to Highway 103, to provide road access to existing residents of Sawler
Lake. The work will be carried out by or in conjunction with the Provincial Department of
Public Works.
Developer will be responsible to construct the roadway to serve the new commercial
uses
The layout of lots and structures on the lot is subject to Municipal Subdivision approval,
which includes confirmation from Nova Scotia Environment which confirms that an on-
site septic system can be designed to serve the lot. It will also require confirmation from
Nova Scotia Public Works that there is access to the new lots from the public roadway
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
The Senior Planner outlined the relevant polices in the staff report. The Senior Planner reviewed
Policy CC-15, Policy A-32 and Policy A-35.
Policy CC-15 is talking about the Settlement Area
Policy CC-15
The intent of the Settlement Area designation is to:
a) permit a mix of uses that can foster cohesive development of moderate density;
b) provide a varying level of regulation which recognizes the diversity of the different
development patterns within the Settlement Area;
c) prepare for development, especially near major highways;
d) encourage development compatible with the Area’s character;
e) ensure that commercial and light industrial development is well- designed and does not
create a highway strip development;
f) safeguard the natural environment, especially water quality.
Staff Comments:
The SR-2 Zone is similar to the MU Zone have similar permitted uses, but the size difference.
Both zones allow Commercial, Residential and Light Industrial uses. The request states it is a
Commercial development that is aimed to service Highway 103 and Hubbards.
The MU Zone contains yard setbacks and other requirements that are designed to ensure the
development is acceptable to the community and is in keeping with the Municipal Planning
Strategy.
The draft site plan from the developer appears to show intent to create an easily accessible
commercial development that maintains setbacks, space between structures and appears to
exceed requirements on buffering from neighbouring uses.
Existing protections, including the Lakefront Overlay and Watercourses, Water Bodies and
Wetlands, in the Land Use By- law provide protection to Sawler Lake and Mill Brook.
Policy A-32
When considering amendments to a land use by-law or a subdivision by-law, Council shall
consider the following:
a) that the amendment meets the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy and the intent of
any relevant Secondary Planning Strategies;
b) that the amendment conforms to all relevant Municipal By-laws;
c) that the applicable public consultation program has been followed and residents’ opinions
have been carefully considered;
d) that the amendment is in the best interest of the Municipality.
Staff Comments:
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
The amendment does conform to the policies in the Municipal Planning Strategy and there is no
concern with any other Municipal By-Law. The Public Participation Program, which is detailed in
the Municipal Planning Strategy is being followed.
Policy A-35 (c)
Potential compatibility issues with nearby land uses resulting from lighting, signage, outdoor
display and storage, traffic, vehicle headlights, and noise
Staff Comments:
Policies are subjective, one person might think it meets and another may not. We are task with
reviewing of the rezoning not the development. Whatever the proposed use is the development
needs to comply with all revisions of the Land Use By-Law based on size and use. The
regulations in the Land Use By-Law have been designed to be the appropriate level of
regulations in our more rural areas.
Comments from the Committee
The SR-2 Zone was meant for Highway 3 to keep large commercial developments from
occurring in this area.
The request received from the developer is not unreasonable. If the developer is
investing to put up a project, the process should not be difficult for them to do so
This is a one (1) off -split zones on the large property and is not normally found
The back of the property is MU which would allow for the larger development, therefore
put the larger development to the back of the property and the smaller development to
the front in the SR-2 Zone
Anything that brings development to the area should be welcomed as we need
development in the area
Create more jobs
These types are development are better served near a major highway and they are
twining the 103
Makes sense to rezone the portion that is SR-2 Zone to MU Zone
By not rezoning you are making it difficult for what the developer wants to do.
Questions from Committee:
Q. There is the waterfront on Sawler Lake and a small watercourse that goes through that area,
what environmental protection is in place if there is a gas station going in?
A. There are 2 pieces of regulations currently in affect, there is the lakefront overlay which would
require a 20 metre setback for new main building from the ordinary highwater mark. There is
also a 20 metre setback from watercourses. The lakefront overlay also has some regulations
around hard surfaces -the amount of pavement that can happen in within the overlay area is
limited.
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Q. Is that a drainage ditch in the diagram?
Developer: I believe the intent is that it would collect the rainwater and run it through the
system and put it back into the land. All the requirements would be regulated through the
Department of Environment.
Q. Would this be something that would be addressed when the developer is putting the plans
together?
A. As part of the subdivision approval, it would probably be where the road design
would be evaluated.
Q. Is there anything in the developer’s proposal that would require a development agreement?
A. No, not currently
Q. Can a landowner request rezoning on their property?
A. They can come to Council and make an application and if Council agrees to it the same
process would be followed
Q. Isn’t the Gateway Zone suppose to be at the exits?
A. The Gateway Zone changed through the Plan Review process. It was originally intended to be
at either end of the Hamlet Zone, this was then changed in the case of Exit 6 to a mix of SR-2
and MU Zone at the request of community members.
Q. Is there any reason the developer needs to subdivide the land?
A. Yes, if you keep it as one lot you are limiting the development potential
Comment from Senior Planner:
We are under the Municipal Government Act and are obligated for amendments to the Land
Use By-Law that Council shall within 120 days advertise the 1st Ad for the public hearing. If we
go over those 120 days without the public hearing being advertised technically the application is
deemed refused by Council or they can extend the deadline. If the application is deemed
refused the applicant can then appeal that with the Utility Review Board.
6. ANY OTHER PLANNING MATTERS:
6.1 Call for any other Planning Matters
There were no other planning matters.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
7.1 Richard Elliott-concerns with proposed rezoning of PID 60422888 (5 minutes)
Richard Elliott presented the committee with a handout- Concerned about Large-Scale
Commercial or Industrial Development In Your Neighbourhood?
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Mr. Elliot stated that the developer has shared very little information on what they are proposing
to do with the property that is the size of 23 football fields and is situated between three lakes;
Sawler Lake, Mill Lake, and Maple Lake in a residential and cottage community if the rezoning
proceeds.
Part of the property is zoned Mixed Use which allows the developer to do some significant
development. This is not satisfactory to the developer so you are being asked to recommend to
Council to rezone the portion of the property that is zoned SR-2 so it can be developed for
Commercial and Industrial uses.
The developer has indicated in the application it intends to build Highway Commercial services
which looks like a gas bar, convenient store, drive through fast food outlet which are all available
just 15 minutes away. Four large commercial buildings and parking for more than 400 vehicles. It
looks like they are planning to build a complex about 300,000 square feet.
The question is not just if this type of development is appropriate it is if rezoning makes sense
on a broader level. Rezoning opens the door for a wide range of permitted commercial and
industrial uses.
This scale of development would be allowed if the property is rezoned to Mixed Use. They
would have to subdivide the property into individual lots to allow them to build larger buildings
on more lots. Rezoning would allow the total floor plan to be 4 times more with little regulations
than the current zoning SR-2.
I disagree with the Planners report with respect that this is just a” slight relaxation in
regulations”. I don’t think this is a fair clarification, there is significant differences between the
SR-2 to MU Zone. They can already undertake significant development on the part of the
property that is already zoned Mixed Use.
The rezoning also affects what uses are permitted. Rezoning from SR-2 to Mixed Use would
open the door to additional uses such as large campgrounds/RV parks, recycling depots, salvage
yards etc. That is one important difference in the uses that you would be opening the door to. If
you rezone there would be less Municipal control.
The question is whether Council should grant the request. Just because you can do something
doesn’t mean that you should. It doesn’t mean it is a good idea and as I have outlined there are
good reasons not to rezone in this case. We also have to think about the relevant policy
directions that are in the Municipal Planning Strategy.
Several of the policies that are in the Planners report are relevant, but there are some others in
the planning strategy that I would submit that is also relevant.
Policy V-7
Both these objections implicated by the proposed rezoning and the development would be
enabled including what is being proposed by the developer.
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Policy V-10
The Planners report states that the rezoning is not anticipating resulting in a new or worsen
conflict with the existing surrounding uses. Giving the state of intension from the developer if
the rezoning would allow it. It is troubling that the report does not address the incompatibility
of that large scale commercial development with the existing residential and cottage community
into which it would be inserted.
Policy V-11
The Planner’s report does not consider the existing land use or the community character. It also
incorrectly states that the Municipal Planning Strategy establishes the Mixed Use as being
appropriate for Highway exists development. In fact, the proposal that you heard to rezone
property along the highway was rejected in the adoption of the current Municipal Planning
Strategy because of community concern of development around exit 6. That is why the SR-2
zone that is currently in place was adopted. The zone is more in keeping with the rural context
of land uses and community character, all of which policy directs you and Council to consider.
Policy CC-15
This policy is directly relevant but again in my submission it is inadequately considered and
misapplied. Rezoning to allow a much larger scale commercial or industrial development on a
property in excess of 30 acres is not in keeping with the areas character. The policy does indeed
say that the intent is to prepare for development especially near major highways. It says the goal
is to ensure that commercial and light industrial is well designed and does not create highway
strip development, but the request to rezone is specific to rezoning to Mixed Use. This part of
the policy should not be ignored.
Policy A-35
Requires that any amendment to the Land Use By-Law such as the proposed rezoning must be
appropriate with respect to various consideration and these include traffic, vehicle headlights
and noise. The developer has refused to share the studies that have been done to the impact of
this development on the volume of traffic it expects to draw off the highway into the
community. The development would result in a major increase in traffic on Mill Lake Road and
the new Sawler Lake access road.
This is not just vacant land around exit 6 that is suitable for large commercial highway-oriented
development. It is an existing well-developed neighbourhood of rural single-family residences.
In line with the MPS begins with support with the existing community character and land use. I
along with other concerned residents would respectfully ask you that you recommend to
Council that it reject the proposal. You have good reasons to do so and preserving the existing
zoning is in keeping with the objectives of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (continued) September 21st , 2022
Questions and Comments from the Gallery
Appreciate living there as it is
Opposed to the rezoning, considering the Village of Hubbards has everything, to name a
few grocery stores, gas station, doctor office, churches, auto mechanic, liquor store,
pharmacy etc.
Concerned about the wildlife
Concerned about the water table, noise, population and traffic
Council and committee should consider the existing character. Consider single family
residents-cannot see how putting a paved parking lot for 400 vehicles next to family
residents comparable with the character
The Mixed Use Zone allows for larger development- Four (4) larger, which is not
compatible with the area and the people who live there
This development is out by the Highway, which only has a couple of residential
properties next to it, most would be driving past it to get to their cottages
Don’t want exit 6 to look like the development at exit 5
Once the portion of the property has been changed to a Mixed Use Zone it opens the
doors to all sorts of things
2021-023 MOVED by Councillor Abdella Assaff, SECONDED by Ross Shatford for the
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee recommend that Council approve the request to
rezone a portion of PID 60422888 from Settlement Residential Two Zone to the Mixed-
Use Zone. MOTION CARRIED
6. DATE OF NEXT MEETING:
The next meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday, October 19th, 2022 at 6:00 P.M (tentative).
7. ADJOURNMENT:
2021-032 MOVED by Sharon Church the meeting adjourn (7:50 p.m.). CARRIED
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Lee Harnish Darlene Scott
Vice Chairperson Administrative Assistant
The Company
The proponent is a privately owned, Halifax based, development company which is controlled
and managed by the Larex Group of companies. Larex has been active in the development,
ownership and management of retail and commercial properties throughout Nova Scotia since
1985.
