Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-11-10_Council_Website Agenda Package.pdf Page 1 of 3 of Agenda Cover Page(s) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday, November 10, 2022 Livestreamed via YouTube at www.youtube.com/modcvideo Office Location: 151 King Street, Chester, NS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (15 minutes – 8:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Council – October 27, 2022. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 6.1 Hubbards Streetscape Project – Paul Dec of UPLAND Planning + Design (appointment at 9:15 a.m.). 7. BY-LAWS/POLICIES 7.1 Second/Final Notice to Repeal and Replace Regional Emergency Management By-Law No. 146. a. New Regional Emergency Management By-Law to adopt. b. Current Regional Emergency Management By-Law to be repealed. 8. MATTERS ARISING 8.1 Municipal Government Act – Consultation Survey – Draft Responses. 8.2 Information Report – Financial & Information Services – Budget Process. 8.3 Request for Direction prepared September 14, 2022 – Infrastructure & Operations – Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at Kaizer Meadow (Phase 2) – Design Work. Page 2 of 3 9. CORRESPONDENCE 9.1 Correspondence received after October 27, 2022 Meeting regarding M Keddy Farm and Forest Limited Request: a. Tara Aalders. b. Gordon and June Keddy. c. Dave Swinimer. d. Bernadette and Clarence Pudsey and Vernita Hiltz. e. Bruce Carter. f. Nick Moore (October 27, 2022). g. Nick Moore (October 31, 2022). h. Ian Dunbar (November 3, 2022). 10. NEW BUSINESS 10.1 Award Announcement – Atlantic Planners Institute – Rural/Small Town Planning – Lakeside Zone. 10.2 Request for Decision prepared October 26, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management – Narcan Kits for Fire Services. 10.3 Road Names: a. Violet View Lane, Western Shore. b. Cliff Top Lane, Deep Cove. c. Dogwood Lane, Martins Point. d. Undetermined Road Name in Seffernville. 10.4 Request for Decision prepared November 1, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Grants Review. a. Council Grant - Lunenburg County Lifestyle - $5,000. b. Council Grant – Heritage Handwork - $700. c. Tourism Grant – Chester Merchants - $5,000. d. District 1 Council Grant – East River Village Hall - $2,000. e. District 1 Council Grant – Parish of Blandford - $200. 10.5 Request for Direction prepared October 26, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management – BDO Zone Initiative (Investment Attraction). 11. IN CAMERA 11.1 Section 22(2)(g) of the Municipal Government Act – legal advice eligible for solicitor-client privilege – M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited. 11.2 Section 22(2)(a) of the Municipal Government Act – acquisition, sale, lease, and security of municipal property. Page 3 of 3 12. ADJOURNMENT APPOINTMENT 9:15 a.m. Hubbards Streetscape Project – Paul Dec (UPLAND Planning + Design), and Matt Morash and Melanie McIvor, Co-Chairs (Zoom) 436 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COUNCIL MEETING Livestreamed via YouTube www.youtube.com/modcvideo from 151 King Street, Chester, Nova Scotia On Thursday, October 27, 2022 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:47 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor A. Veinotte District 5 – Councillor A. Assaff District 2 – Deputy Warden F. Shatford District 6 – Councillor T. Connors District 4 – Warden A. Webber District 7 – Councillor S. Church (late arrival) Staff: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Jennifer Webber, Communications & Outreach Coordinator Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development & Recreation Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor Public: There were approximately 12 members of the public present. Regrets: Dan McDougall, CAO District 3 – Councillor D. Wells APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS Additions:  Councillor Connors: o South Shore Public Libraries - Committee Report. o Lunenburg County Seniors’ Safety Partnership – Committee Report. o District Council Grant – Request for change of use of funds – New Business. Council (continued) October 27, 2022 437  Councillor Assaff: o Equity Diversity & Inclusion – Committee Report. o Out and About – New Business. 2022-427 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the agenda and order of business for the October 27, 2022, Council meeting be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC INPUT Present was Carol Nauss of the Chester Municipal Heritage Society who provided an update on activities of the Society with regard to the train caboose purchased, development of the train station into a railway museum, obtaining ownership of the land, installing electricity in the freight shed, building a viewing platform, installing seating for heritage talks and events, adding an accessible ramp, installing a handicapped port-a-potty, as well as the events held this year and upcoming events. Of note is that the Blandford material has been scanned and put away. The gazebo repair is finished, and they are waiting for a plaque. They have held a number of fundraisers and are planning things for next year as well. They continue to apply for grant funding. Warden Webber thanked Ms. Nauss for her report. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 4.1 Council – October 13, 2022. 2022-428 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the minutes of the October 13, 2022 Council Meeting be approved. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Committee of the Whole – October 20, 2022 – Warden Webber. 2022-429 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the recommendations from the October 20, 2022 Committee of the Whole meeting be approved as follows: Council (continued) October 27, 2022 438 2022-419 – “… approve an addition to the current 2022/23 budget of $18,000 + HST for the purchase of the ESRI Workforce Starter Solution (WSS) add-on app, an unbudgeted expenditure to be funded via the General Reserve.” 2022-420 – “… reduce the lighting at the Gazebo (Parade Square) by having lights turn off at 8:00 p.m. (unless there is a need to have lighting for an event), remove the setting to come on in the morning, and look for opportunities to update the lighting system when it applies.” 2022-421 – “… award the following contracts for snow and ice control for three- year terms: MODC-T-2022-004: Winter Sidewalk Maintenance: Western Shore: $48,028.96 + HST William Gerhardt Property Improvement. Chester Basin: $42,460.39 + HST William Gerhardt Property Improvement. New Ross: $52,021.00 + HST Danny Hiltz Excavating. Chester: $121,464.56 + HST William Gerhardt Property Improvement. Hubbards: $34,803.60 + HST William Gerhardt Property Improvement. MODC-T-2022-005: Winter Road Maintenance Aspotogan and East River Point Area: $52,050.00 + HST - George Zinck Excavation & Trucking. MODC-T-2022-006: Winter Road Maintenance Mill Cove: $42,600.00 + HST - BA Saulnier Cabinet Making. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 5.2 Recreation & Parks Committee – October 17, 2022 – Councillor Veinotte. 2022-430 MOVED by Councillor Veinotte, SECONDED by Councillor Connors the recommendations from the October 17, 2022 Recreation & Parks Committee meeting be approved as follows: 2022-415 – “… approve $20,000 in Recreation Grants to the applications as per the Committee’s following recommendations: ORGANIZATION Request Recommended to Council Council (continued) October 27, 2022 439 Aspotogan Fitness Club 1,150.00 1,000.00 Aspotogan Recreation Assoc. 3,500.00 2,000.00 Charing Cross Garden Club 700.00 500.00 Chester Castaways Jr C Hockey 3,000.00 2,500.00 Chester Curling Club 2,000.00 1,500.00 Chester Duplicate Bridge Club 1,000.00 500.00 Chester Garden Club 2,000.00 500.00 Chester Minor Basketball 1,120.00 1,000.00 Friends of Chester Competitive Dancers 2,500.00 1,500.00 New Ross Trail Society 4,000.00 2,500.00 New Ross Wrist Rollers 3,786.00 2,000.00 Ocean Swells Community Association 4,800.00 1,000.00 Shoreham Village Senior Citizens 1,450.00 1,200.00 South Shore Pipes & Drum Assoc. 5,416.00 2,300.00 TOTAL $ 36,422.00 $ 20,000.00 ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 5.3 South Shore Public Library – Councillor Connors. Councillor Connors reviewed the regular board meeting held last week. She also noted that there was a 50th Anniversary celebration event with remarks from Minister Susan Corkum- Greek and Mayor Risser (Town of Lunenburg). 5.4 Lunenburg County Seniors’ Safety Partnership – Councillor Connors. Councillor Connors reviewed the recent meeting, noting that the new coordinator, Lisa Bennett, started last week. Ms. Bennett has a background in home care, and she previously worked with the former coordinator as well as Community Services and other outreach work. 5.5 Equity Diversity & Inclusion Committee – Councillor Assaff. Councillor Assaff reported on the October 25th meeting held at the Mahone Bay Centre, after which members then watched a film made in NS depicting people from all over the province on how racism has affected them in their life – African Nova Scotians and Indigenous, and Acadians. A discussion followed the film. It was also noted by Councillor Connors that there are discussions underway to have a showing of the film locally. Council (continued) October 27, 2022 440 CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 Correspondence dated October 20, 2022 requesting Council’s approval of a letter of support from the Warden to allow a low-level flyby as low as 500’ over the municipality. 2022-431 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council approve correspondence to be forwarded to 1 Canadian Air Division under the Warden’s signature giving approval to allow a low-level flyby as low as 500’ over the Municipality of the District of Chester communities on Remembrance Day. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. MATTERS ARISING 7.1 Request for Decision prepared August 25, 2022 - Infrastructure & Operations – Village of Chester Wastewater System Renewal and Expansion Project (MODC-T-2022-012). Present was Fred Whynot, Director of Public Works who reviewed the August 25, 2022 Request for Decision for the Village of Chester Wastewater System Renewal and Expansion Project (MODC-T-2022-012). One of the highlights is that the company has worked with the same technology previously. 2022-432 MOVED by Councillor Veinotte, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council accept the staff recommendation and award the design of the upgrade to the Chester Village Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (MODC-T-2022-012) to CBCL Limited for $299,068 which includes the Municipality’s portion of HST. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. 7.2 Agenda Planning Update (November/December). The Deputy CAO reviewed the Agenda Planning document which provides input on the agendas remaining for this quarter and highlighted any items that have changed. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/APPOINTMENTS 6.1 M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited – Private Ways Act Request: a. 9:15 a.m. Ian Dunbar representing M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited. b. 9:30 a.m. Ashley Aalders/Nick Moore, Solicitor. Council (continued) October 27, 2022 441 Present was Michael Keddy and Solicitor Ian Dunbar who reviewed the request of M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited regarding the Private Ways Act. Also present was Ashley Aalders and Solicitor Nick Moore who reviewed their information regarding the request of M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited regarding the Private Ways Act. The request of M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited was to ask Council to act on a section of the Municipal Government Act (Private Ways Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c358) that allows a Municipality to extend the benefit of a road right-of-way over a piece of property owned by Ashley Aalders. Mr. Dunbar, Mr. Keddy, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Aalders all spoke on the matter and answered questions posed by Council. Council asked that a copy of the information read by Mr. Aalders be provided to the Clerk. It was noted that M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited agreed to pay all costs associated if the Municipality was to appoint a commissioner to provide a report on the request. References to Halifax Regional Municipality utilizing the Private Ways Act were provided. The current width and proposed width of the access road was also outlined. Mr. Aalders and Mr. Moore commented that as this is with regard to forestry, the Municipality would not have any jurisdiction (Part 1), however, the request is with regard to Part 2. It was suggested that there is no longer any timber on the lot (photos were shown). Discussion on potential development also took place, however, Councillor Veinotte commented that in order to create lots they would require road frontage on a public road. It was also noted that any significant development would require a 66’ right-of-way. Concern was expressed by Mr. Aalders/Mr. Moore that this would cause issues for Mr. Aalders and his property. It was also noted that there is a case before the courts regarding a trespassing charge by M. Keddy Farm & Forestry Limited. Mr. Aalders commented that he felt this was a way for M. Keddy to gain access to develop the property; they invested in land knowing they did not have access to his property. Council (continued) October 27, 2022 442 Councillors Connors and Assaff commented on the matter and financial burden as well as landlocked properties. Mr. Dunbar commented on provincial and municipal jurisdiction regarding rights-of-way. Deputy Warden Shatford asked if the right-of-way was for the extraction of wood, or the development of cottages and Mr. Dunbar indicated that the right-of-way is for the benefit of those parcels. Warden Webber thanked the presenters for their information. A break was held from 10:09 a.m. to 10:21 a.m. Councillor Church arrived at the meeting at 10:21 a.m. 6.2 Sheena Isenor and Peter Cullen, New Ross Trails Society. Dianne Webber sent her regrets. Ms. Isenor and Mr. Cullen reviewed the history of the Society and brought Council up to date on their successes from a community survey in 2017. Residents want an area to walk, hike, snowshoe, ride their horses, etc. Information was provided on the following:  Statistics of physical activity.  Health vital statistics.  Benefits of physical activity.  2019 Western Zone Community Health Plan.  Provincial total economic burden.  Municipality of Chester Active Transportation Policy.  Trails.  Vision of the New Ross Trails Society.  Planning and input of the three trail systems in New Ross – Ruby’s Trail, Popner Hill Trail, and Larder’s Lane.  Use of the trails by people throughout the municipality and Nova Scotia.  Opportunities for programs and support for residents.  Partnerships.  MOU template used. Council (continued) October 27, 2022 443 Deputy Warden Shatford acknowledged the work they have done for the community and Councillor Veinotte commented that this Council believes trails are the most successful recreational asset. There has been a lot of discussion about finding ways to invest in trails, however, Council hasn’t figured out exactly the way. Council acknowledged and commended the work the Society has done to date. 6.3 Bertha Hatchard – Community Trails. Ms. Hatchard indicated that she has been to Council before for various things, including trails. Her family uses the trail. In August She had been told that a new grant for community trails had been established and was happy to hear that. However, she was then told that the trails grant had been changed - this was upsetting. She feels that the grant is needed for people of all ages to continue using the trail system. Ms. Hatchard asked Council to remember short- and long-term benefits for children and older people using the trails. Councillor Connors noted her disappointment that the discussion that at the second meeting to review the grant process there was a change to include trails in the overall grants program and asked why the $20,000 allocated for recreation grants would not also be lumped in the overall grants program. It was noted that the grants process is not yet finished, and Councillor Veinotte commented that there hasn’t been a good discussion on the levels of funding relative to criteria that the applicant would have to satisfy. He felt the biggest issue is a lack of clearly defined criteria that those who create trails would have to follow. Councillor Veinotte noted that the requested amounts have increased substantially, and Council is trying to balance the protection of public funds against criteria. Council has not yet finished the discussion. He noted that he also has an interest in developing trails in his district as well with the Aspotogan having a spur off main trail makes sense. People in his district want that, but Council doesn’t have a definition of what is needed for substantive investment. Ms. Isenor noted that she hoped to come back for the discussion and Warden Webber commented that Council is still reviewing the grant program and may, at some point, want public input. Council (continued) October 27, 2022 444 The presenters left the room. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Quarter 2 Update – Infrastructure & Operations Department. Present was Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations, to give an update on progress made since last quarterly report, reviewing the information included in the report provided in the agenda package, commenting on:  Roles and Responsibilities.  Solid Waste statistics and projects.  Public Works statistics and projects.  Completed projects.  Active Projects. 9.2 Thank you to Mike and Heather Brooker – Councillor Assaff. Councillor Assaff sent out a “thank you” to Mike and Heather Brooker who have donated three flagpoles to the Together We Can Community Park, Gold River. They will be flying the Canadian, Nova Scotian, and Every Child Matters flags. 9.3 Council 6 District Grant – Councillor Connors. Councillor Connors indicated that she received a request from the New Ross Preschool to have Council consider the use of a $1,000 grant previously received. Originally, they had a request for a storage shed and muddy buddies. They have decided to delay the building of the shed due to labour and weather. Currently they are in greater need of a freezer to purchase and store food. If there are any funds remaining, they would purchase the muddy buddies. 2022-433 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that Council agree that the New Ross Preschool Council District Grant in the amount of $1,000 previously approved for a shed and “muddy buddies” be changed in order to purchase a freezer for the storage of food and if there are funds left over, they will purchase “muddy buddies” for the children. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Break at 11:20 a.m. 11:30 a.m. Council (continued) October 27, 2022 445 IN CAMERA 10.1 Section 22(2)(g) of the Municipal Government Act – legal advice eligible for solicitor- client privilege. 10.2 Section 22(2)(a) of the Municipal Government Act – Acquisition, sale, lease and security of municipal property – Aspotogan. 2022-434 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the meeting convene “In Camera” as per the Municipal Government Act as follows:  Section 22(2)(g) of the Municipal Government Act – legal advice eligible for solicitor-client privilege.  Section 22(2)(a) of the Municipal Government Act – Acquisition, sale, lease and security of municipal property – Aspotogan. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT 2022-435 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church the meeting adjourn. (12:00 Noon) ___________________________ ___________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk NOTE: The recorded version of this meeting is available at www.youtube.com/modcvideo. Pam Myra (she/her) From:paul@uplandstudio.ca Sent:November 3, 2022 11:55 AM To:Pam Myra (she/her) Cc:'Matthew Morash'; 'Melanie McIvor' Subject:RE: Hubbards Streetscape Project - Presentation to Council Attachments:HSP Chester Council_compressed.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Good morning Pam, Please see our presentation for the agenda attached. If you wish, you could also add the full Hubbards Community Plan document as an Appendix to the Agenda. However, it is very comprehensive so perhaps you just want to provide Council with this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uitZmnx-V-sghadHVjhslNsOXhZJ9CV_/view?usp=sharing HSP Co-Chairs Matt Morash and Melanie McIvor will be presenting some parts of the presentation. Could please arrange for a virtual call-in for them? Their e-mail addresses are mrmorash@gnspes.ca and melanieamcivor@gmail.com . Thank you and see you next week! Paul Paul Dec (he/him), Planner MCIP LPP UPLAND | Planning + Design Office: 1 902 423 0649 www.uplandstudio.ca PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project Area Origins of Hubbards Community Plan History Methods Outcomes Big Picture Active Transportation Community Planning HUBBARDS POPULATION (2021) 1,187 HUBBARDS COMMUNITY PLAN HSP Committee in partnership with: Aspotgan Heritage Trust Planning Consultant UPLAND r OMMUNITY PLAN HUBBARDS COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS PROJECT HISTORY Aspotogan Heritage Trust (1994) +CFB Mill Cove closes in 1994 +Aspotgan Heritage Trust founded with fund of S 2 million Creating A Stronger Tomorrow (2010) Hubbards Streetscape Project (2019) CAST ( DART , i HSP Developing Aspotogan Region Together (2012) +CAST project results: + Inclusion, Respect and Support + Family Orientation + Environmental Sustainability + Tradition/Heritage + Health and Education +DART strategic priorities: + Social capital + Community planning and design + Economic development HUBBARDS STREETSCAPE PROJECT CONSULTATION Canvassing: 05: Thematic Analysis Groot No '&..,l,..eS DeVei, , ,,lt OM MN INN 11.11111111111111111.1.1111111111.111 Stft'Y 1.1110111111111111 11 50 Fear irtt s About ;;rciw h itOtOu°: a CONSULTATION FOR HUBBARDS COMMUNITY PLAN PROJECT • May - July 2021 • Aug - Nov 2021 • Dec 2021 Feb 2022 • March - June 2022 FORMATIVE WORK ON COORDINATION ENGAGE- ENGAGMENT DRAFT PLAN MEN ON DRAT- I PLAN FINAL PLAN ENGAGEMENT METHODS + Launch Week + Social Pinpoint + Online Group Discussions + Stakeholder Interviews and Workshop + Inclusion Interviews + Youth Focus Group + Collaboration Committee SUMMARY OF ENGAGEMENT THEMES Road Safety Public Placemaking + St. Margaret's Bay Road + New crosswalks + Intersection sightlines / visibility + Shore Club Road + Fox Point Front Road + Route 329 + Placemaking (e.g. post office, Pharmasave) Trail Connections Character of Development Suppor , for small businesses Control of highway -style, development Trail interdonnectivity + Integrate Rum Runners Trail into community + Hubbards Rec Centre + Queensland Beach + Housing needs COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VISION NECESSARY CONNECTIONS SIX BIG MOVES + Hubbards Loop + Cove Connections + Sidewalk Extensions + Central Placemaking + Interim Measures + Development Policies PHASES AND TIMING DESIGN PRINCIPLES Emsting i'on d'tions (l -gage adapted /turn NACI n ! II ban Street Desgn Guide) Priderrnd AI':'rearh I tmnpe adlpi eat Ida CTO Urr;n Sae TRAIL HEAD TO GAS STATION FOX POINT FRONT ROAD TO POST OFFICE SAILING CLUB FEASIBILITY STUDY OF OPTIONS TO RECONFIGURE FOX POINT FRONT ROAD IN PROGRESS AND MANAGED BY MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VISION COMMUNITY CENTRE RURAL MAIN STREET TRAILFRONT RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OUR CALL FOR ACTION + What can the municipality do to endorse the community's vision and plan? + Can the municipality create an internal action plan with timelines and responsibilities? + Is it possible to build infrastructure on the Chester side in the near future? + Is it possible to coordinate boundary -crossing activities with HRM? UPLAND T AN < YOI. Planning + Design Studio FIRST NOTICE TO REPEAL CURRENT BY-LAW 146 AND REPLACE WITH A NEW BY-LAW WITH THE FOLLOWING INCLUDED:  ADDING THE TOWN OF LUNENBURG AS A PARTICIPATING MUNICIPAL UNIT WHERE REQUIRED;  2.1 a. CORRECTION TO THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACT (REMOVING R FROM R.S.N.S.);  2.1 c. CHANGE THE DATE TO THE INTERMUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT DATE;  2.1 d and e. CHANGE TO MINISTER AND DEPUTY MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT;  3.1 b. – ADD “STATE OF EMERGENCY” TO CLAUSE;  3.2 c. ADD “(NS EMO)” TO CLAUSE;  3.3 b. ADD “NOVA SCOTIA” AND “NS” TO CLAUSE; and  5 – “PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED VERSIONS OF BY-LAW 146 ARE HEREBY REPEALED UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS REGIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BY-LAW. Municipality of the District of Chester Regional Emergency Management By-Law By-Law No. 146 Replaced – Regional Emergency Management By-Law (continued) Page 2 of 4 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First Reading of Council – September 29, 2022 (2022-382) Second Reading of Council – November 10, 2022 Approval of Ministers – Effective Date – MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER BY-LAW 146 REGIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BY-LAW SECTION 1: GENERAL 1.1 This By-Law may be cited as the “Regional Emergency Management By-Law” to render mutual aid and joint provisions of services and facilities to provide for a prompt, effective and coordinated response to an emergency within the territories of the participating municipalities of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg; the Municipality of the District of Chester; the Town of Bridgewater; the Town of Mahone Bay, and the Town of Lunenburg. SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS 2.1 In this By-Law: a) “Act” means the Emergency Management Act, S.N.S., 1990, as amended from time to time; b) “State of Emergency Regulations” means regulations approved by the Governor in Council by Order in Council 92-61, Regulation 17/92, as amended from time to time; c) “Agreement” means the Inter-Municipal Emergency Services Agreement, dated January 18, 2017, among the participating Municipalities and as amended from time to time; d) “Minister” means the Minister responsible for Emergency Management of the Province of Nova Scotia; e) “Deputy Minister” means the Deputy Minister responsible for Emergency Management of the Province Nova Scotia; f) “Councils” means the Councils of the participating Municipalities (Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, the Municipality of the District of Chester, the Town of Bridgewater, the Town of Mahone Bay, and the Town of Lunenburg); g) “Region” means all territories within the participating Municipalities; h) “State of Local Emergency” means a state of a local emergency declared, renewed, or terminated by the Council, Mayor, or Warden of a participating Municipality; i) “Regional Emergency Operations Centre (REOC)” means the Regional Emergency Management Organization (REMO) operation centre as established, equipped, and serviced per the Agreement. Regional Emergency Management By-Law (continued) Page 3 of 4 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First Reading of Council – September 29, 2022 (2022-382) Second Reading of Council – November 10, 2022 Approval of Ministers – Effective Date – SECTION 3: RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 3.1 The Councils, in accordance with the Agreement: a) shall appoint and maintain a Regional Emergency Management Organization (REMO) responsible for the planning and the coordination of emergency services delivery and consist of: i. a Regional Emergency Management Advisory Committee (REMAC); ii. a Regional Emergency Management Planning Committee (REMPC); iii. a Regional Emergency Management Coordinator (REMC); and iv. for each participating Municipality, an Assistant Emergency Coordinator (AEC); b) declare, renew, or terminate a State of Local Emergency, as outlined in the State of Emergency Regulations as may be required and if unavailable in a timely manner, permit the Mayor or Warden of the affected participating Municipality(s) to make such declarations; c) shall cause the Emergency Management Plan or any part thereof to be implemented and may do everything necessary for the protection of property and the health and safety of persons pursuant to Section 14 of the Act; d) may appropriate and expend monies to pay reasonable expenses of members of REMO and to fulfill the terms and conditions of any agreement approved by the Councils; 3.2 REMAC, in accordance with the Agreement: a) is responsible during a State of Local Emergency for the executive direction and management of emergency plans and activities within the Region and for advice to Councils pursuant to the Act; b) recommends to Councils, Mayor or Warden, the declaration, renewal, or termination of a State of Local Emergency as outlined in the State of Emergency Regulations; c) shall deliver a copy of the signed Declaration, Renewal, or Termination of a State of Local Emergency to the Nova Scotia Emergency Management Office (NS EMO) and the Minister and ensure that such Declarations are communicated effectively to the people of the area(s) affected; d) with the approval of Councils, may enter into agreements with the Government of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, a municipality, city or town, or any other agency or any person; 3.3 REMC, as appointed by the REMAC, in accordance with the Agreement: a) shall chair the REMPC and coordinate, prepare, and maintain emergency plans; Regional Emergency Management By-Law (continued) Page 4 of 4 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First Reading of Council – September 29, 2022 (2022-382) Second Reading of Council – November 10, 2022 Approval of Ministers – Effective Date – b) shall, pursuant to Section 10A of the Act, inform the Nova Scotia Emergency Management Office of any real or anticipated event or emergency and upon activation of an REOC or the Declaration of State or Local Emergency, prescribe, as necessary, duties to be fulfilled by employees, servants, and agents of the municipality and coordinate the REOC activities with NS EMO; 3.4 REMPC in accordance with the Agreement: a) shall include, but not be limited to, persons responsible during an emergency to provide health, law enforcement, fire, utilities, communications, transportation, public works, financial, legal, or other essential community services; b) shall provide recommendations to REMC for the purpose of the development of regional emergency management plans, policy and procedures for the Region, and provide briefings as requested by Council. SECTION 4: RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHERS IN A STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY Following the Declaration of a State of Local Emergency and for the duration of such, every Councillor, employee, and agent of the participating Municipality who has a key role in the execution of the emergency management plans, shall fulfill such duties as may be required according to the emergency plans. SECTION 5: Previously adopted versions of By-Law 146 are hereby “repealed” upon the effective date of the adoption of this “Regional Emergency Management” By-Law. Municipality of the District of Chester Regional Emergency Management By -Law By -Law No. 146 Effective April 9, 2014 Regional Emergency Management By -Law #146 (continued) Page 2 of 6 SECTION 1: GENERAL 1. This By -Law may be cited as the "Regional Emergency Management By -Law" to render mutual aid and joint provisions of services and facilities to provide for a prompt, effective and coordinated response to an emergency within the territories of the participating Municipalities of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, the Municipality of the District of Chester, the Town of Bridgewater and the Town of Mahone Bay. SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS 1. In this By -Law, a. "Act" means the Emergency Management Act, R.S.N.S. 1990, as amended from time to time; b. "State of Emergency Regulations" means regulations approved by the Governor in Council by Order in Council 92-61, Regulation 17/92, as amended from time to time; c. "Agreement" means the Inter -Municipal Emergency Services Agreement, dated April 15, 2011, among the participating Municipalities and as amended from time to time; d. "Minister" means the Minister of Justice of the Province of Nova Scotia; e. "Deputy Minister" means the Deputy Minister of Justice of Nova Scotia; f. "Councils" means the Councils of the participating Municipalities (Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, the Municipality of the District of Chester, the Town of Bridgewater and the Town of Mahone Bay); g. "Region" means all territories within the participating Municipalities; h. "State of Local Emergency" means a state of local emergency declared (renewed or terminated) by the Council, Mayor or Warden of a participating Municipality; "Regional Emergency Operations Center" (REOC) means the REMO operations centers as established, equipped and serviced per the Agreement; SECTION 3: RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 1) The Councils, in accordance with the Agreement; Notice of Intention to Adopt - Committee of the Whole - May 2, 2013 (2013-234) First Reading of Council - Council - May 23, 2013 (2013-250) Second Reading of Council - June 13, 2013 (2013-274) Approval of Ministers - Department of Justice November 21/22, 2013 and Service NS & Municipal Relations December 24, 2013. Effective Date - April 9, 2014 Regional Emergency Management By -Law #146 (continued) Page 3 of 6 a) shall appoint and maintain a Regional Emergency Management Organization (REMO) responsible for the planning and the coordination of emergency services delivery and consisting of a Regional Emergency Management Advisory Committee (REMAC), a Regional Emergency Management Planning Committee (REMPC), a Regional Emergency Management Coordinator (REMC) and for each participating Municipality, an Assistant Emergency Coordinator (AEC); b) declare, renew or terminate a State of Local Emergency, as outlined in the Regulations as may be required and if unavailable in a timely manner, permit the Mayor/Warden of the affected participating Municipality(s) to make such declarations; c) shall cause the Emergency Management Plan or any part thereof to be implemented and may do everything necessary for the protection of property and the health or safety of persons pursuant to Section 14 of the Act; d) may appropriate and expend monies to pay reasonable expenses of members of the REMO and to fulfill the terms and conditions of any agreement approved by the Councils; 2) The REMAC, in accordance with the Agreement; a) is responsible during a State of Local Emergency for the executive direction and management of emergency plans and activities within the Region and for advice to Councils pursuant to the Act; b) recommends to Councils, Mayor or Warden, the Declaration (Renewal and Termination) of a State of Local Emergency, as outlined in the State of Emergency Regulations; c) shall deliver a copy of any signed Declaration (Renewal and Termination) of a State of Local Emergency to the Emergency Management Office of Nova Scotia and the Minister and ensure that such Declarations