The Hydrostone – A Noteworthy Project
The Larex Group undertook a re-development project in the Young Street block of the
Hydrostone district in the city of Halifax. The project, branded as the Hydrostone Market , was
acquired in 1992 and Larex undertook a two-year major restoration and re-merchandising of
the business mix in the project. The development was the recipient of the 1995 Nova Scotia
Heritage Trust - Built Heritage Award.
The property continues to be owned and managed by the Larex Group.
The Project
The subject lands were acquired by Larex in 2007 in anticipation that the eventual twinning of
Highway 103, along with the organic growth of the Halifax and surrounding areas, would
significantly enhance the sites commercial viability.
The 32-acre site will be a mid to long-term master planned development. It is anticipated that
initial sitework will be commenced and aligned with the completion of the Highway 103 and the
exit ramps work at Exit 6 in Hubbards.
Site design and engineering is being conducted through the assistance of local professional
firms and will meet all governmental permitting requirements including the Provincial
Department of Environment as well as the Department of Infrastructure and Renewal regarding
traffic volume and the egress / aggress to the site.
It is anticipated the first businesses will be open within 12 months of the highway completion,
with the balance of the initial project taking another 60 to 72 months to complete , driven, in
large part by the demand in the market.
The Larex Group objective is to maintain long-term ownership of the lands; as a result, they will
control aspects of the development, including subdividing the lands, construction of the
buildings and leasing. This development model will achieve the ownership objectives pertaining
to the place making aspects, sense of arrival and reasonable control on the ar chitectural
compatibility of the various structures as well as the long-term maintenance and aesthetics of
the project structures and lands.
The project will create neighbourhood community employment opportunities with the initial
phase of the project and is anticipated to generate property tax revenues in the range of
$120,000 - $140,000 annually.
3D Render
It is our objective to be proud of the project we deliver and to be a long-term member and
contributor to the local community.
5531 Young Street, Suite 200 |Halifax, NS | B3K 1Z7 | (P) 902.454.2000
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
EXTERNAL EMAIL
September 8, 2022 5:55 PM
Planning
Proposed Rezoning of a portion of PID 60422888
Follow up
Completed
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Hello!
My name is Matt Parliament.
My family (wife, and 6 children ages 0 to 9) are building our new primary family residence on 380 Mt. Marina
Road.
We expect to move in Jul -23.
I've been told that there is potentially an Irving gas station, Sobeys grocery store, Tim Hortons, and other
stores being proposed for the Hubbards Exit 6.
I assume this is for the portion of PID 60422888; the meeting which I am unable to attend in person.
Our family is strongly in favour of it.
Hubbards is a growing community with a great brand: world sailing, twinning highway, and proximity to the
greater Halifax area.
With that growth comes residential and commercial advancement: growing commerce and investment is an
overall benefit and must for the community; as is an increasing population size (especially families).
Sobeys, Irving, and Tim Hortons are all well known for hiring locally and supporting the local community.
For our family in particular, one of the biggest concerns we had was lack of a major grocery chain outlet.
Having a Sobeys nearby is an absolute win: it will be great for the community, just as it was for Tantallon some
30 years ago.
Thank you,
Matt
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Floyd Shatford
September 9, 2022 11:48 AM
Sarah Haliburton; Garth Sturtevant
Re: Development at exit 6
Thanks for your letter I will forward it to our planning department. Floyd
FLOYD SHATFORD
Iistric't 2
Office 90'2--857-98',17
Ceik 902-275-78 8
iii Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
> On Sep 9, 2022, at 11:40 AM, Sarah Haliburton wrote:
> ** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
> Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
> Hello Mr. Shatford,
> I have property on Mill Lake and I am writing to express my deep disappointment at the proposal for a development at
exit 6. When I saw the land being cleared I was worried. Now that there is talk of a large development with potentially
10 to 12 business lots, it's become a worse case scenario for that area . Part of the charm of Hubbards is the break from
these communities where the first thing you see is a collection of fast food joints, dozens of vehicles in busy drive-
throughs and transport trucks idling in the parking lot.
> This seems like a terrible idea for the area, especially since there several other spots to get all those things along that
stretch of highway, that aren't situated so close to residential and cottage areas.
> I am adding my voice to those who are vehemently opposed to this project. Please don't let the lure of extra tax
revenue take away the natural beauty and respite for so many of your residents.
> Sincerely,
> Sarah Haliburton
Garth Sturtevant
From: Floyd Shatford
Sent: September 9, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Michael Fairchild; Garth Sturtevant
Subject: Re: Hubbards Highway Services Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Thanks for your letter and opinion and I will add it to the file at our planning department as part of the process. Also I
am getting positive feedback along with those not so excited about the possibility of growth at the number 6 exit.
Thanks
Floyd Shatford
FLOYD SHATFORD
Istr'ict #
Pike: 902-857-9817
CeH 902-275-786
L Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
> On Sep 9, 2022, at 3:42 PM, Michael Fairchild <fairchild.michael@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
> Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
> Hello Mr. Shatford,
> I'm a member of the Hubbards community and have been hearing lots of commotion from those here who don't want
development at the highway. I wanted to voice my indifference towards the project. I think it'll be good for the
Aspotogan Peninsula in the long run even if it changes the community at the same time. FibreOp is coming, the highway
is being twinned, business are changing hands, houses are being built while others are being sold. This highway plan just
seems like a logical progression of those trends. I know many in the area feel the same as I do, but indifference and
approval aren't as potent motivators as fear and anger so I doubt the feedback will represent the feel on the ground
accurately.
> Anyways, I just wanted to make sure the only messages you receive aren't the ones angry about the development. I
don't like change or disruption much more than anyone else, but I recognize the importance of modernization and
investment in the community.
> Kind regards,
> Mike Fairchild
> Hubbards, NS
Garth Sturtevant
From: Pam Myra (she/her)
Sent: September 16, 2022 3:51 PM
To: CATHYMELLETT; Abdella Assaff; Andre Veinotte; Allen Webber; Derek Wells; Floyd
Shatford; Sharon Church; Tina Connors; Planning; Garth Sturtevant; Chad Haughn; Tara
Maguire
Cc:
Subject: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103) Hubbards
Good Afternoon, Ms. Mellett.
Thank -you for your letter and input requesting delay of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee.
We understand from your letter that you attended the Public Information Session held by staff on
September 8th. The Senior Planner, Garth Sturtevant shared the process that we follow for these
meetings. The Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) is not a decision -making body. They
provide advice to Council regarding applications for Planning Amendments - including rezoning.
Their recommendation goes to Council for a final decision. Council is required to hold a mandatory
public hearing if they wish to proceed with approval of a rezoning.
Once PAC hears the application (and their decision and recommendations are based on the
proposal's alignment with our Municipal Planning Strategy), it will be sent to Council for their
consideration.
Our next Council meeting will not be until September 29, 2022. If Council were to give notice of their
intention to approve the rezoning, they would then need to set a date for the public hearing which
requires at least 14 clear days (and in this case 21 clear days notice) to the public. It is unlikely that a
public hearing would be held before the middle to end of October.
We understand that you would like a chance to engage and share your thoughts on this proposal.
The public hearing is the chance for the public to do this. A letter can also be submitted to Council or
the PAC. However, at this time, PAC, nor Council, can change the Municipal Planning Strategy to put
in additional requirements for this application. As the application has already been received, Council
and PAC must consider the existing policies and tools that are in place.
Your letter and this response will be included in the agenda package for the Planning Advisory
Committee. At this time, we confirm the existing meeting date will be maintained.
Pam
PAM MYRA
nici a Cierk/ irector of u an I esources
Office: 02-275-4'109
Celllll, 902-277-18"72
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
From: CATHYMELLE
Sent: September 11, 2022 9:58 PM
To: Pam Myra (she/her) <pmyra@chester.ca>; Abdella Assaff <aassaff@chester.ca>; Andre Veinotte
<aveinotte@chester.ca>; Allen Webber <awebber@chester.ca>; Derek Wells <dwells@chester.ca>; Floyd Shatford
<fshatford@chester.ca>; Sharon Church <schurch@chester.ca>; Tina Connors <tconnors@chester.ca>; Planning
<planning@chester.ca>; Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca>; Chad Haughn <chaughn@chester.ca>
Subject: Subject: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103) Hubbards
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Madam Clerk
Mr. Hammond, Chair
Councillor Harnish, Vice -Chair
Councillors Church and Assaf
and citizen members of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee
cc: Mr. Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner; Mr. Chad Haughn, Director of Planning
By way of this email, the undersigned residents of the affected area formally request a one -month delay in
the PAC meeting to consider the request to rezone this lot from Settlement Residential 2 zone to Mixed Use
(MU) zone. We understand that the proposed date for the PAC to consider this matter is September 21, 2022,
with the staff report available sometime this coming week.
We understand that there are legislative requirements that must be met in considering any application for
rezoning, to afford applicants fairness and avoid undue delay. Any request for an amendment to the Land Use
By-law which has not reached a Public Hearing within 120 days of application is deemed refused under
Section 210(6) of the Municipal Government Act. This opens up an appeal mechanism for the applicant.
More than 60 residents attended the Public Information Meeting (PIM) this past Thursday, September 8th, and
there were many unanswered questions from the meeting regarding this application for rezoning and what
could then potentially be developed on the property if the rezoning were approved. The applicant's interest is
2
commercial. But as residents, we will have to live with the impact of this significant recommendation by the
PAC and decision by the Council. We are also entitled to fairness in this process.
We understand that the rezoning is contingent on alignment with the policies of the Municipal Planning
Strategy (MPS) and related maps and bylaws. Any informed discussion must take the MPS and related
documents into consideration. As you know, the MPS and related documents are quite complex and require
time to understand. It also takes time — and significantly more information than has been provided publicly to
date — to assess the impact of the applicant's proposed rezoning and the commercial development that they
have stated will then follow. It is our intention to provide a written document for consideration of the PAC
that includes an analysis of what we consider to be the relevant policies of the MPS and zoning bylaws, as well
as implications of the proposed rezoning. A few days is not sufficient to do this work as volunteers, or to
secure the necessary independent planning advice required.
We also plan to present, for consideration by the PAC and Council, alternative planning tools (some of which
may require amendments to the MPS) which should be considered in addressing the many concerns
presented by the community at the PIM a few days ago. As the PAC knows, once rezoning grants the owner
development rights, it is difficult to reverse that process and the developer's private interests increasingly
take precedence over other public interests, despite those interests being significantly affected. The decision
to rezone is a very important step in this process and should therefore not be taken without allowing
adequate time for meaningful engagement by the members of the public who are most affected.
In summary, as residents of District 2, we are formally requesting a 30 -day postponement of any
consideration by the PAC of this application, to let us review the MPS and related documents, seek other
planning advice about this matter, and prepare a written submission, first to the PAC and then Council. The
PAC's recommendation is considered carefully by Council. The PAC not having the ability to receive our
submission could be prejudicial to your recommendation and ultimately Council's decision, and it raises
questions of procedural and substantive fairness.
Not all of us are familiar with the usual timelines from PIM to PAC meeting in the Municipality of Chester, but
based on the previous, extensive experience that some of us have with Halifax Regional Municipality and
input from some experts we have consulted who have experience with other municipal governments, this
timeline seems very fast. This delay is requested in the interest of fairness to the community and landholders,
and it need not jeopardize the 120 -day requirement under the Municipal Government Act.
Cathy Mellett, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Nancy McKinnell, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Richard Elliott, Mill Lake Road No. 1, Hubbards
Robert Champagne, Mill Lake Road No. 1, Hubbards
Stephen Blacker, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Colleen Blacker, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Pat Lawrence, Mill Lake No. 1, Hubbards
3
Ted Ross, Mill Lake Road No. 1, Hubbards
Roland Lewis, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Sandra Lewis, Hardwood Lane, Hubbards
Alison Lewis, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Robert Schwartz, Mill Brook Lane, Hubbards
Tina Schwartz, Mill Brook Lane, Hubbards
Peter Lewis, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Liane Johnson, Mill Lake Road West, Hubbards
Michelle Everson, Mill Lake Water Access, Hubbards
Dan Everson, Mill Lake Water Access, Hubbards
4
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
EXTERNAL EMAIL**
Matt Groza
September 12, 2022 1:44 PM
Garth Sturtevant
Comments on rezoning request - Exit 6 Hubbards
Comments Rezoning Exit 6.jpg
Follow up
Completed
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Hello Garth,
Attached are my comments wrt the rezoning request.
Cheers,
Mathias
GarStu:.
rta ity° Dave loprif�<.
of Chester
Dear Garth,
Chi At_
Based i
of
Planne
ghts
pp fort
:rig al lws for
Bs d ot ttr
g nc p le goal ft
artadt=rF „ ks firf t a�
hit ai rbs n r isl a.rt ar rd;
d Tiers h has,
arcrG
rnod rnkzirrc its urr °rst l a s
pot n i rl ci€
cation: fin
rats ht
The d va toperit s indi
1 j l i n rrtaafl°�riifra° n
rr a t, ry"P1€7 11 r r f°ar
e tGoaarray Kp fsn 1
,trrt ref r ftrraa=s t r (11 rst
ir, the mnll«a1rth�irnb
oar 0 unity that than current owners ref tlriu Hradtsf€rrd
id it i gar roris to see
r r raard tl sr rsdents f i, i ah t arils
sd rr r f roodelciizecl energy s
zti a s Rai tla corrrrrunity° i, t s sCti
o tali
rid
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Leigh Gillam
September 14, 2022 2:01 PM
Planning
proposed rezoning in Hubbards at exit 6
Follow up
Completed
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Dear community members and planners,
I live at 198 Mill Lake rd, and what the developers are proposing is right behind my new place as I've just finished
building the little grid -tied house recently - only the solar panels left to install. I love architecture; development can be
amazing if done sustainably, carefully, respectfully, with beauty. I am a designer, and my new neighbours (who do not
live here) were warm to my offers of playful involvement and welcomed me reaching out to them afterward. Though a
silver lining can be gleaned, and in staying within a spirit of collaboration with them, I do have deeper, more troubling
concerns but am trying to stay curious. I think I am not alone in needing more information to gain trust in what they
have in mind, and in order to really believe it is in our best interest. There seemed to be supportive comments at the
meeting but also a lack of confidence.
I learned that because of the zoning, current and proposed, no environmental /conservation assessment, like an EIR, is
required for what they have in mind. Given the river and the way the fish use it for their breeding patterns between the
lakes and ocean and given the surrounding area and all it entails, this surprised me. I was told it would take a grass -roots
effort to change that, but what could that look like? Can they take it upon themselves to request an Environmental
Impact Report? What would it take for the departments that deal with what could be at risk among wetlands, fish, rare
birds, other animals (we saw a lynx), mosses and so on, to become involved to help us get a clearer picture about how
the development/design could have an impact? I am concerned about the carbon footprint in general, and I am
interested in how the proposed project is going to mitigate or offset the damage.
What is the market research to show that the development will actually meet the real needs of the community rather
than simply profiting off the road work and pandering to traffic? If they can meet community needs, how are these
staying in line with averting the worst impacts of climate change and preserving a livable planet since global
temperature increase needs to be limited to 1.5°C above pre -industrial levels and emissions need to be reduced by 45%
by 2030 and we're aiming to reach net zero by 2050? I learned right here on this lot when all the trees came down that
increased wind is no joke and I am wondering if there are big open areas in the design - what could that do to make a
runway for wind around here?
Beyond this macro level, the location of the proposed road access is concerning for what it could do to jam traffic right
at the entrance of my house especially, but for everyone who lives up here as well. What will the development do to the
air quality? Am I going to smell fumes instead of the fresh air that brought me here, and what about the noise and the
lights? I made an informed decision and accepted the bounds of the hwy work when I purchased the property, but this
is much bigger. What happens to the commercial areas already in Hubbards? I hate to be thinking of moving right as I
am just finishing up my own hard come design, but I am hoping all this is just simply because I do not have enough
information about what is being proposed and am feeling vulnerable. I still hold the spark of inspiration and curiosity for
positive potential. If there is a way I can learn more or attend planning, please let me know. I am interested in what is
best not just for my own situation, but for the community and beyond.
1
Thank you, and look forward to being kept in the loop,
Leigh Gillam
198 Mill Lake rd,
Hubbards
2
Garth Sturtevant
From: Floyd Shatford
Sent: September 17, 2022 8:32 AM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Subject: Fwd: Hubbards Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
FYI
Floyd Shatford
FLOYD SHATFORD
district #2
Tice: 9®2-857-9817
Cek 902-275-786
786
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Heather Grandy
Date: September 17, 2022 at 8:20:24 AM ADT
To: Floyd Shatford <fshatford@chester.ca>
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **'
Please do not open attachments o
click
Good Morning Mr. Shatford,
inksif
or
n unknown or suspicious origin.
I have been a resident of Mill Lake in Hubbards for the last ten years and a land owner 2 years prior to
the that. Since becoming established in the area, we have seen nothing but positive development. The
Hubbards Barn and Market have grown, grocery and hardware store have been renovated, new
restaurants have opened, roads have been twinned, I could go on but the list is long.
What attracted my husband and I to this area many years ago was its quiet cozy town feel which has
been maintained throughout all this development. Even though I relish Hubbards quiantness I am in full
favour of the development at exit 6 which will bring amenities and jobs to the area. Change is
unavoidable and I am confident that development will be an asset to the area.
Thank you,
Heather Grandy
Get Outlook for Android
Garth Sturtevant
From: Floyd Shatford
Sent: September 20, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Subject: Fwd: Mill Lake Road development - PAC Meeting
Floyd Shatford
FLOYD SHATFORD
district #2
ffice: 902-857-9817
CeUk 902-275-786
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michelle Everson
Date: September 20, 2022 at 3:44:17 PM ADT
To: Abdella Assaff <aassaff@chester.ca>, Andre Veinotte <aveinotte@chester.ca>, Allen Webber
<awebber@chester.ca>, Derek Wells <dwells@chester.ca>, Floyd Shatford <fshatford@chester.ca>,
Sharon Church <schurch@chester.ca>, Tina Connors <tconnors@chester.ca>
Cc: Danny Everson Richard Elliott
Subject: Mill Lake Road development - PAC Meeting
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Councillors
I am writing to you today to express my and my husbands concerns with the process that is currently
underway in the area of the Mill Lake Road / Highway 103 interchange as I am unable to attend the
meeting scheduled for tomorrow evening. While we are all for progress it seems this development is
shrouded in controversy as we had not been given any clear picture of what is proposed until a few tax
payers started asking questions. Even then we were fortunate to have people who understand the
process in order to obtain the information. It seems like the hope was that this would all go ahead
"under the table" so to speak.
This area should be protected for the sake of the lakes and the animals nearby. All one has to do is look
at what happened to Fox Point lake when the golf course was allowed to be built. That alone should
cause council pause in giving a developer a green light to do whatever they want. Any development of
any scale here in an area where they will have wells and septic is bound to have an impact on the lakes
and surrounding areas.
Hubbards already has a gas station and a shopping area. Wouldn't it make better sense to approach the
current businesses / property owners and encourage them to consider expanding in their current area?
Any development along the highway will kill the businesses in Hubbards, and travellers will be less likely
to get off the highway to come into the town when they can do their business on the highway and
1
continue on. If the town can support this proposed gas station then it can certainly support an upgraded
Irving where the current station already is!
10 minutes (20 KM) down the road is Tantallon which is a pretty large developed area that has all the
necessities already. This is also not an issue of job creation. One does not have to look far to see that
there are jobs everywhere right now and businesses cannot fill them.
Now with regards to the process, the developer claimed at the community meeting that he did not have
any images of what he envisioned for this spot and he claimed he did not and that turned out to be
untrue. As a council I would have grave concerns about giving free rein to a developer who would
mislead on something that basic. I would question his intent and his real vision for the area. If you allow
the area to be rezoned you are essentially giving him "carte blanche" to do whatever he wishes within
the permitted uses of the by-law.
As a council I would think you would look first at what the area already has and consider ways to
improve or upgrade what is currently here instead of adding what could potentially be a very large
development which will kill the businesses in town. We also do not need a fast food establishment. The
restaurants in Hubbards are fantastic places to eat and it would be a shame to take business away from
them to give to another franchise.
Please reconsider what you are allowing here and don't give away our beautiful town, our beautiful
lakes and the peace and tranquility of the area which is why we are here. Believe me, if we had the
ability to live here year round we would and it is not for lack of trying.
Michelle and Daniel Everson
1052 Mill Lake Road West
2
Garth Sturtevant
From: Floyd Shatford
Sent: September 19, 2022 3:59 PM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Subject: Fwd: Rezoning of PID 60422888 - Exit 6 Hwy 103
Attachments: Rezoning PI D60422888.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Floyd Shatford
FLOYD SHATFORD
district #2
t ice: 902-857-9817
Cek 902-275-786
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
Begin forwarded message:
From•
Date: September 19, 2022 at 3:19:26 PM ADT
To: Andre Veinotte <aveinotte@chester.ca>, Floyd Shatford <fshatford@chester.ca>, Derek Wells
<dwells@chester.ca>, Allen Webber <awebber@chester.ca>, Abdella Assaff <aassaff@chester.ca>, Tina
Connors <tconnors@chester.ca>, Sharon Church <schurch@chester.ca>, Council <council@chester.ca>
Cc:
Subject: Rezoning of PID 60422888 - Exit 6 Hwy 103
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **`
Please do not open attachments or click (inks from
September 19, 2022
TO: Councillors of the Municipality of Chester,
aveinotte@chester.ca
fshatford@chester.ca
dwells@chester.ca
awebber@chester.ca
aassaff@chester.ca
tconnors@chester.ca
schurch@chester.ca
council@chester.ca
an
unknown o
suspicious origin.
I write as a concerned property owner in the Municipality of Chester about the rezoning application for
PID 60422888 at Exit 6 on Highway 103. A developer is asking Council to permit the rezoning of this
land, which is presently split zoned, so that the entire parcel will be zoned Mixed Use. My
understanding is that if this rezoning proceeds it will allow the developer — whatever his stated current
intent — to proceed with virtually any commercial or light industrial development on these lands, with
very few restrictions. I am strongly opposed to this rezoning application, for two simple reasons: it is
inconsistent with the nature and character of the surrounding community; and it is simply not needed.