are communicated effectively to the people of the area(s) affected; e. with the approval of Councils may enter into agreements with the Government of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, a municipality, city or town, or any other agency or any person; 3) The REMC, as appointed by the REMAC, in accordance with the Agreement; a) shall chair the REMPC and co-ordinate, prepare and maintain emergency management plans; b) shall, pursuant to Section 10 A of the Act, inform the Emergency Management Office (EMO) of any real or anticipated event or emergency and upon activation of a REOC or the Declaration of State of Local Emergency, prescribe, as necessary, duties to be fulfilled by employees, servants and agents of the municipality and co-ordinate REOC activities with the EMO; 4) The REMPC in accordance with the Agreement; Notice of Intention to Adopt - Committee of the Whole - May 2, 2013 (2013-234) First Reading of Council - Council - May 23, 2013 (2013-250) Second Reading of Council - June 13, 2013 (2013-274) Approval of Ministers - Department of Justice November 21/22, 2013 and Service NS & Municipal Relations December 24, 2013. Effective Date - April 9, 2014 Regional Emergency Management By -Law #146 (continued) Page 4 of 6 a) shall include, but not be limited to, persons responsible during an emergency to provide health, law enforcement, fire, utilities, communications, transportation, public works, financial, legal or other essential community services; b) shall provide recommendations to the REMC for the purpose of the development of regional emergency management plans, policy and procedures for the Region and provide briefings as requested by Council; SECTION 4: RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHERS IN A STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY Following the Declaration of a State of Local Emergency and for the duration of such, every councillor, employee and agent of the participating Municipality who has a key role in the execution of the emergency management plans shall fulfil such duties as may be required according to the emergency plans. SECTION 5 The existing Emergency Measures By -Law #70 of the Municipality of the District of Chester (2005) is hereby repealed upon the coming into effect of this By -Law. Notice of Intention to Adopt - Committee of the Whole - May 2, 2013 (2013-234) First Reading of Council - Council - May 23, 2013 (2013-250) Second Reading of Council - June 13, 2013 (2013-274) Approval of Ministers - Department of Justice November 21/22, 2013 and Service NS & Municipal Relations December 24, 2013. Effective Date - April 9, 2014 Regional Emergency Management By -Law #146 (continued) Page 5 of 6 Annotation for Official By -Law Book Date of First Reading May 23, 2013 Date of advertisement of Notice of Intent to Consider May 29, 2013 Date of Second Reading June 13, 2013 Date of Approval by the Minister of Service Nova Scotia & Municipal Relations December 24, 2013 Date of Approval by the Deputy Minister of Environment November 21, 2013 Date of Approval by the Minister of Environment November 22, 2013 Effective Date April 9, 2014 Date of mailing to Minister a certified copy of By -Law April 13, 2014 I certify that this By -Law was adopted by Council and published as indicated above )1,1;c,, L \___ April 13, 2014 P. M. Myra, Munigf,al Clerk Date Notice of Intention to Adopt - Committee of the Whole - May 2, 2013 (2013-234) First Reading of Council - Council - May 23, 2013 (2013-250) Second Reading of Council - June 13, 2013 (2013-274) Approval of Ministers - Department of Justice November 21/22, 2013 and Service NS & Municipal Relations December 24, 2013. Effective Date - April 9, 2014 Regional Emergency Management By -Law #146 (continued) Page 6 of 6 MUNICIPALITY OF THE UISTR CT OF CHESTER NOTICE REGARIMNG RI -LAW ADOPTION/AMENDMENTS OF 13Y -LAWS ADOPTION - Take Notice that Chester Municipaal Council conducted the Final Reading for consideration of the adoption of a 11egion al Emergency Management By -Law #146 on June 13, 20'13 and approval was re eived from The Minister of Emergency Management and the Minister ol Service Nova Scotia & Municipal Relations on November 22 and December 24, 2013, By -Law "ge n cy t By -Law Adopted Municipalities cur - Emergency Man- ' includes repealing -gency Measures ''.NDMENT - Also Take Notice that Chester Municipal Council gave First (lead .f an amendment Civic Addressing By -Law on March 13, 207.4 as follows: By-Law I'r d Amendments to By -Law Civic Addressin #139 The ho the refer Users Guide,' keeping amendment is to upgrade :o "Nova Scotia Civic Address And FurtherTake Notice that the Civic Addressing By -Law #139 will proceed to Second and Final Reading tat the Council Meeting to be held on Thursday, April 24, 20:14 at 9:00 a.m., in tare Council Chambers at 151 King Street, Chester. Take notice that copies of By -Laws may be reviewed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p,m. at the Administration Office of the Municipality of the District of Chester, 151 King Street, Chester or on the website at w Icluutecsa or by contacting the undersigned at (902) 275-3554 or p.tuy[a.Cat It tLT 1. Pamela Municipa pnnyra@cl Chester, NS April 3, 2014 yra erk et I, Pamela M. Myra, Municipal Clerk of the Municipality of the District of Chester do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an advertisement duly advertised in the Progress Bulletin on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. Given under the hand of the Municipal Clerk and under the corporate seal of the said Municipality this 13th day of April, 2014. Pamela M. Myra Municipal Clerk Notice of Intention to Adopt - Committee of the Whole - May 2, 2013 (2013-234) First Reading of Council - Council - May 23, 2013 (2013-250) Second Reading of Council - June 13, 2013 (2013-274) Approval of Ministers - Department of Justice November 21/22, 2013 and Service NS & Municipal Relations December 24, 2013. Effective Date - April 9, 2014 MGA Review: Consultation Survey Preamble to Survey: The Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing is undertaking a review of the Municipal Government Act (MGA). These proposed topics are based on feedback from various sources, including NSFM and AMA, during previous MGA Review (2016-18), as well as municipal and internal departmental requests. We would like to gather your municipality's feedback on these questions relating to the various items through this survey. Your responses will be used by the Department to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed changes, implications, and details of implementation before any changes are advanced. We ask that you respond to the survey on behalf of your municipality or organization. If you do not finish the survey in its entirety before submitting, you will be able to go back in and resume your response later, if on the same device. The survey will be open until October 31st, 2022. If you have questions about the survey, please email us at DMAH-Consultation@novascotia.ca. 1. Which municipality or organization are you responding on behalf of? Municipality of Chester Page 2: ELECTRONIC NOTICE Currently in the MGA, municipalities are required to provide public notice for various items in a newspaper circulating in the municipality. To modernize public notice requirements, municipalities have requested the ability to post notices electronically. The contemplated change is to authorize the posting of public notices to a publicly accessible website as an alternative method. This is intended to enable notice to be provided via alternative means other than a newspaper. 2. Does your municipality/organization support a proposed change to allow for the posting of public notices on a publicly accessible website as an alternative to a newspaper? X Yes ❑ No o Why not? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) Posting on a website may be a barrier to some residents without access to the internet or municipal units without a website. 3. Do you anticipate this being a concern for your municipality? X Yes ❑ No 4. When providing public notice through a website, would you also like to see a requirement to physically post the notice in other prominent locations accessible to the public (i.e. public recreational centres, library, city hall, etc.)? X Yes ❑ No It should definitely be encouraged with some discretion allowed. The main concern is that in a rural municipality, the large geographic area may be a challenge but this is something we could develop strategies to overcome. 5. Please indicate, by checking all that apply, if you support the posting of public notice on a website for the following items: ❑ Public Hearing for Sale or Lease of Municipal Property (Section 51) X Yes o No ❑ Special purpose tax accounts (Section 83) X Yes o No ❑ Sale of Distrained Goods (Section 124) X Yes o No ❑ Tax Sale Advertisement (Section 142) X Yes o No ❑ Adoption of By-laws (Section 168) X Yes o No ❑ Requirements for adoption of planning documents (Section 205) X Yes o No ❑ Public hearing for planning documents (Section 206) X Yes o No ❑ Notice of sale land no longer needed for parks, playground, or public purposes (Section 273) X Yes o No ❑ Notice of Public Hearing for Street Closures (Section 315) X Yes o No 6. Are there any items not included in the list that you feel strongly should be included? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) Page 3: NOTICE PERIOD 7. If public notice can be provided on a public website, do you feel the current notice period of 14 days should be changed for any of the following items? Please select whether you feel the 14-day notice period should be less days, more days, or is sufficient as is. ❑ Public Notice for Sale or lease of municipal property o Less than 14 days X Sufficient o More than 14 days ❑ Special purpose tax accounts o Less than 14 days X Sufficient o More than 14 days ❑ Adoption of By-laws o Less than 14 days X Sufficient o More than 14 days ❑ Public hearing for planning documents o Less than 14 days X Sufficient o More than 14 days ❑ Notice of sale land no longer needed for parks, playground, or public purposes o Less than 14 days X Sufficient o More than 14 days 8. Do you have any additional feedback to share relating to public notice periods? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) Page 4: ELECTRONIC DELIVERY AND RECEIPT OF TAX BILLS AND PRELIMINARY NOTICES OF SALE Currently, Section 117(2) and 138 of the MGA requires that municipal tax bills must be served either in person or mailed to the address shown on the assessment roll. If a municipality wishes to sell a piece of land for tax purposes, they are required to send a notice to the property owner by mail advising that the property is in arrears and that tax sale procedures will be commenced, unless the arrears are paid within 14 days. The contemplated change is to amend the MGA to allow municipalities to deliver tax bills and preliminary notices of sale through alternative methods, including through electronic means, if the recipient has consented to that method of service (the recipient will still have the option for in-person or mail delivery). 9. Does your municipality/organization support this proposed change to enable electronic delivery and receipt of tax bills and preliminary notices of sale? X Yes ❑ No o If not, why? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) 10. Do you have any concerns with electronic delivery and receipt for tax bills and preliminary notices of sale? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) Page 5: DIGITAL SUBMISSION OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS Currently in the MGA, Section 208, planning documents* are subject to review by the Director of Planning with the Province of Nova Scotia. Municipalities, through the Clerk, are required to submit four certified copies of the documents to the Director. If not subject to review by the Minister, the documents are approved and two certified copies of the documents are returned to the Municipality. If subject to review by the Minister, the Minister must return two certified copies of the documents either approved, amended, or rejected. *Planning documents are defined by the Act as: a municipal planning strategy (MPS), a land use bylaw (LUB) adopted to carry out an MPS, a subdivision by-law, or amendments to the aforementioned documents. The contemplated change is to modernize the planning document review process by enabling the process to be done digitally (e.g., submitted via email to the department). 11. Does your municipality/organization support a proposed change to allow these documents to be submitted and returned digitally? X Yes ❑ No o If no, why not? 12. Do you have any concerns with digital submission of your planning documents? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) Page 6: TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Currently, the MGA lists what terms must and what may be contained in a development agreement. We have heard from municipalities that there is a desire to expand this list, for example, the ability to specify where parkland can be. 13. Are there additional terms (e.g., matters contained in a subdivision by-law) your municipality feels should be included in the list of content for a development agreement that are not currently captured? X Yes ❑ No Anything that we currently have the ability to regulate, allow that to happen within the DA. 14. Do you have any additional feedback to share on this topic? (TEXT BOX- Allow write in) Page 7: OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS OR CASH IN LIEU NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A DEVELOPMENT Recently, a change was made to the HRM Charter to enable the ability to require off-site improvements or cash-in-lieu contributions through a development agreement where the improvements are necessary to support a development (e.g., requiring existing park upgrades, transportation facilities, undergrounding of power). These are often limited to the site itself which are not always the best or most practical areas for these improvements. 15. Would you be supportive of this proposed change? X Yes ❑ No o If not, why? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in 16. Would your municipality also support the ability to allow a lien to secure these off-site improvements? X Yes ❑ No o Why not? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) 17. Do you have any additional feedback to share on this topic? We would not wan tot have to go to Court to enforce a lien, it should be able to run with the property on the tax bill. Page 8: NON-SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Currently in the MGA, amendments to development agreements are heard and approved by Council. Amendments can be non-substantive or substantive. A development agreement may identify the matters which are not substantive or matters that are substantive. Amendments to a development agreement that are considered non-substantive do not require a public hearing. Changes were made to the HRM Charter to allow a Development Officer to approve non-substantive amendments to a development agreement to expediate the development approval process. The contemplated changes would allow non-substantive amendments to development agreements to be approved or refused by the Development Officer, where the development agreement has already been approved by Council. This would not apply where amendments are a combination of both substantive and non-substantive. 18. Does your municipality/organization support this proposed change to allow a Development Officer to approve or refuse non-substantive agreements to development agreements? ❑ Yes X No o If not, why? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) 19. Do you have any feedback to share on this proposed change? This directly takes decision-making power away from elected officials. If this was implemented, what is the appeal process, to whom is an appeal made and what constitutes a valid appeal? While these issues may still arise under the current procedure, it at least has been done in a public forum with transparency, not by a single staff person. There is also a risk that a decision on a substantive matter would be subject to a FOIPOP which would then add further work and effort for staff. The Council process is not cumbersome, does not add a significant amount of time and better reflects the intent of a DA process. Page 9: PROVISIONAL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS Changes were made to the HRM Charter to allow Council to provisionally approve a development agreement or an amendment to a development agreement during the same public hearing as Council passes supporting amendments to a municipal planning strategy, a land-use by-law and/or municipal planning strategy and the supporting amendment to the land-use by-law to improve efficiency during the development approval process. A similar change to the MGA is being contemplated. This would allow the development agreement to be considered fully approved when the amendment to the MPS or LUB takes effect. The appeal period would not be affected by the change. 20. Does your municipality/organization support this proposed change for provisional approval? X Yes ❑ No o If no, why not? (TEXT BOX) 21. Do you have any feedback to share on this proposed change? This seems like a reasonable change to reduce timelines. We offer as close to this as possible currently by running both files concurrently up to Public Hearing for the amendments, when the DA file must wait for approval. Page 10 – TRANSFER OF LAND OR CASH IN LIEU BASED ON DENSITY Requirements for the transfer of land or equivalent value (e.g., cash-in-lieu) for parks, playgrounds, and similar public purposes are permitted under the legislation as part of a subdivision by-law. The land transferred does not exceed 5% of the area of the lots shown to be approved on the final plan of subdivision or 10% of the area of the lots shown to be approved on the final plan of subdivision if provided in the MPS. We have heard that the legislation is limited to the subdivision process and does not consider the transfer of land or cash in lieu for multi-unit developments. This is understood to mean residential buildings containing multiple dwelling units (e.g., apartment buildings, condominiums). 22. Is your municipality/organization seeing increasing pressure on recreational and open space assets from the addition of multi-unit residential developments? ❑ Yes X No o If yes, please describe. (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) 23. Would your municipality be interested in having the ability to require a parkland dedication contribution (land or cash-in-lieu or a mix of both) as part of the approval process of multi-unit residential developments? X Yes ❑ No 24. Do you have any additional feedback to share with us on this topic? Page 11- SITE PLAN APPROVALS – EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF STRUCTURES Currently, under the MGA, site plan approvals may deal with several external elements of a development; however, it does not directly reference controls on external appearance of structures. This can currently be done for as-of-right development and for development agreements, both through the application of standards set out in the land use by-law. Architectural controls are currently implemented by some municipalities through their LUB. The contemplated change is to include external appearance of structures in the list of topics that a site plan may deal with. 25. Does your municipality/organization support this proposed change to include external appearance of structures in the list of topics that a site plan may deal with? ❑ Yes X No Site Plan should remain about the design of the site where the development is proposed. It should not expand into architectural controls or the building design itself. If Site Plans can do pretty much everything a DA can, what is the purpose? An LUB can already layout architectural controls for certain types of developments, areas without having to have them in a Site Plan Approval. Also, these are appealable by the public and determined by a DO…not an Architect. It will slow the process by driving appeals over a window or siding width. Ultimately, this means a certified architect will have to provide the building plans, which will only drive costs up and slow this process down. The site plan is about the site not the style of the building. Sometimes people will apply for the site plan approval and not the development permit for the building until later. These are not meant to be long contracts like a DA. Why would we retain DAs if we can push everything into SPAs? 26. Does your municipality/organization find the legislation a barrier to implementing external appearance controls on site plans? X Yes ❑ No o If so, please explain (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) 27. Do you have any additional feedback to share on this topic? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) Page 12: SITE PLAN APPROVALS – PERFORMANCE BONDING Currently under the MGA, a development agreement may contain terms related to security or performance bonding. We have heard that municipalities would like to allow for performance or security bonding as part of site plan approval. Performance bonding, for example, may allow a developer to secure an occupancy permit even though landscaping cannot be completed until spring. This commitment is performance bonded. 28. Does your municipality/organization support a proposed change to allow for performance bonding for site plan approvals? X Yes ❑ No o If no, why not? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) 29. Do you have any additional feedback to share on this topic? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) Page 13: SITE PLAN APPROVALS – APPEALS A property owner or applicant may make an appeal to a site-plan approval or refusal. The process and notification procedures and the rights of appeal are the same as those as variance. Council may make any decision that the development officer could have made whether it be to uphold or overturn the decision of the development officer. We have heard that some site plan appeals are delaying the development approval process as there is a lack of clarity in the legislation as to what can be appealed. 30. Is your municipality/organization experiencing issues related to the site plan appeal process? ❑ Yes X No If yes, please describe these issues? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) What can be appealed is quite clear – only the prescribed requirements, not the use, not additional or extra considerations or wants from the public or council. Like a variance, staff makes no decision on the reason someone is appealing – that is Council’s role, to hear the appeal, be advised what criteria they can and can not change the decision of the DO on and vote. 31. Do you feel clarity is needed in what property owners can appeal related to site plans? X Yes ❑ No o If yes, what specifications for the appeal process would be valuable to residents in helping them determine what is and is not grounds for appeal? Adding text to clarify for public and councils that appeals can only be considered or decisions changed if based on the prescribed text of criteria in the LUB and not the use/extra would be helpful. 32. Are there other issues or feedback related to site plans you would like to tell us about? (TEXT BOX - Allow write in) Site Plans are about the site not the building. Caution to be taken in moving into the building side of things. This is what slows down everything as municipalities use them as a faster version of DA. If there is concern about speed, the DA process should be reviewed and streamlined rather than creating another tool that can be used as a way to circumvent a DA process. There needs to be clarity on what the purpose of a Site Plan is vs a DA. Too much is becoming blurred between site plans and DAs. There needs to be a careful balance of Council’s approving authority that of the staff on developments that may be highly controversial. Also, as more work is shifted to DOs, the timelines for review of applications need to be considered as additional authority and responsibility means either more staff is required or additional time is necessary to ensure existing staff are able to keep files in compliance. These changes while possibly speeding things along also remove Council from the equation. Page 14 - INSTRUMENTS OF SUBDIVISION Currently, subdivision by instrument is authorized in the MGA and the Provincial Subdivision Regulations. Subdivision by instrument permits owners to request subdivision approval without the involvement of a surveyor The contemplated change is to repeal instruments of subdivision and no longer allow lots to be subdivided via this tool. 33. Does your municipality/organization support this proposed change related to instruments of subdivision? X Yes ❑ No o If so, why not? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) 34. Do you have any additional feedback to share with us on this topic? Instruments of subdivision have an Given the increased complexity of property law and the land registration system, the instruments of subdivision create an element of liability for the municipality, While they may make a simple subdivision process easier for a property owner, they have little or no protections associated with them. (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) Page 15 - RETROACTIVITY OF DEEMED EASEMENTS PRIOR to 1998 Under Section 280 (2) of the MGA, the owners of lots shown on a plan of subdivision as abutting on a private right of way are deemed to have an easement over the private right of way for vehicular and pedestrian access to the lot and for the installation of electricity, telephone, and other services to the lot. The contemplated change is to amend the MGA by clarifying that deemed easements on a plan of subdivision are retroactive prior to the enforcement of this section. This amendment will benefit those who currently do not have easement access and clear up confusion for deeds that were established before the section was proclaimed (i.e., 1998). 35. Does your municipality/organization support this proposed change relating to deemed easements X Yes ❑ No o If no, why not? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) 36. Do you have any additional feedback to share with us on this topic? Page 16 - SELLING OR LEASING PROPERTY BELOW MARKET VALUE Currently, under Section 51 of the MGA, municipalities may sell property at a price less than market value to a non-profit organization that the Council considers to be carrying out an activity that is beneficial to the municipality. The proposed change is to expand this municipal power to permit municipalities to sell or lease below market value for additional purposes, such as the purpose of increasing affordable housing or the transfer of property between governments for public infrastructure. This may include schools, roads, transportation infrastructure (e.g., bus, train stations), and hospitals. 37. Does your municipality/organization support the selling or leasing of property below market value for the following additional purposes? Check the categories you support. X To increase the availability of affordable housing in the municipality X To a public entity for the purpose of public infrastructure (e.g., schools, roads, hospitals) ❑ None of the above ❑ Other, please specify. (TEXT BOX) 38. Do you have any concerns or feedback on enabling the selling or leasing of property below market value to share with us? (TEXT BOX – Allow to write in) Page 17 – ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK 39. Does your municipality/organization have other issues we should be aware of as part of the MGA Review that you would like to see addressed? Water lots and municipal control for structures within them regardless of whether they are attached to the land or not and the ability to subdivide them. At minimum, clarity on the topic would be beneficial. Lakes and clarity of municipal authority for regulating structures on a lake i.e. boathouses. The ability to regulate short term rental units based on whether the unit is “owner occupied” would provide an additional tool as Municipalities grapple with this issue. Many other jurisdictions use this metric (including the Province) to determine how a short-term rental is regulated. Further, the ability to tax short term rental units at the commercial tax rate with flexibility to distinguish between classes of short-term rental. For example, a single bedroom being rented in a basement of an owner-occupied dwelling has a different impact than three or four stand alone units on a single property each being rented separately. The nature of the use is different in each case. End of Survey: Thank you for your participation. We appreciate you taking the time to provide responses to our questions. Understanding your perspective is important as we look to modernize and improve the MGA. Please note, the Department does not guarantee that these proposed changes will be advanced as changes to the MGA. The Department will summarize and provide a report back on what we heard following the close of the survey to participants. If you have any further questions, please contact DMAH- Consultations@novascotia.ca REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: October 27, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Corporate & Strategic Management SUBJECT: 2023/24 Budget Process ORIGIN: Date: October 21, 2022 Prepared by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Date: October 21, 2022 Reviewed by: Tim Topping, Director of Financial and Information Services Date: November 3, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION It is recommended that Council endorse the proposed budget process. CURRENT SITUATION Staff are in the process of preparing for the upcoming budget process. We have employed a number of approaches to the budget process in recent years. Staff is seeking input from Council on the process that is being proposed for this year. BACKGROUND MOC has used several different approaches to budget preparation. In the past capital budget and operating budget have been discussed and approved separately, with the capital budget having pre-budget approvals in December and final approval with the operating budget in the spring. Last year, in response to concerns about the difficulty approving capital before the operating was seen, both the capital budget and operating budget were presented together. The process was fairly smooth, and it allowed Council to see both budgets and their impacts together. The impact on our procurement process was minimal since we were in a transition period with staff and the ability to get tender documents out early was affected by recruitment and training of staff. DISCUSSION/UPDATES This year we are proposing a hybrid of the two approaches. The goal is to have some of the capital budget items approved in late December or early January to allow staff to work on tendering projects during the off season. This allows us to prepare tender documents and initiate the procurement processes early. The reason for this approach is that it allows our projects to get on the schedule of contractors, ensuring they are adequately resourced and that our projects are not at the bottom of their priority list. It also takes advantage of pricing and helps to protect against any seasonal fluctuations in costs. The process that is being presented is based on a consent agenda approach. A consent agenda is an agenda management tool used to streamline meetings by assembling routine, non-controversial items into a group whereby all are passed with a single motion and vote. In this approach, members of Council have an opportunity to review the items on the consent agenda and flag any items that they feel are not routine or that they have questions about or feel require more discussion. Those items are then added to the regular agenda and are addressed individually as the arise on the agenda. Any items not flagged for removal from the consent agenda are then approved as a group. For this budget process, staff is proposing that a preliminary capital budget presentation the current 5 year capital plan be reviewed along with a more detailed presentation of each of the proposed 2023/24 capital R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 budget items. This would include an overview of the project, how it links to the strategic plan, and the proposed phasing of the project over the 5-year capital plan period. During this preliminary capital budget presentation there would be no recommendation or decisions requested, the purpose would be an opportunity to familiarize council with the proposed capital budget items. Council would then be requested to take away the material and consider any missing information, missed priorities or changes that they would propose. Following the preliminary capital budget presentation, staff would come back to council with a discussion on the strategic priorities in December. The purpose of this second session would be to review the strategic plan and the current prioritization of priorities. Council would have the opportunity to review, revise, and make any additions to the strategic priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. A revised priority chart would be provided to council at a subsequent meeting and the discussion would inform both the capital and operating budget. A third follow-up capital budget meeting would include a review of the capital projects and would present an opportunity for council to review the projects that were added as part of the strategic planning discussion. This would be the chance for council to identify those items on the proposed capital plan that they wish to be removed and discussed further at a separate meeting or refer to the overall budget process. Any items not flagged and removed would be included in a consent motion for council to consider for pre-budget approval. Those items that are part of the ICIP are examples of projects that staff believe may be appropriate for the pre- budget approval process. Any items that are pulled from the consent motion would be discussed during the capital and operating budget discussions. Capital items that staff feel may need further discussion and would make sense to refer to the capital and operating budget process are new projects, those added during the strategic priority discussion that require more information from staff (i.e. phasing, pricing, identification of resources etc). Each capital project would include information on next steps and further council decisions that would be required. Staff will seek pre-budget approvals in December or early January. In February Council will hold budget meetings where there will be an opportunity to review the operating and capital budgets, Financial Condition Index, tax rates, reserves, and Gas Tax. There will also be opportunity to further review and refine priorities. The goal is to have a final budget, with priorities and tax rates approved in late March or April. OPTIONS 1. Endorse the budget process as presented 2. Direct staff to make any requested changes ATTACHMENTS List any attachments accompanying this report Proposed Schedule for Budget Discussions Budget Session 1 - Presentation of 5 year capital and 2023-24 proposed capital budget. Staff will review projects and proposed phasing •No decision expected Budget Session 2 - Strategic Priority discussion with Council to review priorities and determine if there are additions or changes to priorities for 2023-24 Budget Session 3 - Council has opportunity to review capital budget with changes incorporated from Session 1 and 2 and remove any priorities that require in-depth discussion •Those that are not identified as needing further dicussion will be recommended to pre-budget approval Additional information on capital projects will continue to be presented to Council Budget Session 4 - Presentation of operating budget •Gax Tax •Reserves •Financial Condition Index (F.C.I.) •EDU (sewer rate) •Tax Rate •Area Rates Council reviews & approves final capital and operating budget & priorities November December January-February March-April REQUEST FOR DIRECTION Prepared By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date September 14, 2022 Reviewed By: Matthew Blair Date November 2, 2022 Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date November 4, 2022 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the design and construction phase services of Phase II Leachate Treatment System Upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $100,000, as approved in the 2022/23 capital budget. CURRENT SITUATION A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in 2019. At this time CBCL recommended the following upgrades:  A second equalization lagoon  Remove media filters (sand and textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate under periods of low flow  Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons  An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC) Phase 1 construction was approved in 2020 and completed in 2021. Phase 2 design was approved July 22, 2021 (Motion 2021-30) to CBCL. Due to the construction of Cell 3B taking precedent, this project was further delayed. Volume of Leachate The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past six (6) full years is 27,252m³. This is an increase from 2019 average total volumes of 27,028m³ (+224m³) Estimated 2022 leachate volumes: 29,100m³. This equates to a daily average of 74.66m³ (an increase from 2019 daily rate of 74.05m³) REPORT TO: CAO and Council SUBMITTED BY: Christa Rafuse, P. Eng DATE: 10th November, 2022 SUBJECT: Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at Kaizer Meadow (Phase 2) - Design Work 2 Request for Direction Leachate Volumes by Year YEAR LEACHATE VOLUME TREATED 2022 (to date; 25 Oct 2022) 23,927m³ 2021 28,370m³ 2020 25,252m³ 2019 27,695m³ 2018 27,048m³ 2017 26,890m³ 2016 28,256m³ AVERAGE 27,252m³ Leachate Characteristics Parameter KMEMC 2012 (mg/L)* KMEMC 2021 (mg/L)** Typical New Landfill (mg/L)*** Typical Mature Landfill (mg/L)*** pH 7.9 8.11 4.5-7.5 6.6-7.5 BOD 72 1,000 2,000-30,000 100-200 COD 1,728 5,260 3,000-60,000 100-500 TSS 44 164 200-2,000 100-400 VSS 32 124 TKN 566 1,690 Nitrate 5 10.1 5-40 5-10 Ammonia 336 94 10-800 20-40 Alkalinity 2,435 8,400 1,000-10,000 200-1,000 *Sampling by SNC Lavalin 2012; ** Sampling by KM staff; *** Typical leachate parameters from Integrated Solid Waste Management, 1993 It should be noted that limited data is available for interpretation (i.e., grab sample or snap shot in time). Leachate composition will vary depending on type of waste, climate, overall size, open area, cover, age of landfill cells and stages of decompositions within each cell (at time of sample collection). The newer the cell the stronger the leachate and the need for aeration in the treatment ponds. Hydraulically overloaded, we have surpassed the original intent of the design The original design was for approximately 3,500 m3/year vs. 27,000 m3/yr received on average (10 m3/day vs. 75m3/day). The facility is operating at the peak day on an average basis. This results in shorter hydraulic retention time and bottle necks within the treatment system which impacts performance. The volumes are beyond the original design due to additional cells constructed after cell #2A and #2B. The second-generation landfill was constructed in 2005 (Cell #1). Cell #2A and #2B were prior to 2012 and Cell #3A was 2014. SNC Lavalin’s sample results date back to 2012 and would contain leachate from Cells #1 and #2. The Municipality’s 2021 samples would contain leachate from Cells #3A and #4A. Likely more from #4A as #3A interconnecting valve is throttled current leachate flows from Cells #1 and #2 are closed right now due to limited treatment capacity. Leachate composition changes with the addition of each new cell. 3 Request for Direction 2021 results are above the ‘Typical Mature Landfill’ but for the most part are on the low end of the ‘Typical New Landfill’ ranges. A new cell is less than 2 years and an older more mature cell is greater than 10 yrs. The addition of Cells #3A and #4A likely contributed, but solid waste composition (i.e., general composition changes over time) in Cells #1 and #2 vs. Cells #3A and #4A could also be a contributing factor. Changes in the BOD/COD ratio can also be used to measure leachate composition/ biodegradability. The lower the ratio the heavier the composition is leaning towards the mature side. For reference, the 2012 BOD/COD ratio is approx. 