For more than 20 years now, I have been a property owner on Dauphinees Mill Lake — located just
outside of Hubbards. This residential and cottage community is a highly desirable place to both live and
visit, for many reasons, but most particularly for its relative peace and quiet. It is located well outside of
the urban sprawl that is Halifax/Dartmouth. You can still see the stars at night here. Traffic sounds are
low to negligible. You still see wildlife. The area hasn't been overridden with concrete and paved over
parking lots. It is not simply an area that people pass through on their way to someplace else. The
proposed rezoning of this parcel of land threatens all of this.
The developer already possesses rights to do some limited commercial development on his property,
given its current zoning (SR -2 and MU). Through this rezoning application he seeks to vastly expand the
size and scope of any future development. With rezoning, he says he intends to develop a commercial
subdivision and highway -oriented services. He says he intends to subdivide the rezoned property into
10 to 12 commercial development lots. And no matter what the developer says he intends to do, the
rezoning of the property allows him to engage in all permitted uses of the land — and that includes
larger and taller commercial uses.
Any such development will bring with it a significant increase in car and truck traffic on the Exit 6 off
ramp and on Mill Lake Road and the new access road being built to Sawler Lake. And what comes with
more traffic? Noise and pollution, including nighttime light pollution. In what is otherwise a quiet
residential and cottage community, the developer intends to plunk a development aimed primarily at
highway commuters. The proposed development is completely at odds with the character of the
surrounding area. The development butts up directly against Sawler Lake and is proximate to two other
lakes — Maple Lake and Dauphinees Mill Lake. The traffic and noise from the proposed development will
directly and negatively affect these quiet lakeside communities and the surrounding area.
In making its rezoning decision, Council has to consider whether the benefits of the development
exceed the costs, against the backdrop of its land use policy. Is a large highway -oriented development
really needed at Exit 6 such as to warrant the related costs to the local community: sprawl, congestion,
noise and pollution? I don't think it is. Hubbards already has a gas station and a grocery store in its
(underdeveloped) downtown. Only 20 odd kilometres away is the very large commercial development
at Tantallon, which has 5 gas stations, several open 24 hours, as well as several food stores and
restaurants. Commuters on Highway 103 do not need even more of the kinds of services available in
Tantallon a mere 15 minutes away. Rezoning the property to allow the proposed development would
simply extend urban sprawl along the highway corridor with no real appreciable benefit.
I invite all municipal Councillors to take a trip out to Exit 6 on Highway 103 and see for yourself what is
at stake here. Get a sense of the peaceful and quiet nature of the surrounding residential and lakeside
area. And imagine how it will be blighted by the proposed development on the rezoned lands. In so
doing, I am sure that you will vote against the rezoning application before you.
Sincerely,
Robert Champagne
2
Dauphinees Mill Lake
3
Garth Sturtevant
From: Pam Myra (she/her)
Sent: September 19, 2022 11:27 AM
To: Council; Garth Sturtevant; Chad Haughn
Subject: Response from Cathy Mellet to Email sent September 16, 2022
Attachments: image446219.jpg; image305289.png; image522862.png; image860442.png
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Good morning,
Below is the response from Ms. Mellett following our email sent out on Friday.
Pam
From: CJ Mellett
Sent: September 16, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Pam Myra (she/her) <pmyra@chester.ca>
Subject: Re: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103) Hubbards
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Good afternoon Pam ,
I am disappointed to hear that this matter is going to proceed to the PAC on September 21st without consideration for
the concerns expressed by us as residents and landowners to be allowed time to review the MPS and make a
submission to the PAC in regard to the policies and planning options we, as members of the community, feel should be
considered.
The recommendation of the PAC to Council is a critical step in the process and their recommendation is considered
seriously by Council.
Unfortunately I am out of the province on a family matter and will not be able to attend the meeting on Sept 21st. I
intend to make a written submission.
Also, I am requesting a copy of the staff report that has been provided to the PAC, even though it is also a late date to
review that report.
Cathy Mellett
On Fri., Sep. 16, 2022, 11:51 a.m. Pam Myra (she/her), <pmyra@chester.ca> wrote:
Good Afternoon, Ms. Mellett.
Thank -you for your letter and input requesting delay of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee.
1
We understand from your letter that you attended the Public Information Session held by staff on
September 8th. The Senior Planner, Garth Sturtevant shared the process that we follow for these
meetings. The Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) is not a decision -making body. They
provide advice to Council regarding applications for Planning Amendments - including rezoning.
Their recommendation goes to Council for a final decision. Council is required to hold a mandatory
public hearing if they wish to proceed with approval of a rezoning.
Once PAC hears the application (and their decision and recommendations are based on the
proposal's alignment with our Municipal Planning Strategy), it will be sent to Council for their
consideration.
Our next Council meeting will not be until September 29, 2022. If Council were to give notice of
their intention to approve the rezoning, they would then need to set a date for the public hearing
which requires at least 14 clear days (and in this case 21 clear days notice) to the public. It is unlikely
that a public hearing would be held before the middle to end of October.
We understand that you would like a chance to engage and share your thoughts on this proposal.
The public hearing is the chance for the public to do this. A letter can also be submitted to Council
or the PAC. However, at this time, PAC, nor Council, can change the Municipal Planning Strategy to
put in additional requirements for this application. As the application has already been received,
Council and PAC must consider the existing policies and tools that are in place.
Your letter and this response will be included in the agenda package for the Planning Advisory
Committee. At this time, we confirm the existing meeting date will be maintained.
Pam
2
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy McKinnell
September 20, 2022 12:00 PM
Planning; Abdella Assaff; Sharon Church; Chad Haughn; Garth Sturtevant; Allen Webber;
Andre Veinotte; Derek Wells; Floyd Shatford; Tina Connors; Pam Myra (she/her)
Correction
EXTERNAL EMAIL **
Please do not open attachments or click links fro
an unknown or suspicious origin.
Hello again -
apologize - I made an error in the email I previously sent - the
date of the Public Information Meeting was September 8th, 2022 -
not September 13th.
Thank you.
Nancy (she/her)
I acknowledge that I live and work in Mi'kma'ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq
people who are the past, present, and future caretakers of this land.
To find out whose territory you inhabit, visit: www.whose.land
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
** EXTERNAL EMAIL *'
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Stephen Kimber
September 20, 2022 10:18 AM
Council; Planning
Rezoning a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103)
My wife and I own property at 4 Hardwood Lane on Dauphinee's Mill Lake in Hubbards.
I attended a recent "information" meeting where the developer was expected to explain
his reasons for requesting the rezoning of land near Exit 6.
He had apparently come with a Powerpoint presentation but chose not to use it, opting
instead, he said, to answer questions. But it was impossible to ask thoughtful pertinent
questions without knowing what he intended to do and why he needed the land rezoned
in order to do it.
I'm not opposed to development, but I think it is important that area residents
understand what is intended and how it might impact them and the community.
This meeting did not provide that.
And now, you are being asked to make a recommendation to send this to the next stage
of the process without the residents having had a real opportunity for input.
I understand that the municipality and the planning advisory committee have rejected a
request from residents to delay making a recommendation to council.
I would encourage councillors to demand real answers from the developer at a public
hearing before making any decision on this proposed rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Stephen Kimber
4 Hardwood Lane
Stephen Kimber
MFA Cohort Director
School of Journalism, Writing & Publishing
University of King's College
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
September 20, 2022 5:33 PM
Garth Sturtevant; administration
FW: Rezoning of PID 60422888 - Exit 6 Hwy 103
Rezoning PI D60422888.pdf
Follow up
Completed
** EXTERNAL EMAIL**
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Mr. Sturtevant & Ms. Myra:
I neglected to copy you on my earlier email to the Municipal Councillors. I would like my letter to be on the public
record before Council makes any decision in this matter. Thank you.
Rob Champagne
From:
Sent: September 19, 2022 3:19 PM
To: aveinotte@chester.ca; fshatford@chester.ca; dwells@chester.ca; awebber@chester.ca; aassaff@chester.ca;
tconnors@chester.ca; schurch@chester.ca; council@chester.ca
Cc:
Subject: Rezoning of PID 60422888 - Exit 6 Hwy 103
September 19, 2022
TO: Councillors of the Municipality of Chester,
aveinotte@chester.ca
fshatford@chester.ca
dwells@chester.ca
awebber@chester.ca
aassaff@chester.ca
tconnors@chester.ca
schurch@chester.ca
council@chestereca
I write as a concerned property owner in the Municipality of Chester about the rezoning application for PID 60422888 at
Exit 6 on Highway 103. A developer is asking Council to permit the rezoning of this land, which is presently split zoned,
so that the entire parcel will be zoned Mixed Use. My understanding is that if this rezoning proceeds it will allow the
developer — whatever his stated current intent — to proceed with virtually any commercial or light industrial
development on these lands, with very few restrictions. I am strongly opposed to this rezoning application, for two
simple reasons: it is inconsistent with the nature and character of the surrounding community; and it is simply not
needed.
For more than 20 years now, I have been a property owner on Dauphinees Mill Lake — located just outside of
Hubbards. This residential and cottage community is a highly desirable place to both live and visit, for many reasons,
but most particularly for its relative peace and quiet. It is located well outside of the urban sprawl that is
Halifax/Dartmouth. You can still see the stars at night here. Traffic sounds are low to negligible. You still see
wildlife. The area hasn't been overridden with concrete and paved over parking lots. It is not simply an area that
people pass through on their way to someplace else. The proposed rezoning of this parcel of land threatens all of this.
The developer already possesses rights to do some limited commercial development on his property, given its current
zoning (SR -2 and MU). Through this rezoning application he seeks to vastly expand the size and scope of any future
development. With rezoning, he says he intends to develop a commercial subdivision and highway -oriented
services. He says he intends to subdivide the rezoned property into 10 to 12 commercial development lots. And no
matter what the developer says he intends to do, the rezoning of the property allows him to engage in all permitted
uses of the land — and that includes larger and taller commercial uses.
Any such development will bring with it a significant increase in car and truck traffic on the Exit 6 off ramp and on Mill
Lake Road and the new access road being built to Sawier Lake. And what comes with more traffic? Noise and pollution,
including nighttime light pollution. In what is otherwise a quiet residential and cottage community, the developer
intends to plunk a development aimed primarily at highway commuters. The proposed development is completely at
odds with the character of the surrounding area. The development butts up directly against Sawier Lake and is
proximate to two other lakes — Maple Lake and Dauphinees Mill Lake. The traffic and noise from the proposed
development will directly and negatively affect these quiet lakeside communities and the surrounding area.
In making its rezoning decision, Council has to consider whether the benefits of the development exceed the costs,
against the backdrop of its land use policy. Is a large highway -oriented development really needed at Exit 6 such as to
warrant the related costs to the local community: sprawl, congestion, noise and pollution? I don't think it is. Hubbards
already has a gas station and a grocery store in its (underdeveloped) downtown. Only 20 odd kilometres away is the
very large commercial development at Tantallon, which has 5 gas stations, several open 24 hours, as well as several
food stores and restaurants. Commuters on Highway 103 do not need even more of the kinds of services available in
Tantallon a mere 15 minutes away. Rezoning the property to allow the proposed development would simply extend
urban sprawl along the highway corridor with no real appreciable benefit.
I invite all municipal Councillors to take a trip out to Exit 6 on Highway 103 and see for yourself what is at stake here.
Get a sense of the peaceful and quiet nature of the surrounding residential and lakeside area. And imagine how it will
be blighted by the proposed development on the rezoned lands. In so doing, I am sure that you will vote against the
rezoning application before you.
Sincerely,
Robert Champagne
Dauphinees Mill Lake
2
Garth Sturtevant
From: Floyd Shatford
Sent: September 20, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Subject: Fwd: rezoning & development at Exit 6 - additional info and concern
Attachments: F-2022-006-004_2022-09-21_Staff Report_MPAC.pdf.pdf
Just got this from Richard
Floyd Shatford
FLOYD SHATFORD
listrict 2
Tice: 902-857-9817
Cek 9®2.2°75-7
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Elliott
Date: September 20, 2022 at 11:04:16 AM ADT
To: Floyd Shatford <fshatford@chester.ca>
Subject: rezoning & development at Exit 6 - additional info and concern
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **'
Please do not open attachments or click links from an
Hi Floyd:
unknown or suspicious origin.
Garth responded this morning and said that his planning report isn't available to the public before it's
presented to the PAC. That is really objectionable as a matter of transparency and accountability to the
public, particularly residents in the area that are affected by this. They don't get to see what is being put
before a public body that will make a recommendation to Council and provide input to that committee,
based on that information, before the committee makes its recommendation? That is deeply
problematic and, frankly, Council should rectify that. (After all, Council meeting packages are publicly
available before the Council meeting.) Such a process hardly engenders any community confidence or
permits meaningful community engagement — which was already a challenge given the ridiculously tight
timeline between the (only) public info meeting and the PAC meeting where a recommendation likely
gets made.
As an aside, the representations that I think have been made about how a decision must be made by
Council within 120 days of the developer's application, or else it is deemed refused, appear to be legally
inaccurate. Rather, the Municipal Government Act simply says that the application is deemed refused if
Council has not, within 120 days of the application, started the required by publishing the required
notice of public hearing:
(6) Where the council has not, within one hundred and twenty days after receipt of a
completed application to amend a land -use by-law referred toin subsection (1), commenced
the procedure required for amending the land -use by-law by publishing the required notice
of public hearing, the application is deemed to have been refused.
Also, Council has flexibility about how long a period of notice of the public hearing they want to give the
public (it just has to be at least 14 days pursuant to s. 206(2), but it can be longer, there is no maximum
specified). And I haven't found any section that says the Council must meet and make a decision within
a certain maximum time after the public hearing. So I think Council should reject any suggestion that it
must be frogmarched into a decision by the end of this year —that's not actually the law, as I read it. I
stand to be corrected. But if this is being put about in order to rush a decision by Council in favour of
the developer, which is certainly what it seems like, then this should be rejected flat out.
In any event, despite Garth declining to provide the report that has been provided to the PAC, I did
receive it this morning —just one day before the PAC meeting, I note — as a result of my freedom of
information request. (Had I not done that, it would not be available; as I've noted, that's a problem.)
I'm attaching Garth's report. Regrettably, it confirms that our fears about what this rezoning could
lead to are valid. See Figure 6, which provides some detail about what the developer proposes to do by
way of development. As you can see, the bulk of the property will be developed and it's a major
commercial complex with 4 separate areas — that will host a gas bar and convenience store (with 24
parking spots), a drive through of 2500 sq ft (with 44 parking spots), and 4 large commercial buildings
totalling 65,000 sq ft (and parking for more than 340 cars).
Add in the additional paved space surrounding all this and it amounts to a complex of about 285,000 sq
ft — in other words, a development that is nearly 6 times the size of the current Hubbards Square lot
(building and parking area)! And there is room for further development still on the property...
This is just not an appropriate development to put right in the middle of a residential and cottage
community, and it's really disheartening that Council might seriously damage the existing character of
the area by allowing this rezoning, just because this developer isn't satisfied with the scale of what he
can already do on the portion already zoned Mixed Use. It's even more troubling when there is
commercial space in Hubbards, right across the highway, that is going underdeveloped and unused. This
is the worst kind of planning outcome that allows unnecessary sub/urban sprawl into rural areas. It
really shows the importance of Council actually standing up to protecting the broader public interest,
not just allowing it because a developer wants to do to make more private profit. Rather than enable
this, wouldn't it be much better for the community for the municipality's economic development staff
to focus on attracting small businesses to existing commercially -zoned space in Hubbards that actually
responds to community needs?
Richard
Richard Elliott
Health & Human Rights Law & Policy
Consultant, HIV Legal Network
(he/il/el)
www.hivlegalnetwork.ca/site/richard-elliott/?lang=en
Twitter: @RElliottHHR
I live and work in Mi'kma'ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq People.
2
Garth Sturtevant
From: Floyd Shatford
Sent: September 27, 2022 8:29 PM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Subject: Fwd: Re -zoning
FYI
Floyd Shatford
FLOYD SHATFORD
district #2
office: 902-857-9817
CeUk 902-275-786
. Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joan Kaizer
Date: September 27, 2022 at 8:16:31 PM ADT
To: Floyd Shatford <fshatford@chester.ca>
Subject: Re -zoning
** EXTERNAL EMAIL
Please do not open attache
unknown or suspicious origin.'
I see the re -zoning and potential development at Exit 6 as a positive move for the residents of Hubbards
and those who travel Hwy 103.
Having improved services such as a gas station that is open extended hours and that carries diesel fuel is
long overdue.
There is speculation that a franchise of a coffee shop will be added. This would also be welcomed by
those of us on the move early in the morning, and those travelling through the area on the highway.
The "win" here is that Hubbards can have these amenities without disruption to the heart of
Hubbards. No big transport trucks rumbling through town creating noise, no heavy 'through traffic'
causing further concern for cyclists, pedestrians, and school zones.
Progress and growth is coming to Hubbards - that's a given. If we can preserve the view of our
waterfront and keep our local roads safe - that's a win.
Personally I see developing the property north of Exit 6 as going for the win.
I hope Council sees this re -zoning and development as a win too!
Thank you for your time,
Joan Kaizer
Garth Sturtevant
From: Allison Lewis
Sent: September 21, 2022 10:06 AM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Cc: Ted Ross; Richard Elliott; Pam Myra (she/her); Abdella Assaff;
Andre Veinotte; Allen Webber; Derek Wells; Floyd Shatford; Sharon Church; Tina
Connors; Plannin.; Chad Hau.hn; Tara Ma.uire; Nanc McKinnell;
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Re: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103) Hubbards
Follow up
Completed
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Good Morning Garth and members of the Committee and Council,
With this email I add my voice to the growing number of people who have questions and concerns about the proposed
development at exit 6.
It is unfortunate that the developers failed to share any information about their vision or plan for the area when we
attended that meeting a couple of weeks ago. I may misunderstand the process but I believe that that meeting was
meant for them to share information with us and they failed to do so.
There are too many questions.
Questions around the impact on the environment, the impact on the water table, they said they did a study and drilled
in two places but I wonder how they managed to get drilling equipment into the forest without any roads, some thing
for your committee to think about.
If they did those studies, why isn't that information available to the public as part of this process? I'm also concerned
about the impact of having a huge development on the water table for the people who have wells in the area, and the
impact on the lakes and wildlife that depends on those lakes and that river in order to live - he said they have enough
water for the development, but I wonder about everything else in the area.
Questions around the impact on the quality of life of the good people who live directly at the exit, and who pay their
taxes.
Traffic and noise and light and sound pollution.
And what about the impact on the existing local businesses? Hubbards is starting to happen and that's because of the
hard work of independent business people make their homes in the area and put everything into the businesses that
they run.
Jobs? Thanks to the pandemic it's a new day and nobody wants to work for minimum wage in a uniform anymore, and
people are not going to relocate to Hubbards to work at a franchise, let's face it.
I have many more concerns, and so do many others in the area, I urge you to take your time with this and a question
how you can recommend anything if you don't have any information, unless your committee has more information than
us.
Lastly, I want to point out that I saw the developers on Mill Lake Rd. last week watching logs being taken out of what
looks like new road that is being built, are we putting the cart before the horse? Why are they starting to work on a road
that has not been approved yet? Is there something that the public does not know about yet?
It's time for transparency, and this whole process seems a little cloudy so far.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Allison
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2022, at 9:17 AM, Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca> wrote:
Good Morning Ted,
Thank you for your email. I have placed it with other correspondence received in relation to the
proposed rezoning. This correspondence will form part of the Public Hearing package for consideration
by Council before a decision is made.
Best,
Garth
From: Ted Ross
Sent: September 20, 2022 2:37 PM
To: Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca>
Cc: ; Richard Elliott ; Pam Myra (she/her)
<pmyra@chester.ca>; Abdella Assaff <aassaff@chester.ca>; Andre Veinotte <aveinotte@chester.ca>;
Allen Webber <awebber@chester.ca>; Derek Wells <dwells@chester.ca>; Floyd Shatford
<fshatford@chester.ca>; Sharon Church <schurch@chester.ca>; Tina Connors <tconnors@chester.ca>;
Planning <planning@chester.ca>; Chad Haughn <chaughn@chester.ca>; Tara Maguire
<tmaguire@chester.ca>; Nancy McKinnell
Subject: Re: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103) Hubbards
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **;
Please do not open attachment
click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Good afternoon Mr Sturtevant, & Municipal Council members,
2
I am writing to ask that not support any change to existing zoning on these lands.
Indeed I hope that in retrospect you reconsider the existing zoning as being far to lenient. The best use
of these lands is to only allow residential development on unserviced lots, which is in keeping with the
current uses on Mill Lake Road # 2.
The development of a large shopping mall or multiple retail outlets will harm the existing retail stores in
Hubbards, Chester & Tantallon.
I am three season resident. I shop in Hubbards, Chester and Tantallon. I don't need any additional shops
at Exit 6.
The proposed development is totally out of scale for the area, and will harm existing retailers in all three
communities.
I hope you will vote against this application and seek broader community input on the MPS and zoning
for the lands abutting Exit 6.
Please provide a copy of this letter to the Clerk and Councillors.
Ted Ross
Patricia Lawrence
902 Mill Lake Rd
On Sep 20, 2022, at 12:14 PM, Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca> wrote:
Good Morning Cathy,
Your email has been received and will be included with other comments for
consideration by Council at the Public Hearing.
Thank you,
Garth
From:
Sent: September 20, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca>
Cc: Richard Elliott Pam Myra (she/her) <pmyra@chester.ca>;
Abdella Assaff <aassaff@chester.ca>; Andre Veinotte <aveinotte@chester.ca>; Allen
Webber <awebber@chester.ca>; Derek Wells <dwells@chester.ca>; Floyd Shatford
<fshatford@chester.ca>; Sharon Church <schurch@chester.ca>; Tina Connors
<tconnors@chester.ca>; Planning <planning@chester.ca>; Chad Haughn
<chaughn@chester.ca>; Tara Maguire <tmaguire@chester.ca>; Nancy McKinnell
Subject: RE: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103)
Hubbards
3
EXTERNAL EMAIL **
Please do not open attachments or click links froi
an unkno�
n OI
suspicious origin.
As a former municipal clerk I need to object to this total lack of transparency in an
important part of the planning process. The Planning Advisory Committe is established
by Council to be part of the public consultation process to ensure all the public have
access and input to the important planning decisions that impact their communities.
This doesn't cut it for transparency in the process.
Additionally, the information provided by Planning on the rushed time frames are also
not correct under the municipal government act. The process must be " commenced" in
120 days NOT completed. That is also to allow public input and consideration. All of
which appears to be running rough shod over in this case.