0.04, while the 2021 ratio is approx. 0.19. For reference, initial results (new facility) can be 0.5 or higher. Similar to recent sampling results, recent BOD/COD data indicates the ratio is above the ‘mature’ but on the low side of ‘new’ landfills. BACKGROUND The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second-generation landfill with a leachate treatment system consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for land discharge. A full report was received by Council on July 22, 2021 (see attachment 1), with a thorough explanation of the existing system limitations, leachate strengths, permit requirements and alternative solutions. However, due to the earlier than anticipated construction of the new landfill Cell 3B, the original proposed design will need to be reassessed and redesign completed. DISCUSSION Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during the post closure period. The Municipality’s operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval. The original assessment was conducted with the intention Cell 4A was the last cell (to at least 2036), as MOC would divert to Sustane. The opportunity has not materialized to date and the next Cell 3B is underway. The new cell interferes with the proposed location/arrangement for the additional lagoon and will be re-evaluated prior to proceeding with the detailed design. Kaizer Meadow Staff have met with CBCL. The primary objective is to review and undertake the detailed design of the Phase 2 LTP upgrades. Additionally, we have requested technical support with respect to solids removal from the two existing lagoons (EQ and Retention). The detailed design, CBCL support during approval, tendering, construction, and project closeout phases of the project are all included within the recommended budget approval. 4 Request for Direction The budget and recommended next steps will come back to Council for approval and budgeting for construction 2023/24. IMPLICATIONS Policy P-04 Procurement Policy Financial/Budgetary Design and construction services: $100,000, source of funds - borrowing (Capital 2022/23) Construction 2023/24 Environmental Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill. Strategic Plan 1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility. 2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services. 3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses. Work Program Implications N/A OPTIONS 1. Approve the design and construction phase budget from CBCL for Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System. 2. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information. ATTACHMENTS Request for Direction; Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at Kaizer Meadows Landfill, Phase 2 – Equalization Lagoon; July 2021 COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A THE MUNICIPALITY OF C ESTER.. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: SUBMITTED BY: DATE: SUBJECT: CAO and Council Christa Refuse, P.Eng June 2021 Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at Kaizer Meadow Landfill, Phase 2 — Equalization Lagoon Prepared By: Reviewed By: Authorized By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Dan Pittman Kavita Khanna Tim Topping Dan McDougall Date June 9, 2021 Date June 17, 2021 July 16, 2021 Date July 16, 2021 CURRENT SITUATION A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in 2019. To meet the future needs for leachate treatment proposed upgrades identified by CBCL included: • A second equalization lagoon. • Remove media filters (sand & textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate under periods of low flow. • Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons. • An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC). The proposed upgrades were broken into two phases. Phase 1, was approved by the council in fall 2020, and has since been completed. The scope of this phase included: • Continued use of the EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) for dispersal of the leachate on the land. • Addition of piping and equipment to operate a second EVC tower simultaneously. Phase 2 is primarily the addition of an equalization lagoon and aeration equipment to meet the existing capacity required and future needs for leachate treatment. The estimated cost of Phase 1- Effluent Dispersal was awarded to Western Plumbing and Heating. The final cost is expected to be approximately $475,000, plus tax. The estimated cost of Phase 2- Equalization Lagoon is $1,650,000 (opinion of probable costs, includes construction contingency and allowances, contractor overhead and fees) class D estimate (contingency not added). 2 Request for Direction C E T It is recommended that Council approve the design of Phase II leachate treatment system upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $40,000. AC U The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second -generation landfill with a leachate treatment system consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for land discharge. An advanced oxidation process was included in the system but is no longer operational as it had created a bottleneck. The Advantex system (recirculating media filters) was later added to assist with nitrogen loading and BOD/TSS removal/polishing of the leachate. It should also be noted that effluent from the septage lagoons also enters the equalization lagoon for additional polishing. Generally, the design parameters for the leachate treatment system include a system able to handle the volume of leachate generated; and a system able to handle the "strength" of the leachate. Volume of Leachate The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past five years was 27,028 cubic meters (m3). This equates to an average of 74 m3 per day. Summary of Leachate Volumes Treated 2016 28,256 2017 26,890 2018 27,048 2019 27,695 2020 25,252 Average 27,028 Precipitation largely contributes to leachate production. Not all precipitation that falls on the landfill turns into leachate. Some of the precipitation runs off the landfill, evaporates or is lost during the formation of gas, and some gets absorbed into the waste. Additional leachate volumes are expected as additional landfill cells are opened. CBCL has estimated that with the additional cells planned the landfill is expected to generate 43,875 m3 per year. Cell 4A opened in the Spring of 2019 and CBCL has noted that it appears that the additional footprint has not resulted in additional leachate being produced or treated (volume generated 3 Request for Direction roughly correlates with the volume treated). For the current calendar year 15,719 m3 of leachate was treated as of July 8, 2021, for an average daily volume of 83.7 m3. Climate change was considered by referring to existing projections. Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) records climate data for Nova Scotia and regions within Nova Scotia. In addition, future weather projections are produced for a number of parameters including precipitation. Annual precipitation is projected to increase by approximately one percent (1%) from the 2020s to the 2050s. As such, the proposed Phase II expansion should be able to accommodate this projected average increase. It should also be noted that leachate in cell 3A has only been removed intermittently due to a closed isolation valve. Leachate from cell 3A is removed by release into cell 4A. However, cell 3A's elevation is lower than cell 4A so some leachate will always be held in 3A. Additional volume can be processed through the leachate treatment system. Starting with the equalization lagoon additional volumes can be handled but will result in a lower hydraulic retention time (HRT), which results in a lower level of treatment. Based on 26,890 m3 of leachate production in 2017 the HRT of the leachate was estimated to be 40 days. The next step in the process is the media filters. CBCL has noted that the media filters (recirculating sand filter, and recirculating textile filter) have a capacity of 82 m3 per day; and that in 2017 the average daily flow was 74 m3 per day. As such, the filters can handle the current volume from the equalization lagoon but do not have excess capacity for a large increase in flows and will be a "bottleneck' in the system. Leachate can be discharged from the equalization lagoon directly into the retention lagoon through the use of pumping and temporary hose/piping. Bypassing the media filters results in a lower level of treatment. Bypassing has been used to address higher volumes in the short term generated by significant precipitation events, etc. The next step is the retention lagoon. CBCL has noted that this lagoon was not designed to provide treatment but does provide some additional effluent natural treatment prior to dispersal through the EVC system. Similar to the equalization lagoon, additional volumes processed will result in a lower HRT in the retention lagoon. The final step in the process is the EVC system which disperses the leachate onto the land. This system provides additional treatment the second EVC tower is commissioned the estimated discharge capacity of this system will be 45 m3 per hour, or 40,500 m3 annually based on 120 operating days per year. Strength of Leachate In the 2019 system assessment CBCL compared 2012 leachate characteristics from Kaizer Meadow; and, predicted future leachate characteristics using data from typical new and mature landfills (Table 9). Staff will conduct additional tests in the summer of 2021 to confirm the existing leachate characteristics. 4 Request for Direction Table 9: *Sampling completed by SNC Lavalin as part of KMEMC evaluation, **Typical leachate parameters from Integrated Solid Waste Management, 1993, Leachate Characteristics KMEMC 2012 Typical New Typical Mature (mg/L)* Landfill (mg/L)** Landfill (rng/L)** CBCL indicated that "at current operations, the equalization lagoon has a hydraulic retention time of 40 days and is capable of providing adequate BOD and TSS removal. Table 10 outlines the capacity of the existing equalization lagoon to handle the increased future hydraulic and organic loading. The table shows that the existing equalization lagoon at future loadings would have a hydraulic retention time of 26 days and would be able to achieve 80% removal of influent BOD, for an effluent BOD concentration of 150 mg/L." CBCL also noted that "while the facility currently does not have BOD effluent requirements, it is likely that in the future any discharge regulations would be below 150 mg/L and the equalization lagoon would not be compliant." I &O Staff are not aware of any imminent plans by NSE to establish BOD effluent requirements suggested in this statement; and I & 0 staff will engage NSE in the review and approval of the proposed upgrades as required. DISCUSSION Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during the post closure period. The Municipality's operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval. Treatment options were evaluated to ensure that the Municipality's future investment decisions are guided by both operating and capital cost implications. NOV SCO'. .A'S THE SURE 5 Request for Direction CBCL identified the following treatment options for consideration: 1. Complete Phase 2 LTP Upgrades An additional equalization lagoon added in parallel to the existing equalization lagoon to handle increased hydraulic and organic loadings and provide additional retention time (see Table 10). Table 10: Existing Lagoon and Upgrade Options Hydraulic Capacity Option Total Lagoon Volume (m3) HRT (days) Predicted BOD effluent (mg/L) Aeration Requirement (SCFM) Existing Equalization Lagoon 2900 26 150 690 Addition of Second Equalization Lagoon (same size as existing) 2900 + 2900 = 5800 52 20 690 In addition, upgrades to the existing aeration systems for the equalization and retention lagoons. The existing recirculating sand filters (RSF) and recirculating textile filters (RTF) filters could be left in place and operational, but they are overloaded in terms of nitrogen and could bottleneck the system. Therefore, they would only be used in summer during low flow for effluent polishing or just simply removed. CBCL has based its recommendations based on the available data and operating conditions (memo report — Leachate Treatment Assessment, 2019). The use of the second EVC dispersal unit will prevent bottlenecks and provide backup to the existing EVC unit. The newest EVC unit purchased last year also works very well and staff are pleased with its performance. The mobile units allow placement in a larger new location away from our neighbors and an already nitrate saturated site. The environmental consultants have advised on sampling areas (MW are installed) and frequency of moving the mobile EVC units to prevent any issues within the dispersal areas. Other options considered are trucking leachate daily to treatment facilities and an alternative type of leachate treatment on site. 2. Off -site Trucking and Disposal Leachate produced from the landfill can be trucked off -site for treatment and disposal (not Municipally owned and operated). Based on our existing volumes the transportation and disposal costs would be in the range of $1,159,000 and $2,318,000 per year for off -site 6 Request for Direction disposal. This option does not appear to be an economically viable alternative for treatment of the leachate. 3. Other treatment options CBCL was requested to investigate other option for treatment as per Valley Wastes request and as per the memo report dated June 1, 2021, a summary of the options and costs are in the table below. A. Co -treatment with Domestic Wastewater This option is typically used if larger wastewater systems are within proximity to the leachate generator, due to the large transportation costs to transport. Our existing wastewater treatment plants are generally small and spread out and required transport therefore not economical. B. Constructed Wetlands A constructed wetland is a biological treatment method that uses vegetation, soil, and other organisms to treat wastewater. Under this option, the additional equalization lagoon would still be required, a large land area requirement, and discharged to a nearby watercourse. Removing the EVC towers (land application) would require additional permitting and testing requirements. C. Sequencing Batch Reactor A suitable treatment process that provides greater process flexibility compared to other biological treatment methods but are also more complex and will required more attention than the existing LW. Overall power consumption, more operator attention and ongoing monitoring/permitting costs would be expected. D. Reverse Osmosis A treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force water through a semipermeable membrane. Although effective at removing contaminants it requires extensive pre-treatment and frequent membrane cleaning, requiring storage, treatment, and disposal. This is not a realistic option and not explored further. The options evaluation showed clearly that the Phase 2 upgrade proposed is the most economical option (full report available on request). The following table outlines the Class D estimated costs for all the options investigated: 7 Request for Direction Estimated Construction Cost Design Development Contingency Alo Co struction Contingency 10 Capital Cost $1,650.000 ur $20,000 Power $64,000 Repairs Maintenance $20,000 Hauling & Tipping Fees .. Annual O&M Cost $104,0 >}Wtul tt }sitW*0 1,320,000 580,000 $80,000 $2.070,000 $3.000,000 $198,000 $12,000 $1;2,000 $310,500 $600,0000 * 32,000 $8,000 $8,000 $207,000 $300,000 X0,000 $100,000 $2,587,500 $3„900,000 0,000 $812,000 2. 0 $25,000 $36,000 $40,000 $75,000 $20,000 528,000 000 $85,000 $'139,000 NPV (20 Year $2,847,460 $15,478,000 $22,068,000 $3,-568,000 $5,483,000 k 20% Design contingency was use tw r the SBR option. Note: This is based on full build out (cells 1 to 4 complete) IMPLICATIONS Policy P-04 Procurement Policy Financial/Budgetary The estimated cost for the leachate treatment plant upgrade project — Phase 2. An investment of $1.65 million dollars will be required and funded by borrowing. Budget approval and borrowing term to be established in consultation with the Valley Waste Landfill Liaison Committee. Environmental Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill. Strategic Plan 1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility. 2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services. 3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses. Work Program Implications N/A OPTIONS 1. Status Quo: Monitor the performance of the Leachate Treatment System including volumes and strength of leachate produced. N VA SC IA'S T ,tt` ,ASU' ,. . 8 Request for Direction 2. Approve the design of Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System. 3. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information. ATTAC E TS N/A C U IC T TE A XT AL) N/A Page | 1   Municipal Council  Municipality of the District of Chester  151 King St  PO Box 369  Chester NS  B0J 1J0  Re: Petition by M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited to proceed with The Private Ways Act    Members of Council,  My name is Tara Aalders and I am the wife of Ashley Aalders. Although I am not named in the proceedings,  the emotional and financial toll this whole situation has caused us and our family is immeasurable.  It appears that Michael Keddy of M Keddy Farm and Forestry Ltd has previously spoken to most, if not all of  you, to plead his “hardships” in dealing with my husband and about his request to use The Private Ways Act  to force a right of way over our property.   I would like to clarify some things and would also like you to remember that any precedent that you set  with this case will and should be used in any future requests from any other property owner in your  municipality who would like an easier, more convenient access to their property over someone else’s land,  including land owned by yourselves, your family, your friends, or by Michael Keddy himself. I can imagine  that a forestry company owns a great deal of land in Nova Scotia and surely there are many people who  would like an easement through Mr. Keddy’s land to gain easier access to their own property. That is the  precedent you will set by agreeing to proceed with Mr. Keddy’s request, because Mr. Keddy’s petition is a  petition of convenience and not a petition of necessity.  We are in the process to legally stop the unauthorized actions of Michael Keddy by going through the Nova  Scotia court system. As a reminder, Mr. Keddy has already trespassed over our property to cut and haul  timber off of two of the Russell lots in question, totalling 150 acres of timber extraction. After he was done  and had taken everything he could, he then consolidated three lots. The property description in the parcel  register for the Keddy Property does not state the limitation of the extent of the easement and the  easement he has only benefits the lands described in the Grant of Easement for one parcel, and not the  additional two lots.   I am no lawyer, but it would seem that the intent of the Private Ways Act is for very rare situations in which  there is no other access possible and when all other legal avenues have been exhausted. It appears to have  only been successfully used once in Nova Scotia recorded history. In the Sutherland vs Cron case, which is  the recorded case everyone references, it was under much different circumstances. The requesting  landowner (Ms. Sutherland) had access through the Cron property for years until it was blocked. Ms.  Sutherland did not actually pursue the matter through The Private Ways Act until an ambulance was  stopped from accessing the Cron property to get to the Sutherland property, putting her family’s lives at  risk.   This is not the case with Mr. Keddy’s situation. Mr. Keddy may in fact be able to access his properties from  other lands, via a legal historical right of way, but he just doesn’t want to.  Page | 2   During the council meeting on October 27, 2022 Mr. Keddy’s lawyer Ian Dunbar admitted to council “The  right of way that has been put forward as being an alleged right of way is a historic right of way in a deed  long ago that is not on any modern deed and so the process to enforce that, and I’ve been down that road  and it’s not a happy road, is to go to court against existing property owners and try to get a declaration that  a years ago right of way still exists and you know, this this is a process that is not an attractive alternative.”  His statement admits that although there may be a legal way for Mr. Keddy to access his lands via another  property, that both him and his lawyer would rather use the municipal council and The Private Ways Act as  an easier, quicker and cheaper route to Mr. Keddy’s development plans, instead of through the court  system which is meant to protect the rights of all citizens. I am surprised that a lawyer would be looking to  circumvent the judicial system.   Also, Mr. Dunbar’s statement about the historical right of way not being referenced in any recent deeds,  was quickly proven false when a deed dated July 23, 2021 for PID 60122082 referencing this same  easement and the burden registered on the parcel register with the 1931 deed was brought to the councils  attention via email later that day.   With the current information brought before you I am sure that any impartial commissioner you may  appoint will have many hours, days and weeks ahead of them to sort through the legalities of the request  as well as all historical easements for the properties before agreeing to just arbitrarily give Mr. Keddy an  easy way in. If they don’t, I am sure every Nova Scotian will want to know why.  Remember, this isn’t giving Mr. Keddy access to land so that he can access his personal residence or get an  ambulance to his family. This isn’t even so Mr. Keddy can cut and haul timber, as he has already trespassed  over our property to do that. This petition is so Mr. Keddy can subdivide and sell waterfront lots for profit.  We could go from having one parcel of land as burden across us to many more. Mr. Keddy is more than  welcome to develop his land how he pleases, however he cannot do it while burdening us when no original  burden previously existed to us. Michael Keddy doesn’t want to use the Nova Scotia court system to  remedy any legal obstacles he may have in using a historic right of way and he doesn’t want to pay to build  new roads via that possible right of way when he can simply use our property and the roads my husband’s  family built years ago.   In council Mr. Dunbar referred to the fact that a road already exists on our property. He seemed to think  that because we had already built a road that it meant that it should be available for use by all of Mr.  Keddy’s properties. Why should we allow anyone without a valid legal right of way to use our private road?  Equally important, why would we let Mr. Keddy let other people use it when he sells lots? Does this mean  that if Mr. Keddy has roads through any of his properties that all of us should be allowed to use them as we  wish? If that’s the precedent they are trying to set, and you are going to allow, I will let everyone in the  province know that as well.  Mr. Keddy continues to maintain that what he has done has created no additional burden and what he  plans to do in the future will create no additional burden to us.   So imagine:   That you have one parcel of land that a corporation (owned by Michael Keddy) buys with an existing  right of way to it.   Page | 3    Then one day you realize that the corporation is trespassing across your property to access the lots  beside the above‐mentioned property, totalling an additional 150 acres of land.    Imagine that they then spend months hauling large loads of timber across your property, creating noise  pollution, much more additional traffic, including huge log trucks, and damaging your roads and  crushing culverts. You are upset, but you cannot stop it without going to court and that is expensive.  You know that eventually the trees will be gone, and the logging will stop, and you will be relieved.    Now imagine that you find out that the corporation then consolidated the original lot with the legal  right of way with those other two lots, and because the property description in the parcel register does  not state this limitation of the extent of the easement, they appear to “pretend” that the right of way  benefits the additional 150 acres of land, some of which is lakefront property.    Not only have they done that, but the corporation tells you that they want to subdivide and sell those  smaller lots. Surveying appears to begin which will then take your burden from one property and owner  to many properties and owners. 150 acres of additional burden in reality. If they sell one acre lots, then  you could potentially have an additional 150 lots and property owners burdening you. Even if the lots  have to be 25 acres in size, (which has been mentioned at times) now that they have consolidated the  three lots into one 435 acre parcel, it means 17 more additional lots burdening you. No matter the  math, it creates a great deal of additional burden on you and your property. Burden that stems from  150 acres that didn’t originally burden you to begin with.   Ask yourself, how would you feel? Would you be okay with that? Do you agree with Michael Keddy  when he claims that there is no additional burden created? Are you okay with Mr. Keddy extending the  right of way so that he can subdivide and sell lots?    You decide that you are not ok with it, so now you know that you have to do something about it, so you  start a legal process to stop it. Now the case is in the Nova Scotia court system and you continue on  with your life.    Then, one day, before the court case is decided, you are informed that the corporation is now  petitioning the municipal council, many of whom they may know, to use an obscure piece of law, The  Private Ways Act, to allow them to keep doing whatever they want because they don’t want to wait for  the court decision.   How do you feel now? Do you feel like there is or isn’t additional burden to you?  Mr. Keddy is probably aware that we don’t have the resources that he does. In fact, he has brought up the  costs to stop him multiple times and tried to use it as a tactic to intimidate us. Unfortunately, he is in fact  correct, we don’t have the resources he does but we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. A  landowner, a corporation, or its owner or family members, shouldn’t just be allowed to trespass, combine  properties to extend right of ways and do whatever they want, whenever they want, over another  landowner simply because they know it’s too expensive for someone to take them to court to stop them.   We are currently following the legal process and are paying to do it. Now that Mr. Keddy has decided that  he wants to circumvent the legal process, we will have to pay even more money to go through the obscure  Private Ways Act. Why should we be put through additional emotional and financial stress to endure a  Page | 4   process that is intended as a last resort when Michael Keddy refuses to exhaust his other options first. We  should have the right to decide if we want to give a right of way or not on our private piece of property.  Notwithstanding our situation specifically, this whole process should be of concern to every single property  owner in Nova Scotia, including yourselves. Allowing this to proceed, when the right of way is not a  necessity, when they may have another existing right of way, sets a dangerous precedent for all  landowners. Allowing this to proceed before Mr. Keddy has followed through with a complete legal process  sets a dangerous precedent for all landowners. Why should one landowner decide that they don’t like the  right of way they may have and instead be allowed to petition the council for a shorter, easier and cheaper  one for them? Do you really think that is okay?  This whole petition is simply a request of convenience for Michael Keddy and one which is solely being  sought so that his corporation may access property as cheaply as possible so that he may subdivide, sell,  and profit off us, his neighbouring landowner, all while increasing our burden and reducing the enjoyment  and safety of our own property.  Tell me why, when there is a legal system in place to protect the rights of property owners, one which  believes in historical right of ways, that you would decide to just disregard and circumvent it all because Mr.  Keddy (and his lawyer) thinks that the legal process is just too much work. Do you really want to set that  precedent, and ask yourself, will your other constituents, and any other Nova Scotian want that precedent  set?  