This is deeply concerning whether you agree or not with the proposed development as
it takes time and good information for a community and neighbourhood to consider
planning matters and their umpact on their comminity.
The way this process is being undertaken is providing neither to our community.
Cathy Mellett
On Sep. 20, 2022 5:08 a.m., Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca> wrote:
Good Morning Richard,
Planning Advisory Committee package materials are not publicly available until the
meeting date. This differs from Council packages which are posted in advance.
Following the meeting I would be happy to provide a copy.
Best,
Garth
From: Richard Elliott
Sent: September 16, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Pam Myra (she/her) <pmyra@chester.ca>; Abdella Assaff <aassaff@chester.ca>;
Andre Veinotte <aveinotte@chester.ca>; Allen Webber <awebber@chester.ca>; Derek
Wells <dwells@chester.ca>; Floyd Shatford <fshatford@chester.ca>; Sharon Church
<schurch@chester.ca>; Tina Connors <tconnors@chester.ca>; Planning
<planning@chester.ca>; Garth Sturtevant <gsturtevant@chester.ca>; Chad Haughn
<chaughn@chester.ca>; Tara Maguire <tmaguire@chester.ca>
Cc: CATHYMELLET ; Nancy McKinnell
Subject: RE: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103)
Hubbards
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
Please do not open attachments or click (inks 1
Hi Pam
Acknowledging receipt of your email below.
0
an unknown or suspicious origin.
We understand that the PAC is not a decision -making body. However, it does make a
recommendation to Council, so it's disappointing to think that it will do so without the
benefit of much public input; this seems a flawed process. And it is simply not
reasonable to expect the public to be in a position to engage meaningfully, and in an
informed fashion, when there has been so little information made publicly available
about the application for a rezoning and there is less than 2 weeks between the public
information meeting and the PAC meeting, following which the PAC makes its
recommendation.
I believe from my earlier communications with Garth that the package of materials for
the upcoming PAC meeting next Wednesday, Sep 21, will have gone to the committee
members this past Wed (Sep 14). And I believe this should include the staff report that
Garth was preparing regarding the developer's application for rezoning the PID in
question.
Could I ask that you please share a copy of that material, including the staff report? I
can't seem to find this material — or any information about the PAC — on the
municipality's website (although there is some material related to other Council
committees). I know that I, and other concerned residents, would like to see the
information that is being provided to the PAC to inform its recommendation to
Council, and would like to have an opportunity to review it as soon as possible in
advance of next week's PAC meeting.
Thanks for your assistance.
5
Richard
Richard i tt
1 live and work in Mi'kma'ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq People.
Garth Sturtevant
From: Stephen Blacke
Sent: September 21, 2022 12:33 P
To: Garth Sturtevant
Cc: Abdella Assaff; Sharon Church; Planning; Chad Haughn; Allen Webber; Andre Veinotte;
Derek Wells; Floyd Shatford; Tina Connors; Ted Ross; Richard
Elliott; Pam M ra (she/her); Nanc McKinne
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
** EXTERNAL EMAIL *'
Please do not open attachments or
Re: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888 (at Exit 6, Highway 103) Hubbards
Follow up
Completed
k links
an unknown or
suspicious origin.
Good morning Mr. Sturtevant, PAC members and Municipal Councillors,
We are writing to urge you to oppose the proposed rezoning and development at Exit 6.
The proposed development is at odds with the character of the area which is primarily
residential/cottage country in nature, and would result in unwelcome noise, pollution, traffic and
environmental degradation.
The developer claims the priority outcomes of this development to be:
1. Promote and grow the Municipality's economic sectors.
The developers themselves have stated elsewhere that their main aim is to provide "highway
services" on the 103. Since the majority of highway traffic to this development would presumably bypass Hubbards
altogether with a quick stop for gas and coffee on the highway, what is the perceived benefit to the local economy? The
main beneficiaries of this development would appear to be the developer and the Municipality (via taxes).
2. Position the Municipality as Nova Scotia's south shore community of choice for
residents, businesses, and organizations, and as an international tourism destination.
Ignoring the (preposterous) claim that a highway strip mall would do anything to promote
international tourism in the area, there are already sufficient highway services just down the
road in Tantallon, in Chester, and in Hubbards, which appears to have been coping with demand for decades. If
Hubbards were the only stop for 100km in either direction this proposal might make more sense, but the reality is there
is no need for another highway services development in this location that is so close to existing amenities.
If the developers truly claim altruistic motivations, then perhaps they could investigate working
with existing businesses and commercial property owners in Hubbards proper to develop and
improve existing infrastructure and properties there.
Please provide a copy of this letter to any Councillors or PAC members we may have missed in
our email address list.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Stephen and Colleen Blacker,
17 Hardwood Lane,
Hubbards, Nova Scotia
2
LA
CONCERNED ABOUT
G " °SCALE COMMERCIAL O . INDUSTRIAL DEV OPMENT
IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD?
SPEAK{ LIP NO
What's happening'? Why should I be concerned?
Right now, the hrlunicipality of Chester is considering a developer's request to rezone a large property
alongside Highway 103 at Exit f. Not satisfied with the commercial development rights he already has
on part of the property, the developer wants the municipal Council to double the physical area that
could be commercially or industrially developed to more than 30 acres an area the sire of 2:
football fields —all in the middle of a quiet residential and cottage community between three lakes.
In addition to doubling the area to be developed, rezoning would also remove important limits on the
kind and scale of any development. This kind of zoning was rejected just a few years ago.
The re has been VERY LITTLE INFORMATION shared publicly by the developer or the municipality --
and the developer isn't bound by any promises made once the area is rezoned. Pius the process has
been rushed, with little opportunity so far for public input. Despite this, Council is likely to hold a
hearing on whether to approve this within a matter of weeks. if it rezones the land, Council has limited
tools left to regulate the use of the land and protect the interests of the broader community. Residents
need to speakup now and share their concerns with municipal Councillors before it's too late.
What property are we talking about?
The developer awns a 30.5 -acre property that runs
along Highway 103 just north of Exit 6, across from
Hubbards. The property runs parallel to the highway
from the edge of Sawler Lake almost to Mill Lake
Road, and a significant distance up from the highway.
'The property Is currently split zoned. The top half is
zoned "Mixed Use" (MU), while the bottom half,
nearest the highway, is zoned "'Settlement; Residential
Two" (SR -2). The developer wants Council to rezone
the bottom haft so that the entire property will be
„Mixed Use." This would mean that he could use the
tiro property for almost any commercial or light
lal development, with only a few restrictions,
despite the residential nature of the area.
it '1CF) P
The developer has confirmed publicly that, if Chester approves the rezoning, his current intent is to
develop a commercial subdivision and highway -oriented services. Beyond this, despite direct requests
from concerned residents, the developer provided little information about what is planned, including
at a "public information meeting," What little information has since been provided (only as a result of
a freedom -of -information request) is disturbing, "i`i'aa_ da�a ...i""1.x'0 11,735 ;Ad WO til".oili Hilo-ai%R:N/ i,#o vt pRaa 'r;
�f.9� 194,rfilr,l OW '; h [. w.,f�1OCgi� r G:�iK?8i. I lxr,t;ds `�' m ,{,p .;;� F°t4 y i) 4f, i i"r, ,=End 4 I Ji ge
Ours i)rkm�f04i' for t.rol i""o
more
,a.lr.i -wr toot — with still room for
't°io ��"rr�.�r�,`��:�r�re�� t r r�e! � r rr��rrn: .+ � 7 ul 4"„-r� � r�{i���� 1 h40 -94,T `�. .�
The developer already has the right to do some commercial development on the top half of the
property further away from the highway, which is already zoned "Mixed Use." But the developer
wants mores he wants the other half rezoned so he can develop on a much bigger scale and attract
highway commuters, That means a major increase in car traffic on Mill Lake Road and the new Sawler
Lake access road" with the congestion, noise and pollution that brings, And if businesses such as a gas
station are open 24/7 or late into the evening, that means more light pollution in this residential area.
The developer has done a study of traffic volumes but has not made It public, despite requests.
:F„" J '?fl°➢ Y r & L'.�"'r !
In any event, no matter what the developer says or promises when asking for the rezoning; municipal
by -Taws make it clear that, once rezoning happens, the owner can do whatever they want with the land
— as long as it's a "permitted use under the zoning category that applies. At the public information
meeting held as part of this process (on September 8th),, the developer declared that "the market will
drive development" on this property. In other words, the developer, who is targeting highway
commuters, will pursue whatever uses of the land make him the most profit. This will not necessarily
reflect the needs of local residents, who will have to lure with the long-term consequences.
(to r t;rd r "u :a ,. rt . P a door r to lair r,, b rd c c:ornnig. P°tf ' al uard i sti`4 :r/ CP: y, o o o fe,"ry Jiro .
If the developer's rezoning request is granted, this allows even larger, taller and denser commercial
and industrial uses than what is already possible. Compare the scale of what municipal by-laws allow
under the current zoning ("Settlement Residential 2') versus the much larger development allowed on
each lot if the rest of the developer's property is rezoned as 'Mixed Use"
Maximum total floor area of
building (all storeys),.
on each for
Maximum 1
on each lot
d area,
Settlement Residential 2
500 mz (5380 s
2000 mz f2
00 sq ft)
xed Use
EZl rr
Anything lcrr+gi r
r. reemert, but the
5000 m (54,500 si
Anything Inver r+equ
agreement, but there is rr�
ximum building height,
n each /at
6 feet) 3 storeys
etbacks from neighbours , average 7.5m (243 feet)
No limit on height of buildings
The developer has stated he plans to subdivide the property into 10-12 bats for commercial
development, Each of these lots. comes with the greater development rights set out In the chart above,
if Council agrees to his 'Mixed Use'rezoning request for the property. There is little further input from
the community and limited regulation by the municipality, Information provided by the developer
indicates he pi.,r1s out e ei gee mere lieee twice ale p 4 i t r?...e yQ:Sr'I.j' H9rP;lear t.VWi Si Keeping.
ad ert Yeicr a,ti ta"d),. and the rnaximurn height' of buildings I's "to be
determined."
Rezoning the rest of this property as "Mixed User also opens the door even wider to very large
commercial and industrial buildings on this site in the middle of a residential and cottage
community. This could include car sales centres, gas stations (including truck filling centres), light
manufacturing, transportation depots, warehouse facilities, autobody shops, recycling depots — even
abattoirs and salvage yards (up to 2500 rn f 27,000 sq ft), as well as inland fish farms.
kt clerk . t
Just 2 years ago, Chester's municipal council decided, as part of its new municipal plan, to zone the
bottom half of the property in the "Settlement Residential Two" (SR -2) category, The SR -2 zoning,
already allows for some small-scale commercial uses, while supporting and encouraging residential
development. In fact, as the municipal planner's report indicates, the idea of v ie..ec
c i jElatl y'' pro r10 ,c.f fo- the. i7 du; 6:arg` , WaS IteCZ,i" 1$'. t::O6`61"a'�" olli „ ,° i":;ovics'_;nF.+ an 'S
„cjesire t'4.; a,..;04‘,1 :»ortuTtR'r i;.... grt:.7i°".th ::rrijl d3d°'h°eT'? f'1pr. en s'i ;c;'r°G=.. Those ;7.o.a( 0). . There is
no good reason to undo what was just recently decided as the appropriate zoning, just so a developer
can make more money with a much larger commercial development targeting highway commuters.
aut. ;'ior r r➢r'_'c.c1 yi .'.e;,.-hv:PfS! gas sunk c) crr_g r. Hulthart" u"v?