Sincerely,  Tara Aalders  1 Pam Myra (she/her) From:June Keddy Sent:October 31, 2022 1:56 PM To:Pam Myra (she/her); June Keddy Subject:Petition ** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. To Whom It May Concern We, my husband and I, Gordon and June Keddy have a seasonal cottage at 342 Hunts Lake Road. We heard of the petition presented to council and we are not in favour of the municipality approving the petition that would start a process to grant Keddy's extended right-of-way over the Hunts Lake Rd. for forestry activity and/or development. I give several issues for our decision: We have experienced times last year when we met a logging truck coming out. There was no other way except to back out and allow their passage. This presented a grave dilemna: what if someone was coming in behind us as we backed out? Our family often follow us in for family gatherings. We did not feel safe backing up. We have paid road dues to fix up the road over the years. It has been maintained in good order; pot holes filled, gravel spread. Because of the heavy traffic last year, more was spent on road maintenance. We noticed there were more ruts, broken culverts were not repaired. Hunts Lake Road is to be used for cottage owners as we share the common costs of maintenance and upkeep which is our main focus in road association. The road (meaning Hunts Lake Road) is privately owned. We ask the question: Is it right for municipality to step in and interfere with private property rights of private citizens and to settle land disputes with a forestry company? I oppose this happening because it takes away the rights of private property owners to make decisions re: their private property and puts it in the hands of big business to control them. I forsee huge increased volumes of traffic, potential road damage, disputes and construction. We should not be responsible to pay for damage to road being used by heavy trucks and equipment. There will be conflicts that arise on shared portions of the road (Hunts Lake Road) as to who did what damage, who pays for damage. There will be noise disruptions, equipment, and saws and increased volume of traffic which destroys our peace and reason why we spend time on our cottage property. Because of the above, we are not in favour of the approval of the Municipalty approving the petition that would start a process to grant Keddy's extended right-of-way over the Hunts Lake Road for forestry activity and/or development. Sincerely, Gordon and June Keddy 1 Pam Myra (she/her) From:Dave Swinimer Sent:October 27, 2022 9:27 PM To:Pam Myra (she/her) Subject:Fwd: Petition against Ashley Aalder Hunts Lake Road Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Dave Swinimer Date: October 27, 2022 at 9:05:56 PM ADT To: Dave Swinimer Subject: Petition against Ashley Aalder Hunts Lake Road I am Dave Swinimar from 300 Hunts Lake Road Aldervsille and I am the current President of The Hunts Lake Road Association and a former Director. I heard about a petition that was being decided in council about giving Keddy Farm and Forest access to land purchased in the last couple of years over the Hunts Lake Road. I wanted to share some information about my experience with dealing with road damage issues caused by Keddy Farm and Forest and their contractors - Isenors, and Harry Freeman and Sons specifically last summer while they were hauling wood out the Hunts Lake Road. Some things that happened in 2021 were: 1. Gerald Keddy took and spread 2 loads of gravel that belonged to the Road Association on a portion of the road that the Keddy deed stated he was responsible for maintaining to fill in pot holes that the haul trucks were making and make room for trucks to get around the corner easier. 2. 3. I located Mike Keddy's cell phone number and asked him about the gravel and asked him when he was going to fix the culverts that his trucks crushed. We got into a heated argument and Mike accused the cottage owners of crushing the culvert. I replied none of the cottage owners bring their 50 ton trucks into their cottages on the weekend. Mike then told me to "go myself" and that we should have a meeting face to face and so we can really discuss it. Then I told him he shouldn't ask for something he didn't really want. End of conversation. 4. 5. After not getting cooperation or satisfaction from Mr. Keddy on the gravel and culverts, I found out from another cottage owner that Harry Freeman and Sons may be in control of the Keddy's deed for the land they were logging until financing was paid back and proceeded to go on the Freeman website to saw their stance on environmental issues and respect of other property owners. I found a number for HR, called it and explained what happened with Mike Keddy and 2 they told me they would have a meeting with Freeman Forest Technician Luke Skerry and get back to me with resolutions for issues with the road. A day later Luke Skerry contacted me and said that he was going to replace the gravel, replace culverts and install it at their expense. Gravel from HWY 12 to a turn by an apple tree was promised. 6. 7. I met with him early spring and no repairs happened and dialogue continued all summer for about two months with Luke Skerry to get written confirmation that the gravel and culverts would be repaired. This issue consumed most of my free time for the summer. I finally got confirmation from Luke Skerry and the ruts were filled with rocks, the 2 loads of gravel replaced, and the culvert installed. So much time was spent arguing trying to get the repairs completed, I stopped pursing the gravel from HWY 12 and decided the other repairs were a win and gave up. No gravel was ever put on that section of the road from HWY 12. 2. Aug 5th 2021 I sent a text to Luke Skerry about sediment sludge and oily residue that was running into Hunts Lake from Keddy's property on the lake. The Department of Natural Resorces and Environment was also contacted and no action was taken. It seemed really odd to me that such a blatant issue was ignored. 3. 4. This issue was revisited this year with Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environment and I got the run around from two different locations. 5. Some rocks were eventually ordered by Environment to be placed around the end of a culvert to act as a settling pond. Sludge is still in the woods and running into Hunts Lake. 3. I personally paid to have the Hunts Lake Road plowed this past winter. Keddy's took it upon themselves to tell my contractor that they didn't have a right to plow "their" road. I thought road being plowed did not belong to Keddy's. I called Ashley Aalders to confirm I wasn't confused and the road was owned by him, not Keddy's. Snowplowing continued. In addition to road issues I had to deal with my wife and I always having to be on the look out for large trucks when driving into the cottage and dodge the ruts in my smaller car. Noise from logging and truck retarders was irritating and ruined what used to be a peaceful spot to enjoy the summer. For the reasons I have mentioned and probably others I don't think that Keddy's should be allowed to get additional access to do any more work over the Hunts Lake Road. Based on my past experience on problems are going to happen. Dave Swinimar 1 Pam Myra (she/her) From:Clarence Pudsey Sent:October 28, 2022 11:38 AM To:Pam Myra (she/her) Subject:Fwd: Private Ways Act Petition Ashley & Ruth Aalders ** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Private Ways Act Petition Ashley & Ruth Aalders Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:33:55 -0300 From: Clarence Pudsey To: pmyra@chester.ca To Pam Myra. October 28/2022 Hello we are concerned cottage owners at Hunts Lake.M Keddy Farm and Forestry Inc. is trying to petition the Chester Municipal Council to appoint a commissioner to facilitate an arbitration over the Hunts Lake Road for further forestry and development across the Lake. Our concerns as cottage owners is that the lake is very small and the noise from the heavy machines starting at 3to 4 am and lasts till evening and that's on weekends to. Not very relaxing when your their to relax And unwind from your day to day stresses. My next concern is that the lake road was never intended to handle the heavy trucks and it is not fair to us as cottage owners to have to pay for all the damages caused from those logging trucks and when you meet one of these trucks you have to back all the way out because they can't and there is no room to pass by them as well with highway 12 the traffic is very high and traveling at 90 KM and when you are trying to exit from it onto Hunts Lake road and you meet one of those trucks at the entrance and they take up all of the roadway their is no place to go and it's only going to be a matter of time before their is a accident . My next concern is that there is a lot of sediment run off coming into our lake sense the logging has been going on across the lake which was never seen before. We as cottage owners and Municipal tax payers are not in favor of the municipality approving a petition to grant M Keddy Farm and Forestry extended right of way over Hunts Lake road for forestry or future development . Sincerely Bernadette & Clarence Pudsey . 2 Vernita Hiltz. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free.www.avg.com 1 Pam Myra (she/her) From:Bruce Carter <bruce.carter.treecanada@gmail.com> Sent:October 31, 2022 1:38 PM To:Pam Myra (she/her) Subject:Hunts Lake Proposal ** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Dear Ms. Myra: My name is Bruce Carter and I have over 45 years in forest management operations and planning. I also own a cottage at 236 Hunts Lake Road on a property my father purchased in the early to mid 1970's. Since that time I have seen changes to the Lake as more and more development is pursued.This year M. Keddy Farm and Forestry who have carried out harvesting practices in the area in the last couple of years were required by the Provincial Government to establish settling ponds to try and reduce sediment and minerals from entering the Lake. Also blue green algae has been reported in the Lake. Hunts Lake is relatively small Lake , shallow and spring fed.It is not suitable for further development. Also hauling roads and cottage users can result in conflict and safety .I had a visitor who was concerned for her safety while traveling the road. Use of hauling roads by heavy trucks often lead to damages of the road that need to be repaired which shouldn't be borne by the cottage owners. I hope that for these and other reasons brought to your attention will be given full consideration. Hunts Lake is a jewel and should be managed as such. Thanks for your consideration and I am available for any further discussions Bruce Carter BScF Pam Myra (she/her) From: Nick Moore <nmoore@MuttartsLaw.ca> Sent: October 27, 2022 3:11 PM To: Pam Myra (she/her) Cc: Dunbar, Ian; Mroz, Robert Subject: Private Ways Act Petition Keddy/Aalders Attachments: PID 60122082 Deed Dated July 23, 2021.pdf; 2011 HRM Report.pdf, 2011 Solicitor Presentation.pdf, HRM Solicitor Presentation.pdf; John Keith letter to Province re amendments.pdf; March 1, 2011 minutes HRM.pdf, March 24, 2015 minutes HRM.pdf; PWA Award.pdf, May 31, 2022 Minutes HRM.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Hi Pam, Further to the council meeting earlier today, I wanted to provide a follow-up regarding Councilor Andre Veinotte's questions. Please forward this email along to Council. Councilor Veinotte had asked how subdivision would occur if the municipality subdivision controls would not allow it. I appreciate Mr. Veinotte's expertise on this and will defer to his knowledge that a 25-foot-wide road would be inadequate for subdivision approval. The answer to his question, however, would be that 10 hectares (25 Acres) strips of land could be subdivided along Hunts Lake and these 25 acre lots could then avoid subdivision approval altogether using the Municipal Government Act exception found in section 268(2)(a). Based on the size of PID 60122231 being 434.7 acres, the most 25-acre strips that could be created without needing subdivision approval would be 17 lots. I was also accused in Mr. Dunbar's letter dated October 261h of misleading Council and also by Mr. Keddy during the meeting. I take these accusations seriously and do not believe I have misled Council. With that being said, there are a few items I want to clear up based on assertions Mr. Dunbar and his client made: They spoke regarding a 40-foot-wide easement that Keddy obtained for access — the Exhibit F of the Petitioner's affidavit containing the easement they refer to is one for Nova Scotia Power Inc. —this easement does not appear to give the Petitioner access (rather it gives NSPI access). If there is a recorded easement to the Petitioner for access over the Butler/Young property to the Petitioner's entire property, I would ask Mr. Dunbar provide Council and me the Registry of Deeds/Land Registry reference for that easement. Mr. Dunbar stated that the Gold River Pulp Company Limited easement has not been referenced in any recent deeds, however a deed dated July 23, 2021 for PID 60122082 references the easement and the burden is registered on the parcel register with the 1931 deed. I am also not disputing that Mr. Dunbar and his client's assertion that they will pay all costs associated with the process to Council. My point is simply that any compensation owing to my client, is owing from Council to my client and it's up to Council to recover those funds. In the Sutherland petition, my understanding is that HRM paid the Cron's compensation and commissioner and arbitrator fees and then Ms. Sutherland had to pay back HRM, which was done through a payment plan and a lien on her property. We should also keep in mind that pursuant to section 16(d) of the Private Ways Act, an owner "includes any person having an interest in land or in an easement or right in land", which would include all the existing property owners with a right over the existing private road. Land is also defined as including "any easement or right in land (s.16(c)). For full transparency, I've copied all the relevant HRM council minutes, documents, and the commissioner reports relating to the Cron and Sutherland petitions. The 2015 Commissioner's report is too large to attach, but a link to it is copied below: https://Iegacycontent.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/150324ca1114.pdf I've also attached the 2022 petition minutes that I believe were the ones Mr. Dunbar referenced in his presentation and copied below a link to the council report recommending a commissioner prepare a report. This does not appear to be a petition made by a developer Company or forestry company, rather just individual land owners who were having trouble selling their parcels of land, but for transparency, I've provided the link and attachment of minutes to Council. I also question whether this petition is moot as the petitioners have both sold their properties in May 2022 (PID 00533505 and 00533448). Petition for Private Right -of -Way - May 31/22 Regional Council I Halifax.ca Lastly, as mentioned during my presentation, the following CBC articles provide a quick summary of Cron and Sutherland petition: Halifax home with decades -long driveway dispute up for sale I CBC News Halifax driveway dispute case nears costly conclusion I CBC News If Council has any questions for me, I am more than willing to answer them. I will also provide a copy of my client's submissions as soon as I obtain a copy from him. I've cc'd Mr. Dunbar so that he has an opportunity to respond to this email and I understand he wishes to also submit further factual submissions from his client's perspective of the narrative. Yours truly, Nick Moore Lawyer t. 902.678.2157 x240 f. 902.678.9455 e. nmoore(aD-muttartslaw.ca muttarts law firm PO Box 515, 20 Cornwallis St. Kentville, Nova Scotia Canada B4N 3X3 www.muttartslaw.ca Firm incorporated as G. Muttart Law Corporation Inc. This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Any references to matters which are or may be subject to litigation/arbitration are without prejudice. THIS WARRANTY DEED made the )day of July, 2021. BETWEEN: Hazel A. Boylan and Christin Mark Boylan, of Upper Dyke, in the County of Kings, Province of Nova Scotia, being the Owner of the lands described in Schedule "A" herein hereinafter called the "Grantor") and - Christin Mark Boylan, of Upper Dyke, in the County of Kings, Province of Nova Scotia hereinafter called the "Grantees") WITNESSETH THAT in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration; THE GRANTOR hereby conveys to the Grantees, the lands described in Schedule "A" to this Warranty Deed (the "lands") and hereby consent to this disposition, pursuant to the Matrimonial Property Act of Nova Scotia. THE GRANTOR covenants with the Grantees that the Grantees shall have quiet enjoyment of the lands, that the Grantor have good title in fee simple to the lands and the right to convey them as hereby conveyed, that the lands are free from encumbrances, and that the Grantor will procure such further assurances as may be reasonably required. IN THIS Warranty Deed the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, with the intent that this Warranty Deed shall read with all appropriate changes of number and gender. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has properly executed this Indenture the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of Z---1 Hazel A. Boylan z C6ristin Mark Boylan AFFIDAVIT OF SPOUSAL STATUS CANADA PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY I, Hazel A. Boylan, of Upper Dyke, in the County of Kings, Province of Nova Scotia, make oath and swear that: 1. I acknowledge that I executed the foregoing instrument under seal on the date of this affidavit. 2. This acknowledgment is made pursuant to s. 31(a) of the Registry Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.392 or s. 79(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act as the case may be, for the purpose of registering the instrument. 3. I am nineteen years of age or older and am resident of Canada under the Income Tarr Act Canada). 4. That I executed the attached document under seal on even date herewith. 5. For the purpose of this Affidavit "spouse" means either of two people who: i. are married to each other ii. are married to each other by a marriage that is voidable and has not been annulled by a judgment of nullity; iii. have gone through a form of marriage with each other, in good faith, that is void and are cohabiting or have cohabited within the preceding year•, or iv, is a party to a registered domestic -partner declaration made in accordance with section 53 of the Vital Statistics Act but does not include a former domestic partner. 6. The sale of the lands constitutes an exempt supply pursuant to Part I of Schedule V of the Excise Tax Act. THAT, as of the date hereof, I am not a spouse and I have no former domestic partner with the rights contemplated by Section 55 of the Vital Statistics Act, nor any former spouse with rights under the Matrimonial Property Act. SWORN TO at Bedford, in the County of ) Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia thT2 ) of July, 2021. before me ) A BaMster/Comrillssio of Oaths ) Hazel'A. Boylan of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia BYRON G. BALCOM A Barrister of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia AFFIDAVIT OF SPOUSAL STATUS CANADA PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY I, Christin Mark Boylan, of Upper Dyke, in the County of Kings, Province of Nova Scotia, make oath and swear that: I acknowledge that I executed the foregoing instrument under seal on the date of this affidavit. 2. This acknowledgment is made pursuant to s. 31(a) of the Registry Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.392 or s. 79(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act as the case may be, for the purpose of registering the instrument. 3. I am nineteen years of age or older and am resident of Canada under the Income Tax Act Canada). 4. That I executed the attached document under seal on even date herewith. 5. For the purpose of this Affidavit "spouse" means either of two people who: i. are married to each other ii. are married to each other by a marriage that is voidable and has not been annulled by a judgment of nullity; iii. have gone through a form of marriage with each other, in good faith, that is void and are cohabiting or have cohabited within the preceding year; or iv. is a party to a registered domestic -partner declaration made in accordance with section 53 of the Vital Statistics Act but does not include a former domestic partner. The sale of the lands constitutes an exempt supply pursuant to Part I of Schedule V of the Excise Tax Act. 7. THAT, as of the date hereof, I am not a spouse and I have no former domestic partner with the rights contemplated by Section 55 of the Vital Statistics Act, nor any former spouse with rights under the Matrimonial Property Act. SWORN TO at Bedford, in the County of ) Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia the 7day ) of July, 2021, before me: ) hA1 r A rrister/Co ission of Oaths ) Christin Mark Boylan of the Supreme Court o Nova Scotia BYRON G BALCOM A Barrister of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY I certify that on this of July, A.D., 2021, Hazel A. Boylan and Christin Mark Boylan, the party(ies) to the day egoing Indenture, signed, sealed and delivered the same in my presence, and I have signed as a witness to said execution. BYRON G. BALCOM A arrister of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia BYRON a BALCOMBarristeroftheSumepreCourtOfNovaScoya PARCEL DESCRIPTION REPORT 2021-07-21 14:1438 P1D: 60122082 CURRENT STATUS: ACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE/TIME: 2005-09-22 10:36:01 ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Harriston, in the County of Lunenburg and Province of Nova Scotia, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a survey marker placed near an 8 inch blazed maple tree and approximately 2 feet from the normal high water line of the south shore of Hunt's Lake and at the northeast comer of lands of Gordon Turner; THENCE South 01 degrees 56 minutes 30 seconds West 1156.56 feet as calculated along a blazed line found being the east sideline of said Turner lands to a survey marker placed at a wooden post and rock pile found; THENCE North 65 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds East 1421.52 feet along the north sideline of lands retained by Ronald P. Hughes to a survey marker found at a wooden post and rock pile found; THENCE along the irregular course of a blazed line found approximately 2005 feet, the straight line being North 24 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds East 1985.44 feet as calculated, to a survey marker place approximately 4 feet easterly from the normal high water mark of the south shore of Hunt's Lake; THENCE westerly to the normal high water mark of the south shore of Hunt's Lake and southwesterly along the irregular courses of the normal high water mark of Hunt's Lake, the straight line being South 59 degrees 12 minutes 50 seconds West 2426.36 feet as calculated, to the place of beginning, containing approximately 50.0 acres. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE Lot A on Plan showing Lot A lands of Ronald Hughes prepared by Tru-Line Surveys, Edward J. Cleveland, N.S.L.S., as Plan No. 79-142 dated October 24, 1979 which said plan is now filed in the Registry of Deeds at Chester as File No. P-868. BURDEN: SUBJECT HOWEVER to whatever residual rights may still exist by reason of the reservation of a right of way in the Deed to Frank E. Boylan by Gold River Pulpwood Company Limited dated February 2, 1931 and recorded in the Registry of Deeds at Chester in Book 20 at Page 275. BENEFITS: First Benefit: A right of way for all purposes and at all times in common with Ronald P. Hughes et ux Muriel L. and others entitled thereto over and across all that land at Harriston in the County of Lunenburg and Province of Nova Scotia, bounded as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwesterly corner of the public road known as Adams Road ending near the home of Norman Sweet; THENCE Northwesterly along the Northeasterly boundary of the bulldozed road now in existence to the Southerly boundary of Grant No. 10331 now owned by Ronald Hughes; THENCE Southwesterly along the Southerly boundary of Grant No. 10331 to a point; THENCE Southeasterly and 66 feet perpendicularly distant from the Northeasterly boundary of that bulldozed road to the Page 1 PARCEL DESCRIPTION REPORT 2021-07-21 14:14:3 8 Southwesterly corner of the Adams Road; THENCE Northerly or Northeasterly along the end of the Adams Road to the place of beginning Second Benefit: A right of way at Harriston in the County of Lunenburg and Province of Nova Scotia for all purposes and at all times in common with Ronald P. Hughes et ux over the existing roadway that crosses the residue of Crown Grant No. 20675 from the termination of the right of way in Lot No. 2 herein to Lot No. 1 herein to the end that there is an assured right of way and access for vehicular and pedestrian traffic from Highway No. 12 to Lot No.1 herein conveyed. The parcel originates with an approved plan of subdivision that has been filed under the Registry Act or registered under the Land Registration Act at the Land Registration Office for the registration district of Lunenburg County as plan or document number P-868. External Comments: Description Change Details: Reason: Author of New or Changed Description: Name: Registered Instruments: Comments: Page 2 0 O EA PA. Box 1749HALIHalifax, Nova Scotia REGIONAL MUNICIPALITYPALITY 83J 3A5 Canada Item No. 11.1.1 Halifax Regional Council March 1, 2011 TO: Mayor Kelly and Members of H0ifax Regional Council Original Signed byz— SUBMITTED BY: Wayne Anstey, Acting Original Signed by Mike Labrecque, Del DATE: February 17, 2011 Officer Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Petition for Private Right -of -Way ORIGIN This report arises out of a petition received from Susan Sheehan to Council to lay out a private right-of-way across lands at 5 Milton Drive, for the benefit of her property located at 9 Milton Drive. The petition has been made pursuant to the Private Ways Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 358. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that: 1. Council appoint a Commissioner pursuant to Section 17 of the Private Ways Act, to consider the petition of Susan Sheehan; and 2. Before the Commissioner is engaged, Council enter into an agreement with Susan Sheehan for reimbursement to FIRM of any and all expenses incurred by HRM as the result of Ms. Sheehan's petition and which are recoverable by HRM under the Private Ways Act. Specifically, all expenses associated with the Arbitrators, and any compensation payable to Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron. Petition for Private Right -of -Way -2- March 1, 2011 Council Report BACKGROUND Susan Sheehan is the owner of property located at 9 Milton Drive in the Halifax Regional Municipality. To the north of her property are the waters of the Northwest Arm, to the east are lands owned by Marterra Inc., and to the south and west are the lands of Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron (5 Milton Drive). Ms. Sheehan has access to her property by way of a public footpath that runs from the parking lot of Fleming Park, along the waters of Northwest Arm to Purcells Cove. The public footpath crosses the property of Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron. Ms. Sheehan does not have any vehicular access to her home. Ms. Sheehan inherited the home from her father, Harold Sutherland, when he passed away in December, 1997. Ms. Sheehan has filed a petition pursuant to the Private Ways Act (PWA) to Council for the laying out of a private way across the property of Dr. and Mrs. Cron, located at 5 Milton Drive. A copy of Ms. Sheehan's petition is attached as Appendix "A". A copy of the PWA is attached as Appendix `B". Part 2 of the Act provides a means whereby landlocked property owners can acquire a right-of-way across neighboring lands. Under the Act, a property owner may apply to Council asking for the laying out of a private way or road. Council must hear the application, but has the discretion as to whether or not to grant it. If Council is not satisfied that the application should be granted, that is the end of Council's involvement. If Council decides to grant the application, then the next step is for Council to appoint a Commissioner. The Commissioner is to: Examine whether the proposed private way or road is the most practicable and reasonable means of access for the person petitioning for the way or road to his or her land; 2. If satisfied that the proposed private way or road is the most practicable and reasonable means of access, the Commissioner is to lay out the private way or road in the manner most advantageous to the person applying for the private way or road and least detrimental to the owner of the land through which the private way or road shall pass; and Work with the owners of the property over which the right of way will pass and the petitioner under the Act, to attempt to reach an agreement as to the compensation to be paid for the land. Council is required to pay for the services of the Commissioner, who shall receive such remuneration as Council allows. If Council chooses to grant the application, a further report will be submitted to Council recommending who should be appointed as Commissioner. These costs cannot be recovered from the Applicant. If the Commissioner cannot get the parties to agree to compensation, there is a procedure under the Act for determining the amount to be paid. This procedure involves the appointment of three arbitrators. One is appointed by the Commissioner, one is appointed by the owner of the land over which the right of way will go, and a third is to be appointed by the Mayor. Petition for Private Right -of -Way - 3 - March 1, 2011 Council Retort The compensation ascertained by either agreement or by appraisement, and the expenses occurred in respect thereto, shall be paid by Council under the Act. However, these expenses may be charged against and recovered from any polling district in which the private way or road is made or may be recovered in whole or in part from the applicant, as Council may direct. Once the Commissioner has fulfilled his or her duties and either an agreement is reached or an award for compensation is made, the Commissioner will prepare a report to Council, setting out his or her findings and recommendations. Council may accept or reject any recommendations contained in the report, including recommendations made with respect to compensation. If a private way is ultimately granted to the petitioner by Council, a copy of the plan setting out the private way shall be registered in the Registry of Deeds. Ms. Sheehan's father, Harold Sutherland, petitioned Council in 1997 for a private way pursuant to the PWA. Unfortunately Mr. Sutherland passed away before the matter could be heard by Council, but Ms. Sheehan, as beneficiary and Executrix of his Estate, continued with his petition. The matter went before Council in January 1998. Council granted the application and a Commissioner, Ms. Deborah Baker, was appointed. Ms. Baker determined that the land over which the private way would be located was Crown land and therefore under Federal jurisdiction. The PWA does not apply to Crown land and as such the Commissioner could not make a decision affecting these lands under the Act. This brought the petition to an end. In 2000, the Halifax Port Authority entered into an agreement with Ms. Sheehan to cross the Crown land in order to access her home. The agreement was for a ten year period, but was not subject to renewal. Ms. Sheehan was permitted to construct a driveway across the Crown land that ran along the frontage of the property of Dr. and Mrs. Cron at 5 Milton Drive. The Crons disputed the Crown's assertion that the property was Crown land. The dispute was ultimately settled as between the Federal Crown and the Crons, with the Crown deeding any interest it had in the land in front of 5 Milton Drive to the Crons by way of Deed dated January 14, 2010. The Crons respected the lease between the Crown and Ms. Sheehan, and permitted Ms. Sheehan to continue to use the driveway until such time as the lease expired on April 30, 2010. The driveway has since been removed. Ms. Sheehan has not had vehicular access to her home since that time. Attached as Appendix "C" is an aerial photo of 5 and 9 Milton Drive, taken from HRM's GISS. The photo appears to have been taken before the driveway installed by Ms. Sheehan under the Port Authority lease was removed. In anticipation of Ms. Sheehan's petition, on October 1, 2010 the Crons filed an application in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for an order declaring that Ms. Sheehan's proposed petition for a private way under the PWA is beyond the jurisdiction of Halifax Regional Municipal Council. Ms. Sheehan filed her petition on November 15, 2010, but it was agreed that her petition would not proceed until such time as the Crons' application was heard and a decision rendered. The Crons' application was heard on December 8, 2010, and was dismissed by the Court on December 15, 2010. Justice Rosinski of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia declared that as a matter of law, Part 2 of the PWA is operative legislation and any municipal Council petitioned for the obtaining and laying out of a private way or road may properly consider the petition as per the provisions of the PWA. Petition for Private Right -of -Way - 4 - March 1, 2011 Council Report On January 13, 2011 the Crons filed a Notice of Appeal appealing the decision of Justice Rosinski. The appeal will be heard on September 20, 2011. DISCUSSION In accordance with the decision of Justice Rosinski of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Council may consider the petition of Susan Sheehan under the PWA. The PWA is silent with respect to the procedure to be followed by Council when considering the application. It is staffs opinion that both Ms. Sheehan and the Crons should have an opportunity to present their position to Council on March 1, 2011. Both Ms. Sheehan and the Crons were advised on February 1, 2011 that this matter would be on the March 1st Council Agenda. This is in keeping with the rules of procedural fairness. It is recommended that Council appoint a Commissioner pursuant to the PWA to consider the application of Susan Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan has no means of vehicular access to her home. As indicated in her petition, this raises concerns over access to 9 Milton Drive for emergency services, as well as access for basic necessities such as heating oil delivery. Further, other possible remedies have been considered and denied. For example, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia determined in 1968 that Ms. Sheehan's father did not meet the requirements necessary to establish a right-of-way of necessity under the common law. Council will have to consider, however, whether to hear the petition at this time or wait until the appeal of Justice Rosinski's decision has been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. If Council chooses to proceed at this stage, there is a risk that the matter will be determined by the Court of Appeal prior to the Commissioner submitting his or her report. If the Court of Appeal determines that a petition for a private way under the PWA is beyond the jurisdiction of Halifax Regional Municipal Council, then all proceedings under the PWA must come to an end. Council will be responsible to compensate the Commissioner for any work done up to that point. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The budget implications are as follows: As indicated, Council is required to pay for the remuneration of the Commissioner, in an amount as allowed by Council. When Deborah Baker was appointed as Commissioner in 1998, Council had approved remuneration to Ms. Baker in the amount of $1,500.00. However, the actual time spent by Ms. Baker resulted in fees of just over $7,000.00, inclusive of HST. Ms. Baker did not request additional payment from Council, as she had agreed to undertake the task for the agreed upon fee of $1,500.00. However, it is unlikely that a Commissioner today would agree to undertake this project for a payment of $1,500.00. It is anticipated that the Commissioner's fees would likely be in the range of $7,500.00 to $10,000.00. These costs are not recoverable from Ms. Sheehan. 2. Under the PWA, if an agreement for compensation cannot be reached, arbitrators must be appointed to enter the land and appraise the compensation payable to the owner. The expenses associated with the arbitrators, including compensation for their time, are to be Petition for Private Right -of -Way - 5 - March 1, 2011 Council Report paid by Council. However, it may be charged against and recovered from any polling district in which such private way or road is made, or may be recovered in whole or in part from the applicant, as Council may direct. 