The current gas station in Hubbards is open from 7 AM to 9 PM every day (except 8 AM to 8 PM on
Sundays). There are five other gas stations less than 15 minutes away at or near Exit 5 — and three of
them (PetroCanada, Wilson's and Irving) are open 24/7, while the other two (Sobeys and Esso) are
open from early morning until 11 PM. There is easy access to these services already in the area —and
the developer could already put one on the portion of his property zoned for commercial use. Having a
24/7 gas station in this location is not a good reason to open the door to largeyscaie commercial and
industrial use in the middle of a residential and cottage community,
n�P�rkr0q.(m"L%'w;'iNq tor 65. C )r?` 5'.",a!%°-1 tidPPYt d�rr»�r Nur"1'3 'l�Stl'?t 4."rrr..a �ry'f
Hubbards could certainly benefit from a few additional retail services. But rezoning this property to
allow large-scale development isn't the answer. It means more urban sprawl along the highway. There
is space already in Hubbards that is zoned for commercial use and is unused or underdeveloped. But
this developer isn't interested in something smaller scale in town, He wants the municipality to
authorize a whole new, large development along the highway — and the only detail he has made public
is that it will be aimed at serving highway commuters. Residents shouldn't have to settle for this. We
should demand better of our municipal government. Council shouldn't open the door to a large-scale
commercial and industrial development, in the middle of a residential and cottage area, because the
developer wants to build a big highway -oriented plaza to make more money, Instead, the municipality
should work with small business owners and residents to attract specific retail services in existing
commercial space that is under -used, to meet the needs of local residents, not highway commuters.
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Floyd Shatford
September 21, 2022 11:51 AM
amber maclean
Garth Sturtevant
Re: Proposed Exit 6 development feedback
Thanks for your thoughts I will forward it to be included in the information package. Floyd
FLOYD SHATFORD
Iistric't 2
ffice: 90'2--857-98',17
CeUk 902,-275-78 8
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
> On Sep 21, 2022, at 9:53 AM, amber maclean <ambermaclean@live.com> wrote:
> ** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
> Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
> Hello Floyd,
> My name is Amber MacLean. My husband Joe and I currently live in Boutilers Point and we both grew up in Hubbards.
In fact, I grew up on Mill Lake Road and my Dad still lives there in my childhood home.
> Joe and I attended the public meeting at The Lions Club earlier this month and on the drive home it became apparent
that we had very different outlooks on how the meeting went.
> I'm writing you today with my own concerns surrounding this development and the impact it will have on Hubbards
proper as well as the environmental impact and worry for such substantial growth.
> I understand that Larry as a developer would have rode into town, took one look at our trailer gas station and falling
apart " mall" and saw dollar signs. It's no secret in our community that the shopping centre is in disarray and the
landlords have no interest in up keeping it.
> I also understand that Larry bought this land to develop and make a profit from. He owns it, we don't and there is no
stopping him from working the land. It's a sad but true fact that this area is going to be altered.
> I'm writing you today to be one voice against allowing the lot to be rezoned from Settlement Residential Two Zone to
Mixed Use Zone.
> There is an opportunity for growth vs. destruction and Council has the power to influence that. Please consider the
area, the lakes, the forest, the Residents who live in the area and call it home, the actual needs of the community and
not the possibilities for capital greed and consumerism.
> We need a bank, a gas station with operating hours, a grocery store that doesn't have mould in the walls. I truly
believe that we don't need an RV sales park, a Tim Horton's or a dollar store. We have those amenities a mere 10
minute drive up the 103 already.
>
> In a world of big box, forests turned to parking lots, wants instead of needs, entrepreneurship instead of franchise -
please help choose thoughtfulness over big businesses.
>
> Thank you for your consideration. In case my email was not clear: I am against the Re zoning a portion of PID
60433888 from Settlement Residential Two Zone to Mixed Use Zone.
>
> Regards,
>
> Amber MacLean
>
2
Garth Sturtevant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Floyd Shatford
October 19, 2022 12:22 PM
Garth Sturtevant; Ted Ross
Re: rezoning property at Exit 6
Thanks for your letter I will make sure it's included in the file. Floyd
FLOYD SHATFORD
listrict #2
ffice: 9®'2-857-98',17
Ceik 902-275-7868
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
On Oct 19, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Ted Ross
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Please do not open attachr
To all members of Council
ents or click links
unknown or suspicious origin.
The developer seeks to rezone properties to allow large scale commercial enterprises off exit 6, which is
our exit that serves Dauphinee Mill Lake.
My wife & I are opposed as it is not at all in keeping with the existing zoning allowing single family
dwellings on the road and the Lake nor the cottages on Sawler Lake which the property fronts on, on
the east side.
The proposal is totally out of character for the existing properties that utilize the exit, and will take away
from the existing shopping mall and business district of Hubbards.
Please do not grant the rezoning nor all large scale development that is misplaced and will damage
existing businesses in the Village of Hubbards which straddles MDC & HRM.
Ted Ross
Dauphinee Mill Lake
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: October 19, 2022 at 11:35:34 AM ADT
To:
Subject: RE: rezoning property at Exit 6 - update and key documents (flyer & petition)
Hi all
Just a polite reminder to let me know if you're able and willing to take on contributing
to one or more of the action items highlighted in the email below from this past
weekend — and in particular, it would be great if some others would be prepared to take
the lead on starting to circulate the petition via some relevant Facebook groups so we
can start building signatures on that.
Thanks.
Richard
From:
Sent: October 16, 2022 6:07 PM
To:
Subject: rezoning property at Exit 6 - update and key documents (flyer & petition)
(Note: Links to flyer and petition in message below, and I've highlighted in
yellow the key information and possible action items.)
Hello all,
You're receiving this email because you've previously let me know, some of you
just within the last couple of days, that you at least have concerns about the
proposed rezoning of the property just north of Highway 103 at Exit 6; some of
us are more than concerned and are opposed. For the time being, I've put all
addresses in the Bcc line. (And for those of you with whom I was
communicating previously from my personal email address, you'll have noted
that I have set up this separate Gmail address for purposes of this ongoing
communication. I've done this partly because of some of the unfortunate
snarkiness already received on social media from some posters; I don't need to
clutter up my personal email with that as well.)
I'm writing to provide a basic information update to everyone in one
consolidated message and to share some key documents. Apologies to some on
this list for whom some of this is already known.
UPDATE: PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
On Thursday of this past week (Oct 13th), Chester's municipal Council decided to
move ahead with the next step in this process, and scheduled the Public Hearing
for Thursday, November 10 at 6:30 pm at the Council chambers at 151 King St. in
Chester. Here is the public notice that is now up on the Council website (as of
Friday): hops://chester.ca/events/notice-of-public-hearing-4.
It is critical that, between now and the public hearing, and then at the public
hearing itself, councillors hear concerns about, and/or opposition to, the
proposed rezoning. This must include Floyd Shatford, the councillor for District 2
(our district, in which this property is located). After the public hearing — and
likely right after it, at the same meeting on November 10th — Council will then
2
vote on whether to approve or deny the rezoning request. There are 7
Councillors, and they must be present at the public hearing in order to vote.
So, the next few weeks are the key window for making concerns and opposition
known. At the moment, based on the available information, we know that at
least some councillors are intending to approve the developer's rezoning
request. Unless they hear concern and opposition from a significant number of
people, it seems likely things will proceed. The attached flyer (which many of
you have seen previously) has info on the back page, including contact
information for all the municipal councillors. It is important that they hear
people's concerns and/or opposition — through phone calls, emails and/or in -
person meetings (in addition to the petition described below). It would be great
if all those who are concerned would at least make a phone call and send an
email to each of the councillors. If you are able to also ask one or more of them
for a meeting, even better. (If you're willing, please let me know if you are doing
that and then, of course, it would be great to know what came of the discussion,
so updates can be shared with others.) Some of us have met previously with
Floyd, may seek a further meeting with him in the weeks ahead, and will seek
meetings with some of the other councillors.
FLYER
You have already seen the 4 -page flyer that lays out the basics of the situation
(all based on information stated by the developer and/or in documents
prepared by municipal staff), as well as the reasons to reject the rezoning that is
proposed by the developer. It also includes, on the last page, ways in which
people can take action.
Print version: I'm attaching it again here in PDF, and please share it with others
that you think may be concerned about or opposed to this rezoning and the
larger -scale commercial and industrial development to which it would open the
door. We also have a couple hundred copies already printed. If you would like to
get some so you can distribute them to others, please let me know and we'll
figure out how to get some.
Online version: Note that you can also download the flyer from this link:
https://tinyurl.com/exit-6-rezoning. Please also share this link to the flyer with
others, including through social media channels of relevance to reaching people
resident in the Municipality of Chester.
PETITION (this is new!)
As discussed, we are beginning to circulate both print and online versions of a
petition (same text) urging Chester's municipal councillors to reject the
developer's request to rezone the property. (Congrats and thanks to Dan and
Michelle for their foray to the Hubbards Farmers' Market on Saturday, the
petition's first outing!)
Print version: Attached is the PDF of the petition in case you want to print it off
and get signatures from other concerned residents. Note that we also have
3
some already printed off, including for purposes of gathering signatures at some
upcoming events. Let me know if you would like some print copies and we'll
figure out how to get them to you.
Online version: The petition is also now up online, ready for signing, at this link:
https://tinyurl.com/exit-6-rezoning-petition.
Please take a moment to sign it, if you are in agreement, so we can start the
signatures rolling. Again, please share it widely via email and social media with
other concerned residents of the municipality.
In particular, it would be good if people could use various Facebook groups
related to the Hubbards area (and surrounding areas) to start sharing this
information — i.e., the flyer and the petition. You could, for example, do two
separate posts, or you could just put some of the text from the petition in a post
with the link to the petition — obviously, key to include the link in order to
actually get signatures. And you could also include in your post a link to the flyer
that provides more of the detailed background information, so that people can
be aware of this in deciding whether to sign the petition. Or, of course, feel free
to write your own short post (but ideally, if you are agreeable, including the link
to the petition.) It would be ideal if people who are year-round residents in the
area could post their concerns in such forums.
Some of the relevant Facebook groups include:
1. Hubbards and Area Neighbourhood Communications:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/444028224091037
2. Hubbards Proper — What's Going On: Events & Public
Notices:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/324185777973303
3. Hubbards Community Waterfront Association:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/HCWAF
4. Hubbards & Area Neighbourhood Watch:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/244833913132309
5. Are there others people are aware of?
Please let me know if you are able and willing to post in these groups to
promote greater community awareness and understanding of what's at stake
with this rezoning, and the ways in which people can take action to let their
opposition be known (including to municipal councillors, including Floyd
Shatford, our district 2 councillor). Obviously, posts are likely to elicit a range of
responses, some of them supportive, some of them not (and some of those will
likely get snarky). People will of course decide for themselves whether and how
to respond to comments that get posted.
Note that the petition includes a question asking that the signer indicate the
postal code of the property they live at or own in the municipality. This is
important because it will confirm that signatories do in fact have such a
4
connection to the area, which is important to communicate publicly, including to
Councillors.