3. Should a right-of-way be granted to Ms. Sheehan over the property of Dr. and Mrs. Cron, the compensation payable to the Crons is to be paid by Council. However, it may be charged against and recovered from any polling district in which such private way or road is made, or may be recovered in whole or in part from the applicant, as Council may direct. Staff recommends that any expenses associated with the arbitrators and the compensation payable to the Crons be recovered from Ms. Sheehan, as she is the one who will benefit from the creation of the private right-of-way. If Ms. Sheehan's application is granted, staff further recommends entering into an agreement with Ms. Sheehan that outlines how she will reimburse HRM. This agreement should be signed before the Commissioner begins his or her work. Funds for payment of the Commissioner's fees will be paid out of Account Number M351-6999. There are sufficient funds available in this account to pay the Commissioner's fees. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIESBUSINESS PLAN This report complies with the Municipality's Multi -Year Financial Strategy, the approved Operating, Project and Reserve budgets, policies and procedures regarding withdrawals from the utilization of Project and Operating reserves, as well as any relevant legislation. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Not applicable. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives are: Council could postpone hearing Ms. Sheehan's application until the appeal of Justice Rosinski's decision has been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. 2. Council could hear Ms. Sheehan's application and, if granted, postpone appointing a Commissioner until the appeal of Justice Rosinski's decision has been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. Council could hear Ms. Sheehan's application and refuse to grant it. This would conclude Council's involvement in the matter. ATTACHMENTS Appendix "A" Petition of Susan Sheehan Petition for Private Right -of -Way - 6 - March 1, 2011 Council Report Appendix `B" Private Ways Act Appendix "C" Aerial photo of 5 and 9 Milton Drive, taken from HRM's GISS A copy of this report can be obtained online at http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/cagend _ ml then choose the appropriate meeting date, or by contacting the Office of the Municipal Clerk at 490-4210, or Fax 490-4208._ ;ax Report Prepared by: Karen E. MacDonald, Solicitor, 490-4226 Report Approved by: ' r M. E. Donovan, Director, Legal S ices a ement, 490-4226 Financial Approval by: pp Cathie O'Toole, CGA.: = : e of Finance, 490-6308 t . 7- ATTACHMENT "A" IN THE MATTER OF: The Nova Scotia Evidence Act, R.S.N.S. 1989. C.154. and IN THE MATTER OF: A Petition to The Halifax Regional Municipality pursuant to s.17 of the Private Ways Act, R.S. N. S. 1989, 358. I, Susan Dawn Sheehan, of 9 Milton Drive, in the Halifax Regional Municipality, make oath and say as follows: 1) I am the owner in fee simple of lands situate at 9 Milton Drive, in the Halifax Regional Municipality, formerly known as 9 Milton Drive, Jollimore, in the County of Halifax. My property is bounded on the north by the waters of the Northwest Arm, on the east by the lands of Marterra Inc., and on the south and west by the lands of Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron. 2) I inherited this home from my father, Harold Sutherland as sole heir and executrix to his estate in December of 1997. My father's Will was probated on January 71h 1998. 3) At the time that I inherited the property at 9 Milton Drive, the only access that existed was by foot on a public footpath that crossed what I believed to be the property of Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron. This public footpath runs from the parking lot of Flemming Park, along the waters of the Northwest Arm to Purcell's Cove. The pathway is about three feet wide, now gravelled and accessed through an opening in a fence which runs the length of the Cron property. 4) In August of 1997, my father was diagnosed with cancer, and a request to his neighbours, Charles and Marie Cron to permit an ambulance to cross their land in order to attend hospital treatments was denied. 5) In 1997 my father submitted a petition to the Halifax Regional Municipality under the Private Ways Act with regard to the restrictions imposed on him by the lack of a private way to his home and his failing health. A copy is attached as Exhibit A. 6) My father died from his illness before the matter could be brought before council, as a result he did not receive necessary medical treatment during a difficult illness that may have extended his life span. 7 I 7) In 1998, in consideration of the recent events and the seriousness of the situation, I resubmitted the petition under the private ways act before HRM council. 8) HRM council accepted the petition and appointed Deborah Baker as the commissioner to oversee the process. The commissioner agreed with the proposed access route which followed the existing public footpath. 9) HRM employed a surveyor to survey the surrounding lands as part of the process that underlies the act. That survey revealed that the proposed access route crossed lands that belonged to the Federal Government and fell under the jurisdiction of the Halifax Port Authority. 10) The commissioner concluded that HRM did not have the authority to impose access across Crown land, and the process under the act was discontinued. 11) In 2000 The Halifax Port Authority offered my family a lease agreement to cross the Crown land in order to access our home and receive all manner of services including emergency vehicles and oil delivery. 12) 1 accepted the lease agreement and undertook the costs to constrict a private way across federal land as allowed by the agreement. A copy is attached as Exhibit B. 13) In April, 2010 the lease agreement expired. Charles and Marie Cron, in a letter from their lawyer claimed to have "resolved" the issue of title to the fonnerly owned Port Authority lands although no transfer of title had been produced at that time. A copy of the letter to my solicitor is attached as Exhibit C. 14) On July 12, 2010 a Crown Grant was registered which gave my neighbours full ownership of what was previously deemed public land. A copy of the Grant is attached as Exhibit D. 15) I was not informed by either party that transfer of the land was being considered or that a dispute over title between the Port Authority and my neighbours was resolved. No consideration was given to the fact that a return of title to private landowners would leave my family once again without access to our home 16) As a result of the land transfer and the loss of access to my property, I cannot obtain heating fuel by delivery, I have no legal place to park a vehicle over night that is closer than half a kilometre tiway from my home, and once again I may be faced with no emergency services should the need arrive for me or my two children. 17) It is not feasible to sell a landlocked home and therefore the usual rights associated with selling my home are not afforded to me. 18) My insurance company has determined that lack of access may be considered as an unprotected risk, if I cannot resolve the issue I may not be able to obtain home owners insurance. A copy of a letter from my insurer is attached as Exhibit E. 19) On July 81h, 2010 my neighbours used a bulldozer to remove a fuard rail and a portion of the seawall at the boundary of our property. On July 9` , they removed the swing gate (installed in 2000 as agreed to in the licence agreement ) at the entrance of the driveway location and replaced it with fast growing thorn bushes. They also covered the entire distance of what was my access route with approximately 5 inches of dirt. 20) I believe that 9 Milton Drive is the only residence in the HRM that does not have legal means for access. 21) I make this petition praying for a private way or road following the course of the public footpath described above and sufficiently wide to allow for vehicular access over the lands of Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron, pursuant to s. 17(1) of the Private Wnys Act. SWORN to at Halifax, in the Halifax Regional Municipality, Province of Nova Scotia, this [(A day of November A.D. 2010, efore me: isan Sheehan W. Dale un op INDEX TAB DESCRIPTION A Petition to the Halifax Regional Municipality Dated November 5, 1997 B License Agreement dated May ls`, 2000 C Letter dated April 13, 2010 from John A. Keith to Dale Dunlop D Crown Grant registered July 12, 2010 E Letter dated June 4, 2010 from Donna White to Leslie Sutherland r" A. 7 I 1 Exhibit Stamp This is Exhibit "A" referred to in the Affidavit of Susan Sheehan sworn before me this day of November, A.D. 2010 04/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 02/11 Walker, Dunlop BARRISTERS A SOLICITORS COAAESPONOENCE A.I.I3ON W. SCOTT MA41FAX P,O. Boy 3368 ($1 HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA 83J 3J1 148S SOUTH PARK STREET TELEPHONS (902) 423.9121 FACSIMILE (9021 A29-01121 Navember 7, 1997 COARE9PON0ENCE: ST. MARGARET'S BAY SITE 9 9OX I FIAMS. Vi Carmichael NO 2 SCOTV4COTIA Municipal Clerk e0J 3Jo 1.649 Argyle Street TELEPHONE (Sall826.7723 P.O. .Box 1749 FACSIMILE (9021 926.7123 Halifax, Nova Scotia , H3,7 3A5 Dear M.S. Carmichael; Re: Lands of Harold Zames Sutherland - 9 Milton Drive, Regional Municipality Of Halifax and the private Rights of Air R-S_N.S_ 1989 c_ 355. This firm has been retained by Mr. Harold Sutherland to advance petition on his behalf under the Private Rigs s of .WaY Act, R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 358, S. 17, in respect of his property located.ac 9 Milton Drive, in the Halifax Regional Municipality. Please consider this letter and the attached Affidavit Mr. Sutherland's petition. In the enclosed Affidavit sworn by Mr. Sutherland, he sets out the - particulars of the circumstances which have forced him to the situation where he must seek the assistance of the Halifax Regional Municipality in order to ensure he has access to his property and the usual amenities associated with home ownership in the Halifax Regional Municipality. Indeed, as the Affidavit reveals, Mr. Sutherland is in a particulary vulnerable position at present, making the assistance of, council not only- a matter of convenience to him, but a matter of importance to his health and welfare. Briefly, when Mr. Sutherland acquired' the property at 9 Milton Drive in 1963, he assumed he was acquiring an easement over , the lands to the east of his property which would allow him legal access to his otherwise land locked property. The Deed conveying the property to him purported to convey the easement. In 1966 the neighbour to the east took action against Mr., Sutherland in trespass and sought a declaration in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against him, prohibiting him access to this easement. The 04/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 03/11 2 - Nova Scotia Supreme Court Trial Division found that an easement had been properly granted in the chain of title establishing Mr. Sutherland's ownership. The decision Of the Court is attached to Mr.'Sutherland's Affidavit. as Exhibit "a". At page 329 the Court notes. the problem created by its decision. The Court acknowledges that as a, result of the findings it has made, Mr. Sutherland's land is land locked. The Court then goes on however to state that Mr. Sutherland has rights under the private+ Mays_ ct, then C. 237 of R_S.N.S. 19671 S. 16. After the decision of the Nova Scotia Supiceme Court, Mr. Sutherland did make an appeal to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court Appeal Division. That appeal -was denied. As a result of the decisions of the Court, Mr. Sutherland's only access to his property.was by way of'a public foot path which runs from the parking lot of Flemming Park, comonly known as the Dingle along the waters of the North West Arm towards Rurcells Cove. This public pathway starts at the -easterly boundary of the Dingle at the west boundary -of lands owned by Dr. and Mrs_ Charles Cron. The lands of Dr. and Mrs . Charles Cron bound the Sutherland property on the east. The pathway crosses the lands of Dr. and Mrs. Cron, the Sutherland property, and continues along the shores of the Northwest Arm. The distance from the Sutherland property boundary to the entrance of the pathway is approx imataelW r S fence on the The entrance to the pathway is through a gap Cron's property_ It is sufficiently wide to allow pedestrian traffic through, but will not allow vehicular traffic. The access from the Sutherland house, to the pathway is through a path wklich descends a very steep incline. As Mr. Sutherland sets out in his Affidavit, for the past 34 years h,e3 has not enjoyed the usual amenities associated with home, ownership in the Ralifax Regional Municipality_ necause he -does not have a driveway or a right-of-way to his property, he must take care of garbage disposal by removing it from his property and depositing it in Flemming Park where it is picked up by garbage - collection. He does not have regular mail delivery. in the summer time Canada post will cross the public• foot path described above to accomplish mail delivery, In the winter months however the foot path is often not usable and Canada Post will not allow its employees to cross it. Mr. Sutherland must retrieve his mail -from the Artndale post Office. Mr. Sutherland's access to home delivery for heating oil is completely at the discretion•of his neighbours. The Crons have permitted oil trucks to enter .their lands and drag hoses across their property to the Sutherland property. However Mr. Sutherland does not have a "right" to this access which may be refused at any time in the future, In light of recent events it is apparent.that the Crons or subsequent title' holders may feel this trespass intrusive or ill advised and stop the access at any time without H H 04/26/2010 13:50 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 04/11 3 - - - notice. Similarly heavy or large deli.ver;es are either very difficult to accomplish along the public foot path, or must depend on the good will of neighbours to allow trespass. In his usual day-to-day routines, Mr. Sutherland has always had to park his car in the Dingle parking lot. To transport groceries and other items to and from his house, he must cross the footpath which in winter time is often treacherous. As a result of parking his car in the Dingle parking lot, Mr. Sutherland's car and Chat of his family has been vandalized countLess times. Windows have been broken, gas siphoned, and the body of the car dented . The car itself was even stolen onone occasion. Mr. Sutherland's property is serviced by electrical power. The pole located on the property however is in a very poor state of maintenance. Nova Scotia officials have indicated they are unwilling to enter the property to replace the pole because Mr. Sutherlanddoesn't have a right-of-way across his neighbour's land. Several years ago the City of Halifax installed a fire hydrant on the Sutherland- property, locating a waterway easement along the public pathway. Despite this, there is no obvious way for a fire truck to gain access to the hydrant, as the. wire fence blocks access along the public pathway, and Mr. Sutherland's property is otherwise landlocked by neighbours' lands. As a result of the landlocked condition, Mr. Sutherland does not enjoy the usual amenities associated with home ownership in the Regional. Municipality of Halifax. This has led not only to simple denial of access to municipal and other services, but has culminated to the point where his life, health and welfare are in jeopardy. The vulnerability of Mr. Sutherland and his family is demonstrated by limitations the family faces in access to medical services because of the lack of vehicular access to their property. in 1988 Mr. Sutherland's wife was diagnosed with stomach and liver cancer. The disease was extremely painful. Because of the pain she was not able to walk along the public foot path to get to the car to attend at the hospital for treatment for her illness. Mrs. Sutherland died in 1988. In 1992 Mr. Sutherland fell breaking several ribs and puncturing a lung. He was able to contact an ambulance immediately. However it took three hours for the emergency personnel to locate him. Because he does not have driveway access to a street, emergency personnel were confused and could not find him. Even when they did find him, they had severe difficulty getting Mr. Sutherland down 04/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 05/11 4 the steep incline described and had to essentially mount a rescue mission in order to get him out. Since 1994 Mr. Sutherland's health has failed. him. He has not beea able to regularly walk to and from the Dingle parking lot. He has had the good fortune of a family physician who has been willing to make house calls.. Again, however, he' is at the mercy and discretion of another to gain access to what most of us consider a basic fundamental right to service. Recently Mr. Sutherland was diagnosed with cancer, He is not well enough to walk the public pathway to and from his property to attend at physicians' offices or the hospital for treatment. On his behalf, his son-in-law, Shaun Sheehan, wrote to his neighbour Dr. and Mrs. Cron to request permission to remove a' portion of the tence to'allow vehicular access to the Sutherland property so. that they could take Mr. Sutherland to and from his house with greater ease and convenience. Dr. and Mr. Cron refused this request. I refer you to Exhibits "E" and "P" of Mr. Sutherland's Affidavit, a ester from Shaun Sheehan, Mr. Sutherland's son-in-law to Dr. and Mrs. Cron, and a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Cron's solicitor, William Jordan. Section 17 (1) Of the private Ways Xt,tr - provides: 617(1) Any freeholder or freeholders of any municipality may present a petition to the Council praying for the obtaining and laying out of a private way or road, either open or pent_" The duties of Council when such a petition is placed before it are described in as_ 2 of s. 17: 1117(2) Where the Council is satisfied that the application should be granted, it shall order a precept to be issued to a competent person as a commissioner, directing him, within a convenient time, to a) examine whether the proposed private way or road is the most practicable and reasonable means of. access for the person or persons petitioning for the .way or road to his or their lands or property or rights; b) if satisfied with respect thereto, layout the same in the manner most advantageous to the person or persons applying for the 0d/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 06/11 5 -- way or road and leasC detrimental to the owner or owners of. the land through which the same shall pass; and c) mark out the same on the land. In light of Mr. Sutherland's state of health, it is a matter of urgency that you address this issue with all due expediency. It is difficult to imagine more pressing circumstances which could give rise to a petition under this Act. Aside from the current pressing health issue however there is ample evidence that this is an appropriate case for Council, to exercise its discretion to grant a right -of -way -to Mr. Sutherland. The lack of a private right-of-way to the property creates additional risk to residents of 9 Milton Drive in the case of fire. will the Eire Department be able to find 9 Milton Drive? Will valuable time be lost 'locating 9 Milton Drive or negotiating permission to cross the Cron's or others property for access? The lack of a . private right-of-way • results in a denial to the Sutherland property of all the usual amenities associated with home ownership: access to Access a Bus service, mail delivery, and a safe. place to park a car, it is recognized that the process in the Act anticipates several steps after appointment of the Commissioner before the right-of=way can be granted. It -is of the utmost importance however that this process commence and 'hopefully that it will conclude within sufficient time to be of benefit to Mr. Sutherland in his current circumstances. 'On Mr. .Sutherland's behalf, we urge Council to appoint a commissioner pursuant to ss. 2 of a- 17 of the Act immediately. we would suggest the appointment of William Grant, Q.C. recently retired from the Supreme Court Trial Division as the commissioner. if it is considered appropriate, I would be pleased to attend at Council to speak in favour of this petition on Mr. Sutherland's behalf. I am at your convenience in that regard. Yours vary truly, W710 DUNLOP AScott AS/jm ncle. c.c. Harold Sutherland 04/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 07/11 d 04/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 08/11 IN THE MATTER OF: The ,Vovo Scoria Evidence Act, R.S. N.S. 1989. c.154. and IN THE MATTER OF: A petition'to the Halifax. Regional Municipality pursuant to s,17 of the Privare Ways Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.358. 1, Harold Jarnes Sutherland, of 9 Milton Drive, in the Halifax Regional Municipality, make oath and say as follows: 1. 1 am the owner in fee simple of lands situate at 9 Milton Drive, in the Halifax Regional Municipality, formerly known as 9 Milton Drive, Jollimore, in the County of Halifax. My property is bounded on the north by the waters of the Northwest Arm, on the east by the lands of Kathleen Mack (formerly Kathleen Finley), and on the south and west by the lands of Dr, and Mrs. Charles Cron. 2. 1 acquired the premises at 9 Milton Drive from Janet Marshall by warranty deed dated the 1st day of April, 1963- Attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" to this my affidavit is a true copy of the aforementioned wamnty deed. 3. When I acquired this property, I believed I also acquired an easement over adjacent lands which would allow me ingress and egress to my property_ I refer to the concluding paragraph of the description of the lands acquired in the warranty deed to establish my belief. 4, The land I believed was subject to the easement was located to the east of my property and owned by Kathleen Finley. On the 21st day of November, 1966, Kathleen Finley commenced an action to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, in trespass against me and sought a perpetual injunction against me, preventing me from interfering with her property by passing over it or in any way affecting trees or growth on the property. S. On the 22nd day of April, 1968, Justice Coffin rendered a decision in this action in favour of the plaintiff, Kathleen Finley. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B" to this my affidavit a true'copy of that decision. The effect of the decision of Justice Coffin was to -render my property at 9 Milton Drive land -locked, 6, The only access to my property at 9 Milton Drive is through a public pathway or right- of-way which runs from the parking -lot of Flemming Park, commonly known as the Dingle along the waters of the Northwest Arm to Purcell's Cove, This public pathway crosses the lands of my neighbours, Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron• to my property, crosses my property and continues along the shore of the Northwest Arm, The distance from the parking lot to my property boundary along this pathway is approximately 250 feet. The pathway is about three feet wide, unpaved, rough and treacherous in wet or icy weather. Mere are times in the winter it is impossible to cross. To get access to the pathway, I 04/26/2010 13:56 9024904232 FIRM LEGAL PAGE 09/11 2- must descend a steep incline from my house to the path. The entrance to the pathway from the Dingle parking lot is accessed through an.'opening in a fence which tuns the length of the Cron property. The opening will not permit vehicular access. 7. Because of the serious consequences of the decision of Justice Coffin referred to above, I appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division. The decision of the court dismissing my appeal is reported at (1969) 4 D.L.R. (3d) 586. 8. During the course of the trial, I gave evidence as to the condition of this foot path and the difficulties I experienced in gaining access to my home using this foot path. I attached hereto as Exhibit, "C" ' to this my affidavit a true copy of the transcript of evidence taken at trial in this regard. 9. After the decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court Appeal Division, I continued to use the foot path described. By letter dated July 27, 1992, 1 requested the assistance of Ron Hanson, Alderman for Ward S in the former City of Halifax. la.that letter tset out in detail the difficulties I.have in gaining access to and from my property. I attach hereto as Exhibit "D" to this my affidavit a true copy of that letter. Mr. Hanson subsequently advised me there was nothing he could .do. 10. Briefly, for the past 34years I have not enjoyed the usual amenities associated with home ownership in the Halifax Regional Municipality. Because I do not have a driveway or a right-of-way to my property, I must take care of garbage disposal by removing garbage from my property and depositing it in garbage receptacles at Flemming Park. I do not have regular trail delivery. In the summertime Canaria Post will cross the public footpath to accomplish mail delivery. During the winter months, when the foot path is not usable, Canada Post does not provide me with postal service and I must retrieve my mail from the Armdale Post Office. 11. To obtain heating oil I must make arrangements two weeks iri advance to secure delivery by a truck with an extm long delivery hose as the oil delivery must be accomplished from the property my neighbours the Crons. The Crons have given permission for oil delivery, but may refuse permission in the future at their discretion. 12. Transporting groceries to and from my property has not improved in the last 34 years. In the wintertime, traversing the snowbound foot paths of the public pathway from Flemming Park to my property is treacherous. 13. While my property is serviced by a fire hydrant, I am not aware of any roadway by which Fire Department vehicles can access my property tb hook up to the fire hydrant. Fire vehicle access to my property is completely At the discretion of my neighbours. 04/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL I C E r 3- PAGE 10/11 14. My property is serviced by electrical power. The power pole located on my property delivering electricity is in a poor state of maintenance: I have been advised by officials from Nova Scotia Power that they are unwilling to enter my property to replace the pole because i do not have a right-of-way for them to cross my neighbour's property to bring their repair vehicles close to the pole. I have parked my car in the public parking lot at the Dingle since 1963, as has my family and visitors. In the past eight years, my family's cars have been vandalized. On one occasion a windshield was broken, on eight occasions side windows were broken, a car battery has been stolen twice and the car itself and its contents stolen once. The gasoline tank has been siphoned countless times, four spare tires have been stolen, three gas caps have been stolen, and the body of the vehicles dented by vandals. The previous'20 years were similar to the past eight. 16. In 1992 1: fell,. breaking several ribs and puncturing a lung. I contacted an ambulance immediately. It took three hours for emergency personnel to locate the and remove me to a hospital as they were unable to locate my address because I do not have a driveway. When emergency personnel did finally find me, they had considerable difficulty getting me from my house to the ambulance. They had to use two different methods of transporting me and finally had to carry me in a• chair for the last portion of the trek as they were unable to use a gurney for the entire trip. 17, In 1994 my failing eyesight prevented me from driving and my health had failed to the point where, it was difficult for me to walk the distance to the public parking lot. Because I had no vehicular access to my home, I am not even able to make use of the Access a Bus service usually available to other citizens of this jurisdiction. Since 1994 I have had to rely upon my physician to make house calls if I require medical attention. Since 1994 the over all quality of my life has been severely diminished. 18. I have: recently been diagnosed with cancer. I have been advised by my physician to attend at the hospital for cancer treatments on a regular basis. I am not well enough to WAverse the public walkway at the front of my property and consequently have been unable to attend at the hospital for treatment. 19. On my behalf, my son-in-law Shaun Sheehan who resides with me and my daughter at 9 Milton Drive, requested permission of our neighbours Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron to remove a portion of the fence in front of the public walkway on their property to allow a car to get close to my house to take me for cancer treatments and doctors appointments. I do believe my son-in-law offered to pay for any expense associated with this access and the permission for access was requested for only as long as I am alive. I am informed by my son-in-law that Dr. and -Mrs. Cron refused permission. 04/26/2010 13:58 9024904232 HRM LEGAL PAGE 11/11 4- 20YAttachedtothism affidavit as Fxhibit "E" is a true copy of the letter dated August 1, 1997, sent by my•son-in-law•to Dr, and Mrs. Cron after this refusal. 21. 1 also attach to this my affidavit as Exhibit "F" a true copy of the reply from Or, and Mrs, Cron's solicitor, William Jordan, received by my son-in-law on or about August 18, 1997. 22. In 198-9 my wife, Ruth, was diagnosed with stomach and' liver nicer. She was in extreme pain. Because of the pain, she was not able to walk along the public footpath to attend for treatments for her illness. Ruth died in 1988. • 1 believe my wife's suffering could have been reduced if -she could have attended for cancer treatments and necessary hospitalizations, 23, 1 make this application in support of my petition'praying for a private way or road following the course of the public footpath described above and sufficied?ide to allo;41 vehicular access over the lands of Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron, pursuant to s.17(1) of the Private Ways Aer. SWORN to at Wifax, in the Falifax ) Reginnal Municipality, Province of Nova ) Scotia, this 51-- day of November, ) A.D. 1997, before me: ) old Sethi and i A Barrister of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Exhibit Stamp This is Exhibit `B" referred to in the Affidavit of Susan Sheehan sworn before me this day of November, A.D. 2010 Signature I I N ZLU0 w O LL Y ww DW iy- W LL o NLL Q t z W C2 a w, a Z 06O $ N N Q CS O N v tu ZR RS CD Lon z z J U r Halifax Regional Municipality Licence Agreement No. LIC-00-1 LIC-2000 -°iq THIS LICENCE TO USE RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT made this eday of 2000 BETWEEN: HAUFAX PORT AUTHORITY, a body corporate established pursuant to the Canada Marine Act and having an office at 1215 Marginal Road, P. O. Box 336, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2P6, hereinafter referred to as the "Licensor") OF THE FIRST PART and - SHAUN SHEEHAN AND SUSAN SHEEHAN, both of Halifax, in the Halifax Regional Municipality, Province of Nova Scotia hereinafter called the "Licensee") OF THE SECOND PART The Licensor, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, hereby grants to the Licensee a licence in respect of a 10 foot wide right of way, which said location is shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto, (the "Lands"), for a term of ten (10 ) years commencing on the 1 day of May, 2000, to the 301' day of April, 2010, for reasonable ingress and egress (prohibiting any parking on the Lands or otherwise obstructing movement over the lands) to their property at 9 Milton Drive, in the City of Halifax, Halifax Regional Municipality, including delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, utility vehicles and invited guests of the licensees herein referred, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor the sum of One Dollars ($1.00) per year on the I" day of May in each and every year. 2. The Licensee shall comply with all laws and rules, regulations and by-laws of the Licensor and any other Government Acts or Regulations from time to time in force which in any way Halifax Port Authority Page 1 a Halifax Regional Municipality - 2 - Licence Agreement No. LIC-00 1q bear upon the rights and obligations arising out of or in connection with this Agreement and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Navigable Waters Protecfron Act (Canada). The Licensee shall comply with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, guidelines or standards and shall indemnify and hold harmless the Licensor from any claims that may be made against the Licensor arising from the failure of the Licensee to comply with such laws, regulations, guidelines or standards. This Indemnity and hold harmless obligation shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. 3. The Licensee shall not produce on or bring onto the Lands any toxic or hazardous substances, including, without limitation, PCB's radioactive materials, noxious gases or other substances which may, in the opinion of the Licensor, be Injurious to human life or health Hazardous Substances") and the Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless the Licensor from all liability from whatever source, for pollution from any cause whatsoever to or escaping from the Lands, and this indemnity shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. 4. The Licensee shall be responsible for the maintenance of the right of way to the satisfaction of the Licensor and any necessary repairs to the seawall adjacent to the Lands that might need to be made in order to accommodate the license. All costs associated with the maintenance and repairs are to be the responsibility of the Licensee. 5. The Licensor may, at any time, inspect any works constructed or placed on the Lands and further require additional maintenance thereto. Failure to maintain the right of way to the satisfaction of the Licensor will result In immediate termination of the License at the sole discretion of the Licensor. 6. The Licensee: shall indemnify and hold harmless the Licensor from all claims, losses, liabilities and expenses (including, but not limited to, legal fees and other professional assistance) of any kind in respect of damage to the Licensor's property or loss suffered by the Licensor including, but not limited to, liability of the Licensor to third parties arising out of or in any way connected with the exercise of any rights hereunder, except to the extent that the loss arises out of the gross negligence of the Licensor, its officers or servants. 7, The Licensee shall not have any claim or demand against the Licensor for loss, damage or Injury of any nature whatsoever or howsoever caused, arising out of or in any way connected with the exercise of any rights hereunder, to the person or property ofAhe Licensee and the Licensee assumes all risk incurred while using or maintaining the Lands. Halifax Port Authority Page 2 Halifax Regional Municipality - 3 - Licence Agreement No. C.IC-00-111,14 I 8. The Licensor does not provide any express or implied warranty of title to the Lands. 9. The Licensee shall, if required by the Licensor, extend, alter, or relocate said right of way. If the Licensee fails to make the required changes as soon as reasonably possible upon notice from the Licensor, the Licensor may make the required changes at the Licensee's risk and expense or terminate the agreement 10. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, the Licensee shall, at its 1 expense, if required by the Llcensor, remove any work constructed or placed on the Lands so that the Lands are returned so far as practicable to the condition that existed immediately prior to the commencement of this Agreement. Where, In the opinion of the licensor, the Licensee has failed to remove Its works and restore the Lands within a reasonable time, the Licensor may carry out the removal and restoration of these works at the Licensee's expense. 11. No waiver of a breach of any term of this Agreement Is a waiver of any subsequent breach. A waiver must be in writing and signed by the party waiving the breach to be effective. 12, The Licensor shall have the right to enter upon the Lands at any time to carry out work thereon whether or not such work will interfere with the Licensee's rights under the Agreement and in such an event the Licensee shall not be entitled to claim against the Licensor. 13. This Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written consent of the Licensor. 14. Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder may be given by mailing the notice registered mail with postage prepaid to the party at the address for that party listed below: a) To the Licensor: b) To the Licensee: Halifax Port Authority P. O. Box 336 Halifax, NS B3J 2P6 Shaun and Susan Sheehan 9 Milton Drive Halifax, Nova Scotia Halifax Port Authority Page 3 i. Halifax Regional Municipality - 4 . Licence Agreement No, LIC-00-,,''1c4 Service of any notice by registered mail shall be deemed complete on the date of actual delivery as shown on the addressee's registry receipt. Any party may, by notice in writing, designate a different address for service. 15. This agreement shall enure to the benefit of and binding upon the parties thereto, their successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. /-1 SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the press Witn H IF P le --President & HAU I SHEEHAN SUSAN SHEEHAN ay 2 3/",v cis Halifax Port Authority Page 4 7 Exhibit Stamp This is Exhibit "C" referred to in the Affidavit of Susan Sheehan sworn before me this day of November, A.D. 2010 Signatur I CoxCox& PALMER I coxand almeriaw.com New Brunswick I Newfoundland and Labrador I Nova Scotia I Prince Edward Island April 13, 2010 Via Email: daledunlop@walkerdunlop.ca Mr. Dale Dunlop Walker, Dunlop 1485 South Park Street PO Box 36057 Halifax, NS B3J 3S9 Dear Mr. Dunlop: RE. Charles C.E. Cron and R. Marie Cron v. Shaun Sheehan and Susan Sheehan, et al Hfx No. 267600 We write to confirm that any interests which the Crown or the Halifax Port Authority may have previously claimed over the lands in question are resolved with my clients being recognized as the true and exclusive owners in fee simple. Your client previously used these lands pursuant to a license agreement dated May 1, 2000. That license agreement expires on April 30, 2010 and will not be renewed. Could you please ensure that your clients make every necessary arrangement in anticipation of the lands being restored to their original condition as contemplated under the license agreement and as will otherwise be required by my clients. My clients will not permit the ongoing use of their lands as a driveway and ask that your clients respect their wishes and their entitlementto peaceful enjoyment of their property. If you or the Sheehans have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, John A. Keith JAK/amb John A. Keith I Partner Direct 902 4914217 Main 902 4216262 Fax 902 4213130 Email jkei[h@coxandpalmer.com Purdy's Wharf Tower 1 1100-1959 Upper Water Street Halifax NS Correspondence PO Box 2380 Central Halifax NS B3J 3E5 1 Exhibit Stamp This is Exhibit "D" referred to in the Affidavit of Susan Sheehan sworn before me this day of November, A.P. 2010 U Form 24 Purpose: to change the regWered interest, benefrfs or burdens instrument code: 450) If change(s) requested relate(s) to one or more of thefollowing and no other interests are being added or removed on this form: manner of tenure, description of mariner of tenure, non-resident statur, parcel access or NSFLB occupm+t. Note: Thisform cannot be used to correct car error in a parcel register). Instrument code: 4Sl) Chonge to existing servient or dominate tenement PID number in a parcel register as a result of subdivision or consolidation Note: This form =not be used to correct an error in aparcel register) Registration district: Submitter's user number: Submittees name: Halifax 8151 For Office Use 1ifie i 1F'ad f6 k'kt96 6F P i In the matter of Parcel Identification Number (PID) r=6 LR RQDCI PID 279968 'vD ? PID Tani Expand boxfor additional PMmwc1 u m 9 PIDs perform) The following additional forms are being submitted simultaneously with this form and relate to the attached document ( check appropriate boxes, ifapplicable): Form 24(s) 1. , Form 8A(s) Additional information (check approprtare boxes, tf applicable): This Form 24 creates or is part of a subdivision or consolidation. Marc A. Beaubicn/Cox & Palmer CJ This Form 24 is a municipal or provincial street or road transfer. This Fomt 24 is adding a corresponding benefit or burden as a result of an AFR of another parcel. This Form 24 is adding a benefit or burden where the corresponding benefit"burden in the `flip - side " parcel 0 already identified in the LR parcel register and no further forms are required. Power of attorney (Note: complexion ofthis section is mandatory) D The attached document is signed by attomey for a person under a power of attorney, and the power of attorney is: L: recorded in the attorney roll recorded in the parcel register 1 incorporated in the document OR May 4, 2009*25456/1* 1151091 X No power of attorney applies to this document This form is submitted to make the changes to the registered interests, or benefits or burdens, and other related information, in the above -noted parcel register(s), as set out below. The registered interests and related information arc to be changed as follows: Instrument type Crown Grant Interest holder and type to be removed (if NIA applicable) Interest holder and type to be added (if Charles C. E_ Cron — Fee Simple applicable) Note. include qual fier (e.g, estate of, executor, trustee, personal representative) rf applicable R. Marie Cron — Fee Simple Mailing address ofiuterest holder to be added 5 Milton Drive, Halifax, NS B3P lAl fopplicable) Manner of tenure to be removed (rfapplicable) Manner of tenure to be added ffopplicable) Deseripdon of mixture of tenants in common N/A and joint tenancy (Ifopplicable) Access type to be removed (9 applicable) N/A Access type to be added (!fapplicable) N/A Percentage or share of interest held (for use with NIA tenant in common interests) Non-resident (to quaked solicitor's in No and belied (MzlNo?) Reference to related instrument in parcel N/A register (fopplicable) Reason for removal of interest (for use only when N/A interest is being removed by operation of law and no document is attached) Instrument code. 443 May 4, 2009*2545611"1151091 The following burdens are to be added and/or removed in the parcel register(s): Note: An amending PDCA Is required f the changes being made to the burden section are not cterently reflected in the description in the parcel register). Instrumeattype Expropriation Interest. holder and type to be removed (if N/A applicable) Interest holder and type to be added r1fappticable) Halifax Regional Municipality - Easement /Right of Note: include qualifier (e.g., estate of, executor, trustee, Way Holder (Burden) personal representative) (f applicable) Mailing address of interest holder to be added (f P.O. Box 1749, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 3E5 applicable) Reference to related instrument in names -based Document number 1708 roll/parcel register (rfapplicable) Reason for removal of interest (for use only when NIA interest is being removed by operation of law) Instrument code: 443 Instrument type Expropriation Interest holder and type to be removed (if N/A applicable) Interest holder and type to be added (Ifapplicable) Halifax Regional Municipality - Easement /Right of Note: include qua1#7er (e.g., estate of, executor, trustee, Way Holder (Burden) personal representative) (rf applicable) Mailing address of interest holder to be added (f P.O. Box 1749, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 3E5 applicable) Reference to related Instrument in names -based Document number 1711 voll/parcel register (ifappiicable) Reason for removal of interest (for use only when N/A interest is being removed by operation of law) Instrument code: 443 Instrument type Crown Grant Interest holder and type to be removed (if N/A applicable) May 4, 2009*2545611*1151091 Interest holder and type to he added (f applicable) Various owners' Easement /Right of Way Holder Note: include qualb6er (e.g., estate of, executor, trustee Burden) parsonal representative) (if applicable) Mailing address of interest holder to be added Cf Address unknown applicable) Reference to related too. .meat In manes -based NIA roll/parcel register (lfopplicable) Reason for removal of interest for use only when NIA interest is being removed by operation offaw) Instrunieut code. 443 The textual qualifications are to be changed as follows: Textual qualification on tine to be removed ('Hoerr any existing textual description being changed added to or altered in arty way) Textual qualification on title to be added (insert replacement textual qualification) A PATH TO THE WALLACE HOUSE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN OF ' J.T.CRUICKSHANK PROPERTY, MADE BY F.B.DYER IN JANUARY 195I AND REVISED BY H.KWEDLOCK DECEMBER 9 1955 DESCRIBES A LINED AREA AS FOOTPATH" AND SHOWS THE SAME PASSING OVER P.I.D. 279968 AND CONTINUING OVER P.I.D.279968 .THE FOOTPATH APPEARS TO HAVE EXISTED FOR AT LEAST 200 YEARS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG THE NORTH WEST ARM. SUBJECT TO EXPROPRIATION TO THE CITY OF HALIFAX BEING PLAN NUMBER 1708 DATED FEBRUARY 21,1966 REGISTERED AT THE COUNTY OF HALIFAX; SUBJECT TO EXPROPRIATION TO THE CITY OF HALIFAX BEING PLAN NUMBER 1711 DATED FEBRUARY 21,1966 REGISTERED AT THE COUNTY OF HALIFAX; PID 279968 appears to be subject to an Easement Right of Way in favour of PID 279877 as shown on a plan of survey entitled "Plan of Survey of Lot 6-PR John T. Cruikshank Subdivision Consolidation of lands conveyed to Charles C. E. & R_ Marie Cron and Lands Claimed by Halifax Port Authority Milton Drive, Halifax, Halifax County, Nova Scotia", recorded at the Land Registration Office, Halifax, as Plan No. 96261020. Said easement being shown as Proposed Easement-6PR on the aforementioned plan. May 4, 2009*25456/1' 1151091 Reason for change to textual qualification (for use N/A only when no docwneni Is attached} Instrument code: 9319 Certificate of Legal Effect: I certify that, in my professional opinion, it is appropriate to make the changes to the parcel register(s) as instructed on this form. Dated at Halifax, in the County of Halifax, Province of N44 colt July 8, 2010. VV guanine ofauthorized lmuyrr Name: Marc A. Beaubien Address: 1100-1959 Upper Water Street' Halifax, NS 133J 3E5 Phone: 421.6262 F-matt: mbeaubien@coxandpalmer.com Fae: 421-3130 o This document also affects non -land registration parcels. The original will be registered under the RegirtryAct and a certified true copy for recording under the Ztmd Registration Act is attached. May 4, 2009+25456/1 • I 151091 CANADA INSTREf"Off OF GRANT THIS INSTRUMENT HA-1 THE SANE FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF IT WERF, Qrl- AS PATEN 7 Strhsect4m S(7), (ideal Reaf,Praperty mrd Fedora! fmarorabfa Acr) ELI=V: THE SECOND, by the OraK of (Jod of the United Kingdorn, Canada 25d Her olber Rnhns end Territories, QVEEN, Eked otthe Faith. vrCoawawWthDefender of the TO ALL TO WHOM these Presents shell ccrose, GREETING: WHEREAS r portion of the Wids hcminafler deacritred are or may be resod in Us in 40- 1 Of Canada and are utrder the administratitxt of Our MirasW or Transport, Iufilstn ctmoand Communities: kND WFXRF S the Minister of Treaspory Infrutrudure and Communities has agora' to execute this Quit Claim Deed in respell of lands loe2w at S Wilton Drive, Halifax, l Ptoviae of Noes Scotia, bearing P.I.D. No. 00279969 with respect to an alleged ancroadumrt on lands adrrdnisterad by the Minister and managed by the Jialifax Pon Au dw&y tinder the Letters Patent for the Halifax Port Antinrity; AND WHEREAS authority has bees given for the grant of the portion of the lands hacimiter dcxnw or the laterve therein that is or mey be valed is Us in right of Caaads to C MALES C. S. CRON and R MARIE CRON, both of Narifax Regional Mtmicipapty, of the Province of Nova Scotia, as Joint Tcoants, hcminafrn taped the Grantees, at ar for the prig or smut ofTen ($I0.00) Dopes is Canadian vurm wy, NOW ALNOW VE that We have remised, reteascd and quitted claim ad do by these Presents remise release mid quit claim unto the Grau+tts and their helm all the tight, title, inwrcs4 claim, property, estate and danand both at btu and in equity, as well in possession as in expectancy, which We or our Heirs or Su>cceasors have, or may halt, for the we of or in the Right of Canada, of, in Maid to, ALL AND SRGUL AR those Ian& described Schedule "A" aoachcd TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said lands muo the Grantees and their heirs, former. IN WUNT 55 VVIUMEOF these Presents have been signed and cou nimipcd ruder the Federal Real Property and Federallmmorables Act of Castadt DATED this day of ]AN 1 A 2010 , 20 _. For Uiniskr of Jiurice For the Minister of Tramspmt, lnfirrsourcture Clifford Sowed And Commtmitier, Counsel Dcpermxat of luustsdc i hereby certify that: CL• { Fa r e) Ss +<< The DeedTransterTax has been paid No DeedTransferTax Is due arrd pAyable within desert ad property tra fer. Dated this day of _2D I D Halifax ou ty Land Reglstratlon OMW Registrar Schedule "A" LOT 6-PR MILTON t1RNB 3fAUFAX, HAUPAX Ca TY, NOVA S=JA ALL Lhcl crnsln !ot .[told sttustM an the totahcsstcat boundity orHJilcy Ddvc f. Hsl(ras, Caudy off{dfia, Roriaec ofNor: li awu aw" U Lot 6-PC on a yiaa (Scrssd, Dunbrx t, LdciC z}e & HlcDomtd Tlm No, 1414Z4-0j vl6icvty of L.el 6-PR, lolm T. Csalkshtnii Eubdlrls(oo, ConsdCdstlonofLardsCosrcycdlaChrlatC. E. & 3. hfadc Cwn +ad Loofa CW=d by Us94s Port Aodtotlty, stgacd by Ttnsace R. Doogrz, NSLS, dakd Ortot,+ 16, 2009 mad Wag trotcpsnlcrtsrfy dcuriird is BEGMMt3 st the caste_ corm orlat 3.3A, land[ roovcytd to Ray & Eb(e H, lotlir re byindcrttrueraordrAugmBegidtyori) c Car the Covaiy orHeffi t In Bock 1691, PW 399 an o. swthwcstasn 6oyotdny aCB"A, [nods Cmrvcycd to porn A & Robart 3. M. Tinley by T.&Mt, atccorrledatt>m lisgjetry oLDuds for the Coanly of Hiplte jn )3aar s[00, Pegs B4; sod Place of6cgta¢irtg 6aing bfdimm13 tb, t 7 feet m a h+=rfng ofx { R degrtn O3 ttsfntna 46 tt<aads E from Nova Scatli Caoc{imsc omrat No, solo; THENCE H 40 degrcas 02 _lanes tb "cc" W, 244,03 tier [aloe= the vmihtetlean booaday of Lot 3.3A. I.m 2-IA.Isads croaveytd to A.0—y C Thmttptoo by Tadentwo r=fded at du RtO,4yafDcedgtot (he Cooaty of Half" Tn Beok 2287, Page I0O6, Lot I AA, Lsndt conxypd to . Ismei & IsmtA_ likNi ten by Idd•,w=mordtd A the Rcg4sy of Dcedt fcr the Camay of mfsx la Book 540E, Pa;e 249 +od loads mW a faacrjY nvcY+r+S b Jahn T. Cmil-l—k by hzdct>Vea iaCo{drd 241 Book 1IDob[or ilu Comuy of lWf4x64sPmt" of Hook f63, Nger 271;gook ppy. Age Bopk 71, Psgt330mthetoathCaataab—dary of leads conveyed b Badfad L & Van A. 12.2117 by 1»deomre recesdtd st Qx Registry ofD..It far ikt Canary of Halibx !tl Rothe 3713, Page THENCE N 43 d 9m- 2t miu,ya 06 seroodr IT, $432 feet along the towhastcru bacadmy of Isn& eonviyed 1p HsadridL. & Ven A. BIaeldn -d b a Point; THENCE N I4 C69zet 11 lttinotee W snoods W, 40,52 feet sung is eactera botmd:ry of rands mnirycd io &ndfoidL. &Visa A B1ackCmd [o a ya'mt; R3ENCE N tH degcar 33 tIDmdet 43 $¢nods SV, 4458 feet "A the twtlhaa booad. of Lands doavoycd to l Bodisird Ir & Vm A. BLukford b the aoCth= boaodny of Mikan L4ivo, Trf'. f. Sta degrees,i5 minutes, 07sccurdr1ti125.11 ftti alone the sotrIIraot bouedaryaCMifloo- DCi'2mipotnt; - , TiTENCEN52 &grtes II vtautgi 17 seconds E, 171.53 tut ilmg the _nthcutma 6aonday of7liiton . Dtivt to M. Oi&ury High Wale[ blade of NMh WestAm THENCE my--ly, sxrt<#ta{Y. _ Ysarnbcalcrly, wadavotadyaml squtbautclp following the _ dout coarser eftLeOrd[nttj Iiigh. mamm-k ofNortlr West Arm fora dLaaae of 239 tea mre ar I— In the -dhw-t m botm641 of lands Canvsycd la Sasm Div.," Shedma rscmded tl the H.Ursx ' Ca,myrrdsArysCatlaaO"ceeDaaonemNo.9050DZ; safdpolatbedagdLm=23.gofixtons a 03 6n4m al 83dcgrxs39tmmta30smatdsE; &ut_t 149.39 fret on i hccmbg Gf S 27 dcgt mimdes IS itmadsEanddtsaat4205feetonatiesngofS24degreesSfitdnrrtesLOecvv.ndj W fromthe lastdescnbcdpoint; THENCE S 43 drgrtes 04 seeoodt26 w[atlrs W, l20.34 feet along the rnrthwatcro 6ctmdary of toads coascycd to SussesDawnSba6anto . point: THENCE S 33 degrees 32 mdmrra tg $_nods W, 691g ket aMag the nartbwesrem bm dnry of Ts s coartytd to SumDow. S-.h . m the>ttatheaatera 6ouadaq ofBkxt A; W 6-PR (cmlou t(j THENCE; S3TEgrea 3J mleuW 334,,& W,66.61 fad s!"gnc mrlh*rnwnboU '(SlackAbdwp!acs afbcpoah CONTAIJ YW 65,W sgsas feet more D<Jaa ALL hewing am Novi Scads Cowd!eatc 6wvey Syean CTW Bearlagt sad src afmod mMerSdfm61 &Veaa. 30 a7jdw,:s, Wcat Caslnt THE above d-cdbcd lot 6-PR bcIng s pordea of Lot 6, lands omycycd b Qtakr C F & tC MadeCumbylodcatoreteem&d r tlK &gytq afRosd CouWy of Haljfaa is Boalt 3133, PalF 703wedaPortionofhailsclsbacdbyHajihsPonAndiodty. SUBJECT b Proposed 9seutenl6-PA sa 0oua sad matb ndnlly deflocaeed on the aAjad p3aa ovat4leftCamcorneroflot6.PR c2wLnj g m eta d 16f sgtum feet jn fawn cf CJyE Na lJftoo OdyeJ, 3 (b SUBJECT MW b a Swim Basemcnl cas showamdfiaanwlits!fy delinwM oa ilK sabjcap/an over the sada:saanerofLtrt6-pit id f3iwr of the FfillGa ReiopaJ No, 1708. Manieipzty ss rcgdred by Eapropcladon SUBJECT alau to a Saz%iev pA8_Qd v Ao n mnheagtjmUy dellnrated on the turn PonlaaotLbEv oprbd io` an era af7.31 eguara feet is fawsr ofilaitGaP Rt&lava! tDa)'iicaaircdbyE*prwrisUoallll, SUBJECT also to the public tight la vxyd ova the Fablic Faol Path a sbowa Pb-gaplffcsRon yIhs aubjed Teaaxe7C DooM NSLS 3Glifi><Now Seatin Navrmbc 9, 2009 Form 28 Purpose: to record certain types of non -enabling documents in a parcel register For Office Use Registration district: Halifax County Submitter's user number: 8151 Submitter's name: Marc A. Beaubien The attached plan/document relates to the following parcels registered under the Land Registration Act PID 00279968 1 PID Municipal rile number or land registration file number (insertfile number used when PIDs were originally assigned during pre -approval): This form is submitted to record the following non -enabling instrument in the above -noted parcel register(s) (select one): X plan boundary line agreement instrument of subdivision n statutory declaration regarding de facto consolidation condominium declaration initial condominium bylaws condominium plan repeal of subdivision termination of condominium other (spec) - And in the matter of registered owner (insert name) Charles Claudius Edward Cron and Rita Marie Cron: Note: An amending Parcel Description Certification Application may be required. Dated at Halifax, in the County of Halifax, Province o va Scotia, June , 2010. Signature of cap icant/municipal officiaUowner/agent Name: Marc A. Beaubien Address: 1100-1959 Upper Water Street Halifax, NS 133J 3T5 Phone: 421-6262 E-mail: mbeaubien@coxandpalmer.com Fax: 421-3130 May 4, 2009 I I '= M`.\ a \' ter— 1 '•w / .. ryh f .,:\ / a i l i I \ ; is (` / R i vet,..- Exhibit Stamp This is Exhibit "E" referred to in the Affidavit of Susan Sheehan sworn before me this day of November, A.D. 2010 RSA-0'' June 4, 2010 Leslie Sutherland A. J. Bell & Grant Ltd. Halifax, NS Policy* PPL035567683 Insured: Susan Sheehan Address. 9 Milton Drive, Halifax, NS B3P 1A1 Subject: Dwelling Inspection Hi Leslie: Please find attached an inspection that has been completed on the insured's home. An endorsement is on its way effective July 4, 2010 (giving 30 days notice) increasing the value of the home to $402,000 and amending the auxiliary heat to a fireplace. The result is an additional premium of $167. The inspector notes that there is an ongoing dispute with access to vehicular traffic and lease granting same. The risk is currently rated hydrant protected, however, unless this dispute gets resolved this risk may indeed need to be reconsidered as an unprotected risk as there will be no way for the fire department to gain access to the property to fight a fire. Please check with the insured and obtain full information on when the lease actually expires and some idea of when she expects to get this resolved. We require the following recommendations are required by July 15, 2010 due to possible fire hazard when dealing with wiring. Inspection Recommendations: 1) The amperage of the wiring coming into the home was undetermined at the time of the inspection. A qualified electrician is to inspect the wiring to ensure it has a minimum of 100amp wiring. While the electrician is at the home, the following are also to be completed: a. Check fusing of the fuse panel and reduce fuses wherever possible. b. Move flammables away from the fuse panel area. c. Reattach the panel solidly to the rear wall of the basement and check all connections. RSA" and lfe RSA logo are tradartwrks owned by RSA Insurance Group plc, Fumed for use by Royal E sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada 72102 (OV2000)faW The following recommendations are required to be completed by August 15, 2010. 2) A qualified mason is required to inspect the chimney and make all repairs to the mortar as required. He is also required to inspect the firebox of the fireplace and make any adjustments necessary to bring it up to code. 3) The cause of the water damage seepage in the basement is to be investigated and corrected to prevent further damage. 4) Handrails are to be installed on the exterior stairs of the dwelling. 5) Handrails are to be installed on the interior stairs of the dwelling. 6) The exit to the dwelling on the 2"d level of the dwelling does not have the proper steps and railings. If the exit is used, it must have same installed. If it is not used, please confirm what measures have been taken to ensure it can't be opened and pose a liability hazard. 7) A oil heating technician it to make the following changes to the oil tank: a. Vent pipe must terminate 6 inches above the fill pipe. b. Pipe connections at the tank must be tightened to prevent further spillage of oil. c. The fuel line must be protected from mechanical damage. Following are suggestions for Policyholders safety: 1) A fire extinguisher should be installed in the dwelling. 2) A carbon monoxide detector should be installed in the dwelling. 3) A deadbolt is suggested to be installed on the front door to help offer better resistance to would by intruders If you have any questions or concerns, please give me a call. Please confirm when wiring recommendations have been completed and then when the remainder have been taken care of. Yours truly, Donna White, CIP Underwriter Enclosure ATTACHMENT "B" Private Ways Act - CHAPTER 358 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 NOTE - This electronic version of this statute is provided by the Office of the Legislative Counsel for your convenience and personal use only and may not be copied for the purpose of resale in this or any other form. Formatting of this electronic version may differ from the official, printed version. Where accuracy is critical, please consult official sources. An Act Relating to Necessary Private Ways Short title 1 This Act may be cited as the Private Ways Act. R.S., c. 358, s. 1. PART AUTHORITY OF GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL Petition for right of way 2 (1) Every owner or occupier of any mine, mill, quarry, farm or factory who is desirous of transporting the produce of such mine, mill, quarry, farm or factory to a railway or public way, or to tidal or other waters or elsewhere, and every owner or occupier of any timber lands who desires to enter upon such lands and cut the timber or wood thereon and remove the same to a mill, railway or public way, or tidal or other waters or elsewhere, and who is unable to agree for a right of way with the owner or owners of any lands which it is necessary to cross in order to effect such entry or transportation, may present a petition to the Governor in Council. Content of petition 2) Such petition shall set forth a) the nature of the business which such owner or occupier is desirous of carrying on; b) a description of the property over which it is sought to obtain a right of way; c) the width of such right of way; d) the nature and extent of the right required; and e) the amount which such owner or occupier has offered to pay the owner or owners of the lands sought to be crossed for a right of way across the same, and shall pray that proceedings be taken under this Part to enable the petitioner to acquire a right of way across such land. R.S., c. 358, s. 2. Commissioner and powers on inquiry 3 (1) Upon the presentation of the petition the Governor in Council may appoint a commissioner who, for the purposes of the inquiry herein provided, has power to summon before him any persons and to require them to give evidence on oath or affirmation and produce such documents and things as such commissioner deems requisite. Service of documents 2) Upon such presentation, the Attorney General shall forthwith, at the expense of the petitioner, cause the owner of the land over which it is sought to obtain a right of way to be served with a copy of the petition, together with a notice that a commissioner appointed by the Governor in Council will, at a time and place to be named in such notice, hear the application for such right of way and any objections thereto, and the petition and notice shall be so served not less than twenty days before the day so appointed. Substituted service 3) If such owner is absent from the Province, service on him of such petition and notice may be made by publishing the same in a newspaper published in the county in which such lands lie for at least four issues of such newspaper. R.S., c. 358, s. 3. Hearing and report 4 (1) At the time and place so named, such commissioner shall hear such application and all objections thereto and report the evidence taken by him to the Governor in Council. Order to grant right of way 2) The Governor in Council, if satisfied that the right of way sought to be obtained is actually necessary for the purposes for which it is sought and that it is otherwise just and reasonable that the same should be obtained, shall thereupon by order in council declare that the petitioner is entitled to acquire under this Part a right of way over the lands mentioned in the petition or a part thereof. Content of order 3) Such order shall define the boundaries of such right of way and shall specify the nature and extent of the right and whether the right is to be acquired in perpetuity or for a term of years. R.S., c. 358, s. 4. No right of way through building or orchard 5 Where the commissioner finds on examination that the proposed right of way runs through any house, building, orchard or garden, he shall, without further inquiry, so report to the Governor in Council and no further proceeding shall take place on such petition. R.S., c. 358, s. 5. Remuneration of commissioner 6 The petitioner shall pay such commissioner for his services such sum as is determined by the Governor in Council and the Governor in Council may make the payment of such sum a condition precedent to the making of the order in council declaring the petitioner entitled to acquire a right of way. R.S., c. 358, s. 6. Costs 7 Where the application of the petitioner is refused, the Governor in Council may order such petitioner to pay to the owner of the land, to defray the expenses incurred by such owner in opposing the application, such sum as the Governor in Council determines. R.S., c. 358, s. 7. Deposit 8 Before such commissioner is appointed, the petitioner shall deposit with the Attorney General the sum of one hundred dollars, towards the payment of the commissioner for his services; and of any expenses incurred by the Governor in Council in connection with such petition, and of any sum ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the owner of the lands over which the right of way is sought in case of the application being refused. R.S., c. 358, s. 8. Notice to appoint arbitrator 9 Within thirty days after the making of such order in council, the petitioner shall serve a notice on the owner of the land over which it is sought to acquire a right of way, stating the name of one arbitrator, and requiring such owner to name another arbitrator, for the purpose of assessing the compensation and damages to be paid to the owner of such lands on account of the right of way sought to be acquired and, if such owner refuses or fails to notify the petitioner of the appointment of an arbitrator within ten days after service of such notice, a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court or of a county court may appoint such arbitrator. R.S., c. 358, s. 9. Appointment of third arbitrator 10 The two arbitrators so appointed shall be notified by the petitioner of their appointment and within twenty days after such notice choose a third arbitrator and, if they fail to choose such third arbitrator within twenty days after such notice to them, such third arbitrator shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. R.S., c. 358, s. 10. Duty of arbitrators 11 Such arbitrators shall, without delay, proceed to assess the compensation to be paid with respect to the lands over which such right of way is acquired, and for the damages, if any, occasioned by the acquisition of such right of way, and shall file their award with the Attorney General. R.S., c. 358, s. 11. Vesting of right of way 12 On payment to such owner of the amount so awarded, a right of way as in the said order in council defined shall vest in the petitioner. R.S., c. 358, s. 12. Registration of copy of order and award 13 (1) A copy of the order in council and of the award, certified under the hand of the Attorney General, shall be registered in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which is situated the land over which the right of way is acquired. Fee for registration 2) The fees for such registration shall be those provided for the registration of deeds and shall be paid by the petitioner. R.S., c. 358, s. 13. Insufficient deposit 14 If the amount deposited by the petitioner with the Attorney General is insufficient for the purposes for which the same is required to be deposited, he shall pay any deficiency before any award is made by the arbitrators. R.S., c. 358, s. 14. Application of Part to sluice 15 This Part shall apply to a right of way for and a right to build a sluice by which to convey, transport, or remove the produce, timber and wood mentioned in Section 2 by water or otherwise. R.S., c. 358, s. 15. PART II AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Interpretation 16 In this Part, a) "commissioner" means the person appointed by the council under this Part; b) "council" means the council for the municipality in which the road, alteration, landing or work is situated; c) "land" includes any easement or right in land; d) "owner" includes any person having an interest in land or in an easement or right in land; e) "road" includes a bridge or approach to a bridge, except in the provision prescribing the width of a road; f) "warden" means the warden for the municipality in which the road, alteration, landing or work is situated. R.S., c. 358, s. 16. Petition for private way or road 17 (1) Any freeholder or freeholders of any municipality may present a petition to the council praying for the obtaining and laying out of a private way or road, either open or pent. Commissioner and duties 2) Where the council is satisfied that the application should be granted, it shall order a precept to be issued to a competent person as a commissioner, directing him, within a convenient time, to a) examine whether the proposed private way or road is the most practicable and reasonable means of access for the person or persons petitioning for the way or road to his or their lands or property or. rights; b) if satisfied with respect thereto, lay out the same in the manner most advantageous to the person or persons applying for the way or road and least detrimental to the owner or owners of the land through which the same shall pass; and c) mark out the same on the land. R.S., c. 358, s. 17. Further duties of commissioner 18 (1y If the commissioner considers that the proposed way or road is reasonable and practicable and requisite for the purposes of the person or persons applying therefor, he may lay out and mark the same and make plans thereof, in duplicate, and if he considers otherwise he shall so report to the council. Maximum width of way or road 2) Such way or road shall be not more than twenty-five feet in width. R.S., c. 358, s. 18. Agreement for compensation 19 (1) The commissioner may make an agreement in writing as to the compensation therefor with the owners of the land, the use of which is required for the purposes of the proposed private way or road. Content of agreement 2) Such agreement shall contain a description of such land, a reference to the plan and the amount agreed upon for compensation. Transmission of documents for council 3) The commissioner shall transmit to the municipal clerk, to be laid before the council with his precept, such agreement and a full report of his proceedings thereon. R.S., c. 358, s. 19. Appointment of arbitrators 20 Where no agreement for compensation is made, arbitrators to appraise the same shall be appointed in the following manner: a) one arbitrator shall be appointed by the commissioner, another by the owner of the land and a third by the warden; b) the county court judge for the district in which the dispute arises may appoint an arbitrator to act on behalf of any owner, who is under disability, or absent from the Province, or who fails to appoint an arbitrator in his own behalf, after three days notice to him when he is within the municipality and fifteen days notice when he is not within the municipality but is within the Province; c) such notice may be given by the commissioner and may be served by delivering the same to the owner or, if he is not within the municipality, by mailing the same to his last known address, postage prepaid; d) no notice shall be necessary in the case of the disability of the owner or of his absence from the Province. R.S., c. 358, s. 20. Joint appointment of arbitrator 21 (1) Where the land of more than one owner is required, the owners with whom no agreement has been made, instead of each appointing an arbitrator, may join in the appointment of one arbitrator to act with the two arbitrators appointed as hereinbefore provided in appraising the amount of the compensation to be paid to each of the owners represented by such arbitrator. Failure to appoint 2) If any of the owners fails to join in making such appointment after seven days notice by the commissioner to do so, the county