If we can secure a sufficiently helpful number of signatures, we will deliver the
petition, with as many signatures as possible, between the print and online
versions, to all the Councillors in the days leading up to the Public Hearing. And
it will also be important to make sure that the support the petition has attracted
is known more widely in the community. (One unfortunate sentiment that
we've already heard expressed repeatedly by various people is the perception
that it doesn't matter what people think, the rezoning and the development will
just go ahead anyway, there's no point in trying to do anything about it, etc. It is,
therefore, important that people who may have concerns, or even be opposed,
understand that in fact there are others with similar views and who are doing
something to try to have input this process and influence the outcome.)
IMAGES
Just FYI, and because some had asked about this in some earlier conversations,
attached are two figures prepared by the developer (and taken from documents
prepared by municipal staff) that show what they currently state they are
planning. But recall that the core issue is not the details of what the developer
is currently saying they plan to do. It's clear, as a matter of law, and as the
municipal planner and councillor Shatford have stated repeatedly, that the
developer isn't bound by their stated intentions at the time of applying for the
rezoning. (Of course, for at least some of us, the details of what the developer
says they're planning are, in themselves, cause enough for concern.) Rather, the
issue before the Council is whether the property should be rezoned to allow
"commercial and industrial development" on a larger scale, as of right, than is
currently permitted under the current zoning — such as what the developer is
proposing, but not only limited to that. As is explained in the flyer, the rezoning
decision opens the door not just to the developer's currently stated plans, but to
a wide range of "permitted uses" of this sort under the Municipal Land Use By -
Law.
I hope the above update and information are useful, and look forward to
hearing from people about whether they can take on some of the above
suggested actions to help spread awareness and concern about what this
rezoning and development in this location could mean, and help demonstrate
this to the Councillors before they make it a done deal.
All the best,
Richard
5
RE: Application to rezone a portion of PID 60422888
To the Planning Advisory Committee, Municipality of Chester:
I am making a written submission as I am out of the province on a family matter and unable to attend.
Your recommendation to Council on this matter is an important one. As a resident I have been
extremely frustrated that we have not been provided with the time or information necessary to provide
you and Council with our input, which is why more than 20 concerned residents asked for an additional
30 days to make a written submission.
Also, the developer has expressed no interest in the community's view or the impact of his
development. They have ignored requests for more information from concerned residents and their
application submitted to the municipality has been withheld. As the PAC knows, once land use rights are
granted through a zoning decision, the planning tools available to the municipality to ensure
development is beneficial and not harmful to other residents and to the public interest become far more
limited.
There needs to be careful consideration of the impacts this proposed highway -oriented commercial
development (or any other allowed land use) will have on our neighbourhood and the surrounding
community of Hubbard. That is not happening.
In light of that, I would request that the PAC recommend to Council that it deny the current rezoning
request. I also urge the PAC to recommend that Council undertake more careful consideration of other
options that take community concerns and the broader public interest, including in preserving the
character of the area. Options include:
- Recommend to Council that it rezone the property to "Lakefront Zone." This is the more
appropriate zoning of this property abutting Sawler Lake and lying between three lakes, one of
which feeds into Hubbard Cove, as well as being more in keeping with the single family rural
residential and cottage community surrounding the property.
Recommend that any commercial or light industrial development in the Settlement Area
surrounding Hubbards be undertaken only by development agreement, with changes to the
Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) to enable that.
In my limited opportunity to review the MPS, those options would be more in keeping with the over-
riding policy direction of protecting and ensuring the quality of life, environment and rural nature of our
community.
Sincerely
Cathy Mellett
554 Mill Lake Rd West
Commented [REn]: Suggest deleting reference to "or
Council" here, because there will still be some time and the
public hearing to provide views to Council,
Commented [RE2]: PAC doesn't make the decision, it only
recommends to Council,
Garth Sturtevant
From: Bill Doane
Sent: October 13, 2022 11:15 AM
To: Floyd Shatford
Cc: chaughn@chester.cam; Garth Sturtevant; Planning
Subject: Exit 6 Rezoning Application
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
EXTERNAL EMAIL **
Follow up
Completed
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Hi Floyd,
I was to express some concern over the application to rezone an area at exit 6 for large scale commercial / industrial
development.
As Commodore of Hubbards Sailing Club I interact with many people who make Hubbards their home — both full time
and seasonally. The attraction of Hubbards is a rural lifestyle that is very close to the City. I was also able to talk to the
Athletes who attended the 2022 49er, 49erFX and Nacra 17 world championships. A common sentiment expressed was
how amazing it was to have such a unique rural community preserved so close the city.
A large commercial center is not required for the residents of Hubbards — there is so much available already between
the shops in Chester and Tantallon. I do acknowledge that development is positive and inevitable. I would like to see
this well managed to not alter the lifestyle that we value so highly. Any development should enhance the character and
enjoyment of the community.
I trust the Council — there is a proven history of development in Chester without losing the unique aspects of life on the
South Shore of Nova Scotia.
Thanks for your time and consideration!
Bill
Bill Doane
Co-founder
Aptitude Digital
Garth Sturtevant
From: Floyd Shatford
Sent: October 13, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Subject: Fwd: Exit 6 rezoning - Concerned Year Round Resident
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
FYI
Floyd Shatford
FLOYD SHATFORD
district #2
ffice: 902-057-9817
CeUk 902-275-786
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stephen Anderson
Date: October 13, 2022 at 3:24:40 PM ADT
To: Floyd Shatford <fshatford@chester.ca>
Subject: Exit 6 rezoning - Concerned Year Round Resident
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **'
Please do not open attachments or click (inks from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Hi Floyd,
I am writing to you concerning the rezoning at Exit 6. I am a year-round resident who just invested
quite a bit of money to build a brand-new home in Hubbards on Wolf Drive.
My background and expertise is in this direct field that we are all talking about and I've dealt with these
situations before. To rezone and have this whole area as a mixed -use area gives complete and total
control to the developer to construct anything from an RV lot to a truck stop to an abattoir (likely not
going to happen, but as he stated, demand/interest and the money to pay for it will dictate will be what
gets built).
To leave the frontage as SR -2 will hopefully allow the preservation of more wooded area and will slightly
align with your Policy V-11 shown below. What is being proposed in no way follows anything remotely
related a through e.
I urge you to vote against the rezoning to preserve some character of the land to only allow smaller
buildings in this front highway facing area. You were elected to represent us; us being everyone in your
district. The developer can still have everything he wants on the already designated MU area which
appeases the "non lake community" supporters and he can still build multiple shops in the SR2 zoning
which appeases us "lake community" non supporters as you referred to us as from the YouTube link I
watched today.
It is very easy to see dollar signs when this isn't your back yard and those concerned see something
exactly what we were told it was not going to be which is Tantallon.
My phone number is in my email signature below and I'd gladly accept a phone call to further discuss.
Thank you for your time.
Policy V-11
Land use policies anct regulations shall
reflect each area's:
a) rural or village context;
b) existing land uses;
c) community character;
d) desire for regulation;
e) vision.
Q. Will there be standards for what is going into the development?
A, (DEVELOPER) - The objective layout will be landscaping, trees and architecture.
By the looks of things, 1 see a flattened area of pavement with several maple trees.
Stephen Anderson BBA, CET
Construction Manager
Dynamic Project Management
2
CONFIDENTIALITY IALITY NOTICE: The contents, of this en, re ge and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees) and may contain conftdeotial and/or privileged
information find may be legally protected from discloser. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or
storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited,
3
Garth Sturtevant
From: Reese Parke
Sent: October 25, 2022 9:49 PM
To: Floyd Shatford
Cc: Andre Veinotte; Derek Wells; Allen Webber; Abdella Assaff; Tina Connors; Sharon
Church; Council; chaughn@chester.cam; Garth Sturtevant; Planning
Subject: Proposed rezoning at exit 6 Highway 103
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Good evening Floyd,
I would like to highlight a few points regarding the subject rezoning proposal.
Most importantly, although I am not strictly against such developments I do think that the old adage of " a place for
everything and everything in it's place" should be given the utmost consideration. In this case the eastern boundary of
the lot in question is actually the shoreline of Sawler Lake which is downhill from and provides the natural drainage for
the property. This lake feeds the Fitzroy River directly to Hubbards Cove. This alone should be enough to disqualify large
scale commercial development there. I would suggest , since this type of development is likely destined for the area ,
that west of the Mill Lake Rd would be a much better " place".
Also as I'm sure you are aware, only recently council decided as part of its new municipal plan, to zone this area SR -2
which already allows for some small-scale commercial uses, while supporting and encouraging residential development.
I don't believe the community concerns that drove that decision have changed.
Please endeavour to proactively develop a plan to attract the kinds of retail businesses , big or small, that residents
want and need to suitable areas already zoned , or suitable for rezoning, for commercial use in Hubbards.
Thank you for your consideration and service to the community.
Best regards,
Reese
Garth Sturtevant
From: Pam Myra (she/her)
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 8:39 AM
To: Garth Sturtevant
Subject: FW: Hubbards development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
PAM MYRA
nice al
Office 9 7.75.419
Ceti: 9 7 2,7.7-'1872
ector of to an esources
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
From: Andre Veinotte <aveinotte@chester.ca>
Sent: October 31, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Pam Myra (she/her) <pmyra@chester.ca>
Subject: FW: Hubbards development
ANDRE VEINOTTE
istrict #'1
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
From: Philip Publicover
Sent: October 30, 2022 3:30 PM
To: Andre Veinotte <aveinotte@chester.ca>
Subject: Hubbards development
** EXTERNAL EMAIL **'
Please do not open attachments or click links from
Good afternoon Andre
an
unknown or suspicious origin.
I have been made aware of the potential development in Hubbards of a major commercial retailer. In my conversation I
was told that there is the typical NIMBY group who are prepared to oppose any changes to the municipality.
I would like to offer my support to the development, I was told its an Irving Big Stop. Although I currently reside in
Blandford and I am no longer a member of the Hubbards fire department I strongly believe that the community of
Hubbards needs this and additional development to create local jobs inorder to provide a functional opportunity for
citizens to live and work in the community. This provides more chances that citizens will stwp forward to support the
volunteer needs of thw community with participation in service groups and the fire department.
Eighteen years ago I had the pleasure of serving on a municipal strategic planning committee that in the end was buryed
by council never to be heard from again. Each participant was asked to offer ideas to benefit the municipality. One of
the many ideas that I submitted, thoroughly rejected by many, was the idea of a Big Stop within the MODC. My
suggestion was for it to be sited at exit 7, so I only missed the location by 10 km and almost two decades.
With the continued expansion of the divided 103 development is to natually follow. Hubbards is the midway point
between Halifax and Bridgewater and being across the county line affords lower taxes. Its only natural to see the exit 6
area explode in the coming decades as the population grows in line with the Provincial governments intent to have a
doubling of the current 1 million Nova Scotians by 2060.
Hubbards natural beauty and natural amenities have long drawn travellers and vacationers to the community. Over the
last 30 years the community has been in decline due to out migration in search of jobs and the closure of the former CFB
Mill Cove and the downturn in the fishery.
Lets hope that Hubbards becomes the hot spot for growth and development in a planned way as time goes by.
Thank you for accepting this email in support of any proposed development in the Hubbards area and the MODC in
general.
Regards
Philip Publicover
2