court judge for the district in which the dispute arises shall appoint an arbitrator to act on behalf of those who do not so join,, and such appointment is as valid as if they had joined in making such appointment. R.S., c. 358, s. 21. Oath 22 The three arbitrators, before entering upon their duties, shall take an oath before a justice of the peace that they will faithfully and impartially discharge the same. R.S., c. 358, s. 22. Appraisal by arbitrators 23 (1) The arbitrators shall enter upon the land and appraise the compensation payable to the owner in respect thereto. Award of majority binding 2) The award of the majority of such arbitrators is valid and binding. Transmission of documents for council 3) The precept, with the report of the commissioner and the award, accompanied by a plan and containing or referring to a description of the land, shall be transmitted to the municipal clerk to be laid before the council. R.S., c. 358, s. 23. Notice to interested person 24 After the report of the commissioner, with an agreement or award for compensation, is transmitted to the clerk, he shall, not less than thirty days previous to the next meeting of the council, serve a notice containing the substance of such report, agreement or award, upon each of the persons interested in the lands through which the way or road is proposed to be laid out, and service of such notice may be effected by mailing the same to the last known address of each of the persons, postage prepaid and registered. R.S., c. 358, s. 24. Consideration of report 25 At the meeting of the council next after the receipt of the report, or at any subsequent meeting to which the consideration of the same is adjourned, the report, with the agreement or award for compensation, and any objections thereto shall be considered. R.S., c. 358, s. 25. Decision of council 26 (1) The council may confirm or disallow the report and, if it is satisfied that the amount of the compensation is either insufficient or excessive, it may disallow and set aside the agreement or award and direct a new appraisement of the compensation to be made, unless an agreement is entered into in respect thereto, and may delay action on the precept until a new agreement or award is made and transmitted. New agreement or award 2) The council may also either confirm or disallow the new agreement or award. R.S., c. 358, s. 26. Filing of documents 27 If any agreement or award is confirmed, the municipal clerk shall file the same, and the papers in connection therewith, and shall enter the fact of such confirmation in a book to be kept by him for that purpose. R.S., c. 358, s. 27. Calculation of compensation 28 The compensation to which an owner shall be entitled shall include the value of the use of the land so taken, if any, and the damages to the land of the owner directly caused by such private way or road. R.S., c. 358, s. 28. Payment of compensation and expenses 29 The compensation ascertained by the agreement or by the appraisement of the arbitrators, and the expenses incurred in respect thereto, shall be paid by the council, and may be charged against and recovered from any polling district in which such private way or road is made, or in whole or in part from the applicant or applicants therefor, as the council may direct. R.S., c. 358, s. 29. Entry on land 30 (1) No ascertainment or tender of the amount of compensation is necessary before entering upon land required for a private way or road. Notice 2) When the amount is ascertained, the municipal clerk shall, under his hand, give such owner notice in writing that such amount is subject to his order in the hands of the municipal treasurer. Service of notice 3) Such notice may be mailed to his last known address, postage prepaid, and, if he resides out of the Province and his address is not known, no notice or tender shall be necessary. R.S., c. 358, s. 30. Registration of documents and effect 31 One of the plans and the agreement or, if there is no agreement, a copy of the award shall be registered in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the land lies, and such registration shall be held to vest the title as an easement to the land or rights of the person or persons applying for such private way or road. R.S., c. 358, s. 31. Appeal 32 (1) Any person petitioning for a private way or road, and any person who is interested in the lands through or over which such way or road is to be laid out, may, within ten days after the decision of the council, appeal from the decision of the council to the county court in the county wherein it is proposed to lay out such way or road, by giving notice thereof to the warden or municipal clerk, in writing, stating the grounds of appeal. Transmission of documents 2) The municipal clerk shall thereupon transmit the proceedings to the clerk of such court. Hearing 3) The appeal shall be heard at the next sittings of the court in the said county or, if it sits in more than one place in the county, then at the next sittings held at the place nearest by the usual route of travel to the proposed private way or road. Powers of court upon appeal 4) After hearing the appellant, the other parties interested and the municipal council, and any witnesses produced, the court shall finally determine the questions raised, and either allow the appeal and quash, set aside or reverse the decision of the council, or confirm the same, either with or without costs, in the discretion of the court. R.S., c. 358, s. 32. Gate on private way or road 33 (1) The council may direct gates to be placed on private ways or roads, and make regulations respecting the placing and keeping thereof. Offence 2) Every person guilty of a breach of such regulations shall, for every offence, be liable to a penalty of not less than one dollar and not more than eight dollars. R.S., c. 358, s. 33. Remuneration of commissioner 34 The commissioner shall, for his services, receive such remuneration as the council allows. R.S., c. 358, s. 34. Petition to shut up altered or abandoned way or road 35 (1) Where a private way or road or any part thereof has been altered or abandoned, any person interested therein or any of the owners of land adjoining the same may, by petition stating the facts and the names of all persons interested in the way or road and in the lands on either side thereof, apply to the council to shut up or otherwise dispose of the same. Notice to interested person 2) At least thirty days previous notice in writing of the application shall be given to the persons interested and posted up on two conspicuous places near the way or road and the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit proving that such notice has been so given and posted. Hearing and determination by council 3) The council shall hear the person or persons making the application, the persons who have been notified and any witnesses produced on behalf of any such persons and shall make an order either dismissing the application or granting the same in whole or in part. R.S., c. 358, s. 35. This page and its contents published by. the Office of the Legislative Counsel, Nova Scotia House of Assembly, and © 1998 Crown in right of Nova Scotia. Created September 1, 1998. Send comments to levc.officeftov.ns.ca. 5 and 9 Milton Drive APPENDIX "C" Copyright 2010 Halifax Regional Municipality. Printed on Thu Jan 27 2011 12:00:05 PM. 1HOFAR IbGkllllL N[I!diLI.LLIii a LLj L- c: O O U Y Ln w 0 U x H 0 z W a a Q c 0 lei LO 0 N rN C N 7 7L F' C0 U 1 a 2 0 i m 0 ct y ct ct ct ct ct 4-0 ct ct O U 4-4 NU O U H i 0 i` ct bA I U H uj om LO 0 N N CU C i l r{ d , i '' 1 4; 1 by ,y ". ( r f' u r t I , ti .. r `+` a ti .1 f ' , rti . t b \ 1 i' i I ` i. f g . x 1 „,• / I C a m L a) s N co 5 O ll O O CZ O O Flo 0 C) L cu y_ n c o U cu r o C6 4—. o V vi L ry 0co co 0 04- O O 4- 0 U 4-' U U Q4 co 0C 0- L Q a) O NZ3Na) Co O 4-- E E O U C6 CI: U O o L N O CU j 0 c V J L L L O m U) 2 v Co p Z U) 75 O Z L o cn p U LPL J C G U U OCL Q O O g i CL N LL ca a) O O N O 0 QL 6 O U () r J L I O L O1 s O L 4CL q 4 3. s oczr ai I J L O V C- O 4--1 L- C) C: c OO4-1 4-1 c E C: ca Ca r) co OO CU 0-0 3 Ca O O 4-1 co Q C6 O x LL J E 00 W70 m u c Fo L x C I.., cn O CL p U Q co o O m L L noocoo U) O 12 J U O O n 4" CC) U C U O 4" O CL E N O— On ON L O L O mN N a)N 0 O 3) ti ff} O 00 N 0 ffl N C: 4 -- O L M O S O U Q Ci E a) C p N C O p 0 U) 0:3 p O p m E O O Cf U L 0 o U0mmEZovH Authority of Co uncil Section 26 of the Private Ways Act sets out Council's authority: • 26 (1) The council may confirm or disallow the report and, if it is satisfied that the amount of the compensation is either insufficient or excessive, it may disallow and set aside the agreement or award and direct a new appraisement of the compensation to be made, unless an agreement is entered into in respect thereto, and may delay action on the precept until a new agreement or award is made and transmitted . • (2) The council may also either confirm or disallow the new agreement or award. R. S. , c. 358, s. 26. H L U O U c o a ry a) 0 N E E 0 N L O . > a) 0--a O > m o ) cm tocn N c6 0-0 O OU o = Q oN o 0 Lo o — o Q E Q a) L- = O Q .., 1 a)za)> o 21 0 E o L- m (n L •WOO `d- 7- c L) '= U 0 75; 0 0 U le a 0) U c aD m 3: O N r— LPL J COX & PA L M E R I coxandpaimerlaw.com New Brunswick I Newfoundland and Labrador I Nova Scotia I Prince Edward Island May 11, 2011 Via Email: legc.hebbgd@gov.ns.ca & Hand Delivery Gordon Hebb, Q.C. Office of Legislative Counsel 9th Floor, 1690 Hollis Street PO Box 1116 Halifax, NS B3J 2X1 Dear Mr. Hebb: RE: Bill No. 57 - Private Ways Act The issue surrounding these amendments is focussed on a particular problem: Should Susan Sheehan have a permanent driveway over her neighbour's lands? There are no other known cases or situations where these proposed amendments would apply. Ms. Sheehan and HRM both acknowledge this fact. Ms. Sheehan may have compelling reasons to justify her request for a driveway, but those reasons are clearly both private and personal. The Crons may also be able to describe their own need to preserve the integrity of their property. Those reasons would be equally private and personal. The purpose of this letter is not to advocate for one perspective or disparage the other. The fact of the matter is that these amendments seek to resolve a single and unique private dispute in favour of one citizen over another. Regardless of what one might think about the circumstances of this case, this prospect raises troubling philosophical issues for the legislative process. The legislature should not be seen as a vehicle whereby one citizen may seek customized statutory relief which promotes and protects their private claims over another citizen. The legislative process is designed for broader public service and ought not be transformed into a place where private citizens can legislate solutions to their own personal problems. John A. Keith I Partner Direct 902 4914217 Main 902 4216262 Fax 902 4213130 Email jkelth@coxandpolmer.com Purdy's Wharf Tower 1 1100-1959 Upper Water Street Halifax NS Correspondence PO Box 2380 Central Halifax NS 8313E5 May 11, 2011 Having said that, if the legislature seeks to proceed with these amendments, I agree that the Private Ways Act is deficient and offer the following concrete proposals for consideration as part of the amendments: 1. Remove section 3 of the proposed amendments providing that the amendments be imposed retroactively. Again, this change is intended entirely to alter the course of a single private dispute which is scheduled to be heard by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in September 2011. During yesterday's Law Amendments Committee meeting, Mr. Epstein suggested that, in his view, this appeal is unlikely to succeed. If Mr. Epstein is correct, there is no need for the retroactive provisions. 2. The proposed amendments will, in a very blunt and rough manner, abrogate a private landowner's common law right to negotiate the terms under which a right of way is placed over his or her own land - including the size of the right of way, appropriate building standards, obligation to repair and maintain the right of way, compensation for the right of way, etc. Many of these issues are appropriately addressed in the Expropriation Act. However, if this statute is to be separated from (and independent of) the Expropriation Act, the owner of the lands upon which a right of way is being imposed (i.e. the servient tenement) should equally be entitled to statutory protection for the loss and exposure created by that imposition. Put another way, the owner of the dominant tenement lands must accept the burden as well as the benefit associated with taking a right of way over neighbouring lands. To that end, I propose: a) Incorporating the compensation process and model provided under the Expropriation Act. The Expropriation Act allows for an impartial process which also ensures fair value for the land being taken (see, for example, sections 16 and 26 to 27 of the Expropriation Act). The concepts of "fair market value" and "injurious affection" are particularly important. b) Adding a provision confirming that the right of way being granted shall be no greater than the width or size required to accommodate such reasonable access required by the dominant tenement. c) Confirming that the granting of any right of way shall be conditional on: i) the right of way being constructed in accordance with such reasonable standards as determined by an independent engineer licensed to practice in the Province of Nova and appointed by the municipal council and who shall ensure that all applicable statutes and regulations are met including, for example, any requirements of environmental legislation. All associated construction costs shall be borne by the owner of the dominant tenement benefit; Page 2 May 11, 2011 ii) the owner of the dominant tenement who is benefitting by the right of way maintaining and repairing the road so as to permit the safe passage of vehicle and pedestrians travelling across the right of way. All associated costs shall be borne by the owner of the dominant tenement; and iii) the owner of the dominant tenement benefitted by the right of way maintaining liability insurance sufficient to cover any reasonable risks associated with the new right of way and indemnifying the owner of the servient tenement over whose lands are being burdened with the right of way in respect of all liability. I do not have experience in drafting legislation but will attempt to provide any assistance required if you think it is necessary. I am also prepared to discuss the proposed amendments if required. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly, John A. Keith JAK/amb cc: Members of the Law Amendments Committee cc: Karen MacDonald cc: Susan Sheehan Page 3 HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY HALIFAX REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 PRESENT: Mayor Peter Kelly Deputy Mayor Jim Smith Councillors: Steve Streatch Barry Dalrymple David Hendsbee Lorelei Nicoll Darren Fisher Bill Karsten Jackie Barkhouse Mary Wile Jerry Blumenthal Dawn Sloane Sue Uteck Jennifer Watts Russell Walker Debbie Hum Stephen Adams Brad Johns Robert Harvey Tim Outhit Reg Rankin Peter Lund REGRETS: Councillors: Gloria McCluskey Linda Mosher STAFF: Mr. Wayne Anstey, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Ms. Mary Ellen Donovan, Municipal Solicitor Ms. Cathy Mellett, Municipal Clerk Ms. Sheilagh Edmonds, Legislative Assistant Ms. Shawnee Gregory, Legislative Assistant HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 2 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INVOCATION..................................................................................... 4 2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......5 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 25, February 1 & 8, 2010 .....................4 4. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS.........................................4 5. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES...........................................5 6. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION........................................................5 7. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION..................................................................5 8. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS..........................................5 9. PUBLIC HEARING: 9.1 By -Law N-200, Respecting Noise — Exemption Application, Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life........................................11 10. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS 10.1 Correspondence.........................................................................6 10.2 Petitions.................................................................................6 11. REPORTS 11.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 11.1.1 Petition for Private Right-of-Way.........................................12 11.1.2 Green Municipal Fund Financial Support for the FourPad Arena...............................................................6 11.1.3 Youth Advocate Program Sustainability ............................. 6 11.2 AUDIT & FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE 11.2.1 Audit and Finance Standing Committee Terms of Reference.........................................................7 11.2.2 2011 / 2012 Budget and Business Planning Process ..............7 11.2.3 Interim Award Policy - Proposed Amendments to Administrative Order 35, Respecting the Procurement Policy.........................................................8 11.3 SPECIAL EVENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11.3.1 Non -Annual and Festival & Event Grant Funding Requests — Second Intake Process.....................................8 12. MOTIONS 12.1 Councillor Sloane.......................................................................9 13. ADDED ITEMS 13.1 CAO Search Update...................................................................10 13.2 Citizen & Councillor Appointments to Boards, Committees & HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 3 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 Commissions...........................................................................10 14. NOTICES OF MOTION 14.1 Councillor Watts.........................................................................10 14.2 Councillor Walker......................................................................10 15. ADJOURNMENT................................................................................15 HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 4 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 INVOCATION Mayor Kelly called the meeting to order at 2:34 p.m. 2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This item was dealt with later in the meeting. See page 5 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 25, February 1 & 8, 2011 MOVED by Councillor Sloane , seconded by Councillor Karsten that the minutes of January 25, February 1 & 8, 2011 be approved. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 4. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Additions: 13.1 CAO Search Update 13.2 Citizen & Councillor Appointments to Boards, Committees & Commissions Deletion: 11.1.2 Green Municipal Fund Financial Support for the Four Pad Arena Council agreed to deal with item 13.1 as the first order of business. MOVED by Councillor Sloane, seconded by Councillor Hum that the agenda, as amended, be approved. MOTION PUT AND PASSED 13.1 CAO Search Update This matter was dealt with at an In Camera session held earlier on this date and was before Council for ratification. MOVED by Councillor Streatch, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Regional Council supports the unanimous recommendation of the CAO review Committee: 1. That Regional Council approve the selection of Mr. Richard Butts as Chief Administrative Officer of the Halifax Regional Municipality 2. That Regional Council approve release of the February 28, 2011 report from the CAO Review Committee MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Kelly retired from the meeting and Councillor Hendsbee assumed the Chair. HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 5 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Councillor Sloane announced the Bid for Life fundraiser for the Aids Coalition of Nova Scotia on March 3, 2011. Councillor Harvey noted that the Official Opening of the Sackville Outdoor Skating Rectangle would take place on March 5, 2011. Councillor Nicoll announced that a skating party would take place on Bissett Lake, Colby Village March 6, 2011. Councillor Dalrymple noted that last week the Federal and Provincial Governments announced a $14 million investment in the Stanfield Airport, and this is in conjunction with matching dollars from the Airport Authority and will be used toward extending the main runway. Councillor Watts advised of the following: A meeting regarding the Urban Farm Project on March 3, 2011 by Capital Health would be held at the Bethune Building. March 3 and 4, 2011 a new musical entitled Out of Lunenburg , put on by the Gilbert and Sullivan Society would take place at the Spatz Theatre, Citadel High School, and proceeds are in support of the construction costs of the new theatre. March 8, 2011 is the 100t" anniversary of International Womens' Day. The Skating Oval was re -opened to the public and it is hoped it will be able to remain open until March 13. Councillor Karsten expressed appreciation, on behalf of Regional Council, to the Canada Games Host Society for a job well done on the 2011 Canada Winter Games. Further to this Councillor Hendsbee thanked the numerous volunteers and the athletes from HRM and across the Province who participated in the Games. Councillor Hendsbee noted that today is St. David's Day, a special day to those of Welsh decent. Councillor Hendsbee referred to the recent earthquake tragedy in Christchurch, New Zealand and suggested that on behalf of Regional Council, the Mayor forward a letter of condolence to the Mayor of Christchurch. 5. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES 6. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION — NONE 7. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION — NONE 8. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS — NONE 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 6 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 9.1 By -Law N-200, Respecting Noise — Exemption Application, Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life This item was dealt with later in the meeting. See page 11. 10. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS 10.1 Correspondence— None 10.2 Petitions -None 11. REPORTS 11.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 11.1.1 Petition for Private Right -of -Way This matter was dealt with later in the meeting. See page 11. 11.1.2 Green Municipal Fund Financial Support for the Four Pad Arena This item was deleted from the agenda during the approval of the order of business. 11.1.3 Youth Advocate Program Sustainability A letter dated November 10, 2010 from the Board of Police Commissioners, was before Council. A report dated February 23, 2011 was before Council. Mr. Paul Dunphy, Director, Community Planning addressed Council and provided background information on the program. He advised that the program was a four-year pilot project with funding from the Federal Government and, if at the end of the project it proved to be worthwhile, the Municipality agreed to find ways to continue the program. He explained that the purpose of the program was to address youth at risk of becoming involved in criminal activity and/or gangs. Mr. Dunphy indicated that the program has been successful and, therefore, staff were recommending continuance of the program. Ms. Sharon Martin, Program Manager, provided a presentation on the youth advocate program. At 2:56 p.m. Councillor Barkhouse entered the meeting. At 3:08 p.m. Mayor Kelly returned to the meeting and assumed the Chair. MOVED by Councillor Walker seconded by Councillor Sloane that Halifax Regional Council maintain the Youth Advocate Program as a Municipal Service by: 1. Allocating an additional $550,000 to Community Development's operating budget to sustain staffing and program costs; HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 7 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 2. Expanding the service to include priority communities beyond the 6 pilots; and 3. Pursuing funding partnership opportunities including federal and provincial governments and others. Ms. Martin, Mr. Dunphy, Mr. Andrew Whittemore, Manager, Community Relations & Cultural Affairs, Ms. Cathie O'Toole, Director of Finance, and Chief Frank Beasley, Halifax Regional Police responded to questions. Ms. O'Toole and Mr. Dunphy responded to questions in regard to the staff recommendation to increase the tax rate in order to support the program as an added service. It was noted that in order to fulfill the requirement to submit a balanced budget staff will bring a report on funding options for the program to Council prior to tabling he budget. Deputy Mayor Smith entered the meeting at 3:15 p.m. A number of Councillors expressed the view that the Municipality should be pursuing funding from Federal and Provincial governments. Mayor Kelly noted that the motion indicates this would be a matter of course. Councillor Nicoll suggested that, in addition, the Mayor should send a letter to the Minister of Community Services and the Premier of Nova Scotia highlighting the youth advisory program and ask to have them partner in delivering these services. Mayor Kelly agreed with Councillor Nicoll's suggestion and advised that if it is the wish of Council to do this, it should also include the Provincial Minister of Justice, to which Council agreed. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 11.2 AUDIT AND FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE 11.2.1 Audit and Finance Standing Committee Terms of Reference A report dated February 10, 2011 was submitted from the Chair of the Audit and Finance Standing Committee. MOVED by Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Halifax Regional Council approve the Terms of Reference for the Audit and Finance Standing Committee as outlined in Attachment 1 of the February 10, 2011 report. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 11.2.2 2011/12 Budget and Business Planning Process A report dated February 17, 2011 was before Council. HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 8 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 MOVED by Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Halifax Regional Council direct staff to work toward a hybrid model for the 2011/12 Budget and Business Planning process that would include informal Business Unit presentations for the Operating Budget and an Open House format for the Project (Capital) Budget. On a point of information Mayor Kelly noted that, with the new Chief Administrative Officer starting soon, Council had agreed to allow him enough time to review the budget documents and, therefore, the tabling of the budget would occur at the end of April and not April 5. Ms. Cathie O'Toole, Director of Finance and Mr. Phil Townsend, Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management responded to questions. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 11.2.3 Interim Award Policy — Proposed Amendments to Administrative Order 35 Respecting the Procurement Policy A report dated February 10, 2011 from the Audit and Finance Standing Committee was before Council. A staff report dated February 10, 2011 was before Council. MOVED by Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor Karsten that Halifax Regional Council approve in principle amendments to Administrative Order 35, the purpose of which is to amend Section 9, Award of Contracts as follows: 1. a) That the Interim Award Policy only be in effect during the Regional Council Summer and December Holiday breaks by eliminating the following wording from Subsection 5: "...and for occasions when a regular Regional Council meeting has been cancelled or the regular schedule creates more than eight (8) business days between Council meetings," to read as follows: 5) During the summer (July -September) and the December Holiday break periods, the CAO or his designate, may approve the award of contracts under the following conditions...." b) Modify the budget program / conditions to ensure purchases are within scope by adding "and within scope" to subsection 5(a) to read as follows: (5) (a) "Where the funds and program have been approved by the Halifax Regional Council as part of the annual business planning and budget process and the expenditure will not result in an over expenditure of the entire budget and is within scope." 2. Further, it is recommended that Halifax Regional Council consider Interim Award Authority for projects on a case by case basis. HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 9 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 11.3 SPECIAL EVENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11.3.1 Non Annual Festival & Event Grant Funding Requests — Second intake Process A report dated February 14, 2011 was submitted from the Chair of the Special Events Advisory Committee. MOVED by Councillor Uteck, seconded by Councillor Sloane that Halifax Regional Council approve: 1. An increase to the 2010/11 Non -Annual grant award for M Fest in the amount of $31,000 funded from the Marketing Levy Special Events Reserve Q315), as identified in Table 1, page 5, of the November 30, 2010 staff report attached as Attachment 2. 2. An increase to the 2010/11 grants for a retroactive grant to the Aileen Meagher International Track Classic in the amount of $3,000 from the Marketing Levy Special Event Reserve (Q315) based on the amended Scoring Sheet total of 54.51100. 3. The 2010/11 Festival & Events grant award of $2,950 funded from the Community/Civic Events Operating Budget (C760-6933) as identified in Table 2, page 6, of the November 30, 2010 staff report attached as Attachment 2. Councillor Hendsbee advised that the Titanic 100 application had been deferred and will be further evaluated by the Committee at its March 9, 2011 meeting. He suggested that those Councillors who had concerns with the application attend the meeting. He added that he had a concern with the scoring factor in regard to `geographic distribution' and noted that it scored low because it is considered `urban'. Councillor Hendsbee indicated that he felt this was too restrictive and hoped that it could be re-evaluated. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 12. MOTIONS 12.1 Councillor Sloane A motion from the March 1, 2011 meeting of the Transportation Standing Committee was submitted Councillor Sloane advised that she spoke with her colleagues on the Transportation Standing Committee and was informed that the Committee has a report coming forward in regard to the parking ban and alternatives. Councillor Sloane requested that, rather than put forward her motion, Council refer her proposed amendments to the Transportation Standing Committee to be addressed in the staff report that the HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 10 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 Committee has requested on the winter parking ban, and that it come back to Council by April 5, 2011. MOVED by Councillor Sloane, seconded by Councillor Ranking that the following proposed amendments to the parking ban be forwarded to the Transportation Standing Committee to be addressed in the staff report that the Committee has requested in regard to the parking ban: 1. An amendment to the ban regarding this issuance of tickets if no snow has fallen or there are no snow removal operations being performed. 2. An amendment to the ban regarding the adoption of alternative side of the street parking for the older areas of the Municipality where parking is at a premium and off street parking is not a viable option. 3. An amendment to the ban regarding different regulations for the urban, suburban and rural areas of the municipality as each of these areas are unique and cannot be serviced with the same regulations. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 13. ADDED ITEMS 13.1 CAO Search Update This item was dealt with earlier in the meeting. See page 4. 13.2 Citizen & Councillor Appointments to Boards, Committees & Commissions The following motion was dealt with at an In Camera session held earlier on this date and was now before Council for ratification. MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Councillor Blumenthal that Halifax Regional Council approve: 1. Recommendations 1-4 of the Administrative Standing Committee regarding appointments to the HRM Stadium Steering Committee as outlined in the Private and Confidential staff report dated February 28, 2011. 2. Recommendation 5 of the Administrative Standing Committee, regarding appointments to the Police Commission, as outlined in the Private and Confidential staff report dated February 28, 2011. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 14. NOTICES OF MOTION: HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 11 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 14.1 Councillor Watts Take notice that at the next Regional Council meeting on March 8, 2011, l propose to move a request for a staff report which outlines the process of rules and regulations concerning meetings between Councillors and proponents of projects, community and interest groups and HRM staff." 14.2 Councillor Walker Take notice that, at the next regular Regional Council meeting, to be held on Tuesday, the 8r". Day of March, 2011, I propose to move approval of a motion adopted by the Audit and Finance Standing Committee, to amend Administrative Order 35, Respecting he Procurement Policy, the purpose of which is to amend Section 9 Award of Contracts." The meeting recessed at 4:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:02 p.m. 9.1 By -Law N-200, Respecting Noise — Exemption Application, Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life Superintendent Colleen Kelly, Halifax Regional Police, provided the presentation on By - Law N-200, Respecting Noise — Exemption Application, Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life. Mayor Kelly reviewed the Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings. He called for those wishing to speak for or against the proposed Exemption Application for the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life. Ms. Helle Haven Petersen, Halifax, stated that she was speaking on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society. She indicated that the Relay for Life was the largest fundraising event in the world; noting that 25 events would be taking place in Nova Scotia this year, including six in HRM. Ms. Haven Petersen stated that these events were supported by volunteers, staff and those who wanted to fight back against cancer, remember those who have lost their battle and support those who have survived. She advised that having the support of Council was key to the success of these events and she thanked them for their time and support over the past 10 years. MOVED by Councillor Blumenthal, seconded by Councillor Nicoll, that the Public Hearing be closed. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. MOVED by Deputy Mayor Smith, seconded by Councillor Lund that Halifax Regional Council approve the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life application for an exemption from the provisions of the Noise By-law pursuant to the contents of the report dated February 7, 2011 and any matters raised at the hearing. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 12 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 11.1.1 Petition for Private Right -of -Way A report dated February 17, 2011 was before Council. Ms. Mary Ellen Donovan, Municipal Solicitor, provided background on the Petition for a Right -of -Way process. She advised that this was the first petition to be filed under the Private Ways Act in 13 years; noting that the petitioner's father had filed at that time in regard to the same property. She indicated that the petitioner was entitled to file under the Act and was also permitted the right to speak. She proposed Ms. Karen MacDonald, HRM Solicitor, be permitted to provide Council with background information first and then that the petitioner be permitted to speak for five minutes in keeping with the rules of procedural fairness. Ms. Donovan advised that, as this matter affects the property abutter as well, they too would be given the opportunity to speak; noting that their legal council would be speaking on their behalf as they were not present. Ms. MacDonald provided the background presentation on the Petition for a Private Right -of -Way as outlined in the staff report dated February 17, 2011. She advised that, to staff's knowledge, 9 Milton Drive, Halifax, was the only property in HRM that did not have a driveway and was in this unique situation. Ms. MacDonald advised that the private way, if granted, would become part of 9 Milton Drive even if sold. She indicated that it should be taken into consideration that the appeal hearing in HRM's jurisdiction under the Private Ways Act would be heard in September 2011; however, it was unknown when a decision on the matter would be made. Ms. Susan Sheehan, Applicant and owner of 9 Milton Drive, stated that almost 50 years ago, her parents bought a house in Jollymore under the impression that they had a right-of-way deed. She advised that when they moved in, the neighbors challenged this idea and her family lost their right of way during court proceedings with the exception of a footpath. She indicated that her parents were not wealthy and legal costs were expensive so they had to accept the court's decision. Ms. Sheehan outlined the issues related to not having right-of-way access to her home, such has not having the ability for utilities such as oil to be delivered, the fact that the fire marshal told her that a fire truck could not access her home, having to carry her groceries to her home in a wheelbarrow, having to shovel the adjacent parking lot as no plow would do so, loss of insurance and being unable to sell her home. She stated that she had lost both of her parents to illness and that when her father learned he had a brain tumor and requested to be cared for at home; her neighbors denied the family's request for an ambulance which prompted their first petition in 1997. Ms. Sheehan advised that her family had no easement or access to their home which caused mental and physical anguish. She stated that while she recognized that Council would have financial issues with this request, it was not reasonable for her to have to ask neighbors for access to safety and utilities. She provided photographs to convey the difficulty of not having access to her home including the fact that she must transport oil in jerry cans two to three times per week in order to heat her home; noting that her friends recently held an oil relay to help her with this issue. In closing, Ms. Sheehan stated that she was not asking to take land from neighbors; she simply wanted reasonable access to her home. HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 13 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 Mr. John Keith, Solicitor for Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron, apologized for his clients not being present as they find this situation difficult and are elderly, private people. Mr. Keith advised that there were two reasons for Council to support the recommendation before them; in order for Ms. Sheehan to access emergency and heating services. He indicated that his clients were prepared to help Ms. Sheehan have the necessary access to obtain electric heating and that they also had no difficultly with allowing emergency services to access her home. He advised that the original right-of-way was located on the side of Ms. Sheehan's property which bordered the Marterra Inc. lands; therefore, this would be the most reasonable place for a driveway. Mr. Keith stated that his clients had concerns regarding liability issues as the right-of-way would not be HRM's responsibility and that replacing the slip way with new infill would mean oil trucks would be going along the Northwest Arm; noting that his clients would have to assume occupiers liability insurance. He indicated that his clients have suffered from anxiety over this issue as they have received threatening calls and have been demonized in the press and community; noting that their enjoyment of their property has been diminished. Mr. Keith stated that his clients did not intend to deny Ms. Sheehan access for any reasonable measures. He advised that the previous right-of-way was put in by the Crown without his client's authority or consent; indicating that Dr. Cron, who was also a botanist, had his plants and driveway damaged in this process. In closing, Mr. Keith stated that his clients were prepared to cooperate on every level with the exception that they did not want a permanent driveway of convenience over their property. MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Adams that Halifax Regional Council: Appoint a Commissioner pursuant to Section 17 of the Private Ways Act, to consider the petition of Susan Sheehan; and 2. Before the Commissioner is engaged, Council enter into an agreement with Susan Sheehan for reimbursement to HRM of any and all expenses incurred by HRM as the result of Ms. Sheehan's petition and which are recoverable by HRM under the Private Ways Act. Specifically, all expenses associated with the Arbitrators, and any compensation payable to Dr. and Mrs. Charles Cron. Discussion on the motion ensued with staff responding to questions. Councillor Hendsbee stated that there may be the opportunity for secondary access to Ms. Sheehan's property via a new road access that Marterra Inc. was proposing on the adjacent property; however, this would not occur until it was built by Marterra some time in the future. In response to a question posed by Councillor Fisher, Ms. MacDonald stated that if Council denies the petition, the court appeal would still go forward as it was a matter of law. Regarding why Council could not wait to make a decision after the appeal goes to court in September, Ms. MacDonald reiterated that while the appeal would be heard in September, it was unknown as to when a decision on the matter would be made. She HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 14 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 stated that, given the safety concerns related to this matter, staff felt it was prudent to bring the recommendation to Council now and she also noted that it would provide time for the Commissioner, if appointed, to conduct their work. Ms. Donovan also clarified that no stay had been issued with respect to this matter, therefore, Council could legally decide to allow the driveway to be put in; noting that there was a potential for the appeal to be granted and the driveway taken out as a result. Ms. MacDonald clarified that approval of the motion would mean that Council agrees Ms. Sheehan should have a right-of-way. She indicated that the only way there would not be a right-of-way over the Cron's property would be if the appointed Commissioner deems it to not be the most reasonable means of access. Councillor Adams submitted a petition containing 27 signatures in support of Ms. Sheehan's petition for a private right-of-way. Ms. MacDonald noted that Ms. Sheehan would be liable to maintain the right-of-way, if granted. In response to a question posed by Councillor Uteck, Ms. MacDonald advised that HRM did not have the authority to grant Ms. Sheehan a temporary easement as the Municipality was only involved because of the Private Ways Act since, at this time, there was no other means for Ms. Sheehan to obtain a right-of-way to her property. Ms. MacDonald indicated that there was a process of appeal in the Private Ways Act. Regarding how this matter and the Private Ways Act relate to the Municipal Charter, Ms. Donovan advised that they were two separate pieces of legislation that did not have any linkage as the Act was completely independent of the Charter. Councillor Karsten moved an amendment to the motion to state that the process not proceed until the decision before the court is rendered. As there was no seconder for the motion, the motion was lost. Councillor Sloane noted that quality of life and health and safety issues were municipal responsibilities under By-law M-100 and stated that accessing your property was a necessity of life. In response to Councillor Rankin's comments, Ms. MacDonald advised that Council would have the final vote on whether the land assessment provided by the Commissioner for the right-of-way was appropriate. Councillor Watts expressed concern with the small potential that the Commissioner's decision would impact another property owner who was not being represented that evening. HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 15 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 1, 2011 Ms. MacDonald advised that the Commissioner could not award a driveway over the Marterra property as they could not award anything other than what Ms. Sheehan has requested in her petition. Ms. MacDonald stated that if the Commissioner determines that the Marterra property is the best site for a right-of-way, Ms. Sheehan may have to petition Council again. A vote was taken on the motion. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 15. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Cathy J. Mellett Municipal Clerk HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY 16 REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES INFORMATION ITEMS March 1, 2011 Proclamation — Liver Health Awareness Month — March 2011 March 1, 2011 2. Memorandum from General Manager, Halifax Water dated February 16, 2011 re: Halifax Regional Water Commission 2008 / 2009 Annual Report 3. Memorandum from General Manager, Halifax Water dated February 21, 2011 re: Halifax Harbour Solutions Project Activity Report — August 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 4. Memorandum from Director, Legal Services & Risk Management dated February 17, 2011 re: Status of By -Law Prosecutions, October 1 — 31, 2010 5. Memorandum from Chair, Audit & Finance Standing Committee dated February 10, 2011 re: Councillor Appointments to the Special Events Advisory Committee 6. Memorandum from Chair, Audit & Finance Standing Committee dated February 18, 2011 re: Advanced Capital Funding Policy — Review of Report Process 7. Memorandum from the Municipal Clerk dated February 25, 2011 re: Requests for Presentation to Council - None HALIFAX HALIFAX REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 24, 2015 PRESENT: Mayor Mike Savage Deputy Mayor Lorelei Nicoll Councillors: Barry Dalrymple David Hendsbee Gloria McCluskey Darren Fisher Waye Mason Jennifer Watts Linda Mosher Russell Walker Stephen Adams Reg Rankin Brad Johns Steve Craig Tim Outhit REGRETS: Councillor Bill Karsten Councillor Matt Whitman STAFF: Mr. Richard Butts, Chief Administrative Officer Mr. John Traves, Municipal Solicitor Ms. Sherryll Murphy, Deputy Municipal Clerk Ms. Phoebe Smith, Legislative Assistant The following does not represent a verbatim record of the proceedings of this meeting. A video recording of this meeting is available: http://archive.isiglobal.ca/vod/halifax/archive 2015-03- 24 live. m o4. html The agenda, supporting documents, and information items circulated to Council are available online: http.//www. halifax. ca/council/agendasc/150324rc-agenda. php Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. and recessed at 2:36 p.m. Council reconvened in at 2:55 p.m. Council moved into an in -camera session at 3:57 and reconvened to the public session at 4:11 p.m. Council adjourned at 4:15 p.m. 1. INVOCATION The Mayor called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. with the Invocation being led by Councillor Walker. 2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Councillors noted a number of special community announcements and acknowledgements Council observed a moment of silence in memory of Allan Rowe and Stephen Mont. Mayor Savage and Mr. Richard Butts, CAO provided an update on the municipal response to the recent storm. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 28 & February 3, 2015 Councillor Hendsbee referred to page 5 of the February 3, 2015 minutes and noted that he addressed municipal election reform and the issuance of receipts. He asked that the minutes be revised to reflect his comments. MOVED by Deputy Mayor Nicoll, seconded by Councillor Johns that the minutes of the Regional Council meetings of January 28 and February 3, 2015 be approved, as amended. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 4. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS At the request of Councillor Mason, Council agreed to bring forward Information Item 2 — Memorandum from the Director of Operations Support dated March 3, 2015 re: Supplemental Building Information — 1588 Barrington Street and Information Item 3 — Memorandum from the Director of Parks and Recreation dated March 3, 2015 re: Status of Arts Incubator Pilot at 1588 Barrington Street to the agenda of the April 14, 2015 meeting for discussion. Councillor Hendsbee requested to refer item 12.1 to in -camera. MOVED by Deputy Mayor Nicoll, seconded by Councillor Walker that the agenda be approved as revised. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 5. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES — NONE 6. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION — NONE 7. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION — NONE 8. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS — NONE 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 10. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS 2 Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 10.1 Correspondence The Clerk noted that correspondence was received for item 11.1.4 and information items 2 and 3. This correspondence was circulated to Council. For a detailed list of correspondence received refer to the specific agenda item. 10.1.1 Fly-past Request — Deadman's Island Remembrance Event The following was before Council: Correspondence dated March 10, 2015 from Lieutenant David S. Deese, Senior Base Chaplain of the United States Navy. MOVED by Councillor Mosher, seconded by Councillor McCluskey that Halifax Regional Council grant permission for a CH-124 Sea King to perform a fly-past at levels as low as 500 feet over Deadman's Island Park, Halifax on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. in conjunction with the Deadman's Island Remembrance Event. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 10.1.2 Fly-past Request — HMCS IROQUOIS Paying Off Ceremony The following was before Council: Correspondence dated March 12, 2015 from Commander Robert J. Watt, Commanding Officer of the Royal Canadian Navy. MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Watts that Halifax Regional Council grant permission for a Sea King helicopter to perform a fly-past at levels as low as 500 feet which may also include a hover, approaching HMCS IROQUOIS at her berth on November Bravo Jetty in the vicinity of the Halifax Casino on Friday, May 1, 2015 between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. in conjunction with the HMCS IROQUOIS Paying Off Ceremony. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 10.2 Petitions - NONE 10.3 Presentation - NONE 11. REPORTS 11.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 11.1.1 Award — Unit Price Tender No. 15-211 — Street Planer Patching — Various Locations The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 26, 2015. MOVED by Councillor McCluskey, seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicoll that Halifax Regional Council award Tender No. 15-211, Street Planer Patching, Various Locations, to the lowest bidder meeting specifications, ARCP — Atlantic Road Construction & Paving Ltd., for a Total Tender Price of 1,186,461.82 (net HST included) with funding from Project Account No. CR000005 — Street Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 Recapitalization, as outlined in the Financial Implications section of the February 26, 2015 staff report. Councillor Johns noted that within the report some areas are misidentified as belonging to District 14. He noted that items 28, 29, 30 and 38 all fall within the boundaries of District 15 and the report should be amended. Mr. Dave Hubley, Manager, Project Planning and Design Services, responding to a question from Deputy Mayor Nicoll, noted that the patching technique is part of preparation for a micro -program being developed for 2016/17. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.1.2 Award — Unit Price Tender No. 15-201, Pedestrian Overpass Remediation — Victoria Road — East Region The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 26, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Councillor McCluskey that Halifax Regional Council: 1. Award Tender No. 15-201, Pedestrian Overpass Remediation - Victoria Road - East Region, to the lowest bidder meeting specifications, Greendale Resources Inc. for a Total Tender Price of $563,745.61 (net HST included) with funding from Project Account No. CRU01077 - Bridges, as outlined in the Financial Implications section of the report dated February 26, 2015. 2. Award construction inspection services to Campbell Comeau Engineering Limited in the amount of $25,360.70 (net HST included) with funding from Project Account No. CRU01077 Bridges, as outlined in the Financial Implications section of the report dated February 26, 2015. A discussion ensued with Mr. Dave Hubley, Manager, Project Planning and Design Services responding to questions. In response to questions from Councillor McCluskey, Mr. Hubley noted that Victoria Road becomes a provincial road just past Highfield Park Drive, and that the work will take roughly 10 weeks to complete due to the amount of concrete work to be done. Pedestrians will not be able to cross, and one lane on each side of the divided road will be closed. Responding to a question from Councillor Hendsbee, Mr. Hubley confirmed that the consultant who completed the design work was the only consultant to submit a bid for the project. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten, Johns and Whitman 11.1.3 2015 Spring Debenture The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 27, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicoll that Halifax Regional Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to sign the Resolution for Pre -Approval of Debenture 4 Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 Issuance, subject to interest rate confirmation not to exceed 5.0%, to enable the Halifax Regional Municipality to issue a 10-year debenture of $27,000,000. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten, Johns and Whitman 11.1.4 Petition of Susan Sutherland (formerly Sheehan) for Private Right of Way The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 26, 2015, with attached staff recommendation report dated February 17, 2011, Report of Commissioner Baker, Plan of Private Way, and Arbitration Decision. A staff presentation dated March 24, 2015 An extract of Minutes from Regional Council dated March 1, 2011. Correspondence dated March 13, 2015 from John A. Keith, Q.C., Partner at Cox & Palmer. Correspondence dated March 23, 2015 from Susan Sutherland, Petitioner. MOVED by Councillor Mosher, seconded by Councillor Mason that Halifax Regional Council: 1. Confirm the report of the Commissioner Deborah Baker, dated November 15, 2014, laying out a private way across the property at 5 Milton Drive for the benefit of 9 Milton Drive; and 2. Confirm the award of the Arbitrators as set out in the decision of the Arbitration Panel dated November 17, 2014. Mayor Savage invited Ms. Karen E. MacDonald, Senior Solicitor, Legal Services to provide a presentation on the Petition of Susan Sutherland. Ms. MacDonald provided background, laid out the financial implications and gave an overview of the options before Council. Councillor Mosher noted that this has been a long-standing and difficult issue for both parties. She voiced concern with the recommendation to move the right of way further than the petitioner had requested onto the neighbouring property and questioned whether this was in line with the mandate to find the route that is the "most advantageous to the petitioner and least detrimental to the landowner." Councillor Mosher also requested legal commentary on the issue of liability and questioned how the funds disbursed would be recovered by Council. Ms. MacDonald responded that the Commissioner has discretion on where the private way will be laid out and noted that liability ultimately lies with whichever party is negligent. Ms. MacDonald advised that there is a signed contract with Ms. Sutherland whereby the latter agrees to repay the funds. She noted further that Council could adopt a by-law whereby the amount paid can become the first lien on the property to be collected as with taxes. Councillor Mosher noted that the correspondence received from the petitioner indicates she does not have the financial means to repay the funds and questioned further how the funds would be recovered by Council. She also reiterated her understanding that the Commissioner does not have the authority to choose the road location citing page 11 of the report. Ms. MacDonald clarified that the report being cited by Councillor Mosher was written by the Commissioner, not by staff. She confirmed that under the Act, the Commissioner does have discretion. Mr. John Traves, Municipal Solicitor, confirmed that the Commissioner acted within their authority to lay out where the private way is to go. Mr. Traves commented further that Council is entitled to hold Ms. Sutherland to her agreement to repay the funds. Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 Ms. MacDonald responded to a question from Councillor Hendsbee that there is no authority under the Private Ways Act for Council to question the costs incurred. Councillor Hendsbee also questioned that if the costs exceed the assessed value of the property, how the funds would be collected if the petitioner and if the petitioner could apply for tax relief or a deferral of the lien. Mr. Traves noted that the property is currently assessed based on its value as a lot without road access and it is anticipated this value will change. He noted further that the bills were carefully reviewed in consultation with arbitrators and appraisers and deemed to reflect the level of work that was involved. Regarding collection of funds, Mr. Traves remarked that it is not within Council's authority to inquire into a private individual's source of funding, and if the petitioner is unable or unwilling to meet the terms of the agreement, Council may seek a by-law to enforce the payment by lien or tax sale. Councillor McCluskey questioned why the matter was before Council, why the valuation was accepted even though the square footage was incorrect, and why the property was landlocked. Ms. MacDonald responded that under the Private Ways Act, a petitioner who is landlocked can apply to Council for resolution. She commented that the square footage was not included on the plan so the appraisers came to a consensus, and noted staff's concern that it would cost more to go back to the arbitrators than the difference in value. Finally, Ms. MacDonald noted that the property was unique in that at the time it was purchased it was believed that the property owner had a carriageway but in 1969, according to a Court of Appeals decision, he lost the right to that carriageway and the property was not considered landlocked as it can be accessed by foot and by water. Councillor Rankin noted that the process had been completed fairly and that Council cannot substitute their opinion for the opinion of the arbitrators or the Commissioner; it can only accept or deny the award. Councillor Watts noted that Council could agree to cover the arbitration cost without seeking reimbursement by the petitioner. Mr. Traves agreed, adding that Council could direct staff to reduce the amount to be recouped from the petitioner. Councillor Watts put forward the following amendment: MOVED by Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Rankin that Halifax Regional Council amend the motion to reduce the cost to the petitioner by the arbitration cost in the amount of $61,583.52. Councillor Mosher indicated that she would not support the amendment, expressing concern that this amendment would set an unwise precedent, and respectfully asked Council not to support it. Councillor Fisher expressed his agreement with Councillor Mosher and inquired as to what the increase would be to the value of the property. Ms. MacDonald responded that the difference to the value of the property is not yet known. Councillor Watts clarified for the record that without notice to Ms. Sutherland, there was a securement of the grant on the infilled lands on behalf of the federal government. She noted there were a series of events that directly impacted the Sutherlands' access to their property. Councillor Outhit questioned what kind of precedent passing the amendment would set. Mr. Traves responded that this is an anomaly and in future Council would have the discretion to grant the petition or not, and to make its own decision regarding the costs, so there is limited precedent. In response to questions from Councillor Adams, Ms. MacDonald noted that no legal advice or cost estimates were provided to either party. MOTION TO AMEND PUT AND DEFEATED. (4 in favour, 11 against) In favour: Councillors Hendsbee, Watts, Walker, Rankin. Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 Against: Mayor Savage, Deputy Mayor Nicoll, Councillors Dalrymple, McCluskey, Fisher, Mason, Mosher, Adams, Johns, Craig, Outhit. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman MAIN MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.2 GRANTS COMMITTEE 11.2.1 Grants to Volunteer Search and Rescue Organizations Recommended Awards 2014 The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated March 4, 2015, with attached staff recommendation report dated February 4, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Dalrymple, seconded by Councillor Hendsbee that Halifax Regional Council approve the award of operating and capital grant funding to the four (4) volunteer ground search and rescue organizations described in the Discussion section of the staff report dated February 4, 2015, for a combined total of $138,500 from Operating Account C801-8004. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.2.2 Proposed Amendments to Administrative Order 2014-001-ADM, Respecting Tax Relief to Non -Profit Organizations — Referral by Council The following was before Council: An extract of Minutes from Regional Council dated January 13, 2015. A staff recommendation report dated March 4, 2015, attached was a supplementary staff report dated January 15, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Dalrymple, seconded by Councillor Walker that Halifax Regional Council repeal and replace Schedules 27, 28, and 29 of Administrative Order 2014-001-ADM Respecting Tax Relief to Non -Profit Organizations as set out in Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the supplementary staff report dated January 15, 2015. Councillor McCluskey questioned why a full exemption was not given to the Atlantic Division of CanoeKayak Canada. Mr. Peter Greechan, Community Developer, Grants and Contributions, responded that the exemption may be reassessed in the grant program redesign. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. (14 in favour, 1 against) In favour: Mayor Savage, Deputy Mayor Nicoll, Councillors Dalrymple, Hendsbee, Fisher, Mason, Watts, Mosher, Walker, Adams, Rankin, Johns, Craig, Outhit Against: Councillor McCluskey Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.2.3 Proposed Amendments to Administrative Order 2014-012-ADM Respecting Grants for Rural Transit 7 Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated March 4, 2015, with attached staff recommendation report dated February 2, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Dalrymple, seconded by Councillor Walker that Halifax Regional Council amend Administrative Order 2014-012-ADM "Respecting Grants for Rural Transit" as set out in Attachment B of the February 2, 2015 staff report. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman Council recessed at 2:36 p.m. Council reconvened at 2:55 p.m. 11.3 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11.3.1 Case H00410 — Background Study toward the Establishment of a Heritage Conservation District in Barrington South (Old South Suburb) The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated March 5, 2015, with attached staff recommendation report dated February 13, 2015 and the Barrington South (Old South Suburb) Background Study Discussion Paper dated February 13, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Johns that Halifax Regional Council: 1. Accept the background studies contained in Attachment A to initiate the process to establish a Heritage Conservation District in Barrington South (Old South Suburb); 2. Assign the Design Review Committee to review the final Heritage Conservation District plan and bylaw and submit its recommendation to Regional Council; 3. Consider asking the Minister of Communities, Culture, and Heritage for the legislative authority to suspend any potential development in the Barrington South (Old South Suburb) district while undergoing the process of establishing Barrington South (Old South Suburb) as a Heritage Conservation District. Councillor Hendsbee asked for clarification on whether the third recommendation would have to be referred to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has the authority under the Municipal Government Act with respect to moratoriums or planning matters. Mr. John Traves, Municipal Solicitor, responded that this matter would be best directed to staff for a report considering the options. Councillor Mason indicated that he strongly supported the motion and commended the good work done by staff. He put forward the following motion to refer the third recommendation: MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Watts that Halifax Regional Council refer to staff for a report to consider asking the Minister of Communities, Culture, and Heritage for the legislative authority to suspend any potential development in the Barrington South (Old South Suburb) district while undergoing the process of establishing Barrington South (Old South Suburb) as a Heritage Conservation District. t:3 Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 MOTION TO REFER PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman Council then voted on recommendations one and two from the main motion, as follows: MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Johns that Halifax Regional Council: 1. Accept the background studies contained in Attachment A to initiate the process to establish a Heritage Conservation District in Barrington South (Old South Suburb); 2. Assign the Design Review Committee to review the final Heritage Conservation District plan and bylaw and submit its recommendation to Regional Council. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.4 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL 11.4.1 Deputy Mayor Nicoll — Right -of -Way Stormwater Charge Options The following was before Council: An extract of Minutes from Regional Council dated April 15, 2014. An extract of Minutes from Regional Council dated January 14, 2014. A staff recommendation report dated January 6, 2014 (please note the date on the report is incorrect), with attached staff recommendation report dated December 11, 2013 and an excerpt of UARB decision dated June 24, 2013. A staff information report dated February 9, 2015. Deputy Mayor Nicoll introduced the matter referencing the recommendation report and citing inquiries received from the public. Councillor Walker suggested that Council consider whether the Stormwater Charge for Right -of -Way should be incorporated into the general tax rate rather than collected by Halifax Water. A discussion ensued with several Councillors noting that they had received many questions on the matter and agreeing that the charge should be easily understood by residents. Mr. John Traves, Municipal Solicitor, reminded Council that it passed a motion on this matter in the meeting held January 141h 2014 and would have to rescind that decision if they wished to make changes. Councillors Hendsbee and Dalrymple noted that rural residents of the Municipality do not receive the same services and should not have the charge on their tax bill. Councillor Rankin countered that it is a general service and so a flat tax is appealing. Mr. Greg Keefe, Chief Financial Officer, responding to a question from Councillor Outhit, noted that the tax could be either added to the general rate, in which case it would be tied to property assessments, or as an area rate, which could be a flat rate or tied to assessments. Councillor Johns noted that he does not support the way the tax is currently being applied, but certainly does not support levying a cost on rural areas that are currently under the jurisdiction of the province. Councillor Walker indicated that he will consider tabling a motion of rescission at a future Council meeting. 11.4.2 Councillor McCluskey — Current and Potential Municipal Initiatives to Support Affordable Housing Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 The following was before Council: A staff information report dated February 13, 2015, with attached staff recommendation report dated November 27, 2014 Councillor McCluskey expressed concern regarding citizens living in sub -standard residences. She noted that 2,000 individuals accessed the shelter system this year. Mayor Savage thanked Councillor McCluskey for bringing this item forward and referenced a letter dated March 11, 2015 from the United Way seeking a contribution to the Housing First initiative. He commended Jim Donovan, Manager of Municipal Compliance for related efforts by the department. Councillor Johns commended United Way on their efforts to address homelessness and emphasized that the Municipality has a role to play in affordable housing. Mayor Savage noted that this is a priority for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and noted that he is the Co -Chair of an effort to get housing more firmly entrenched on the national agenda. 12. MOTIONS 12.1 Councillor Hendsbee That Halifax Regional Council request an in -camera staff report to deal with an issue of refunding and/or reversing a tax -sale proceeding or entertaining a land exchange proposal as a means to resolve a development dispute. This matter was dealt with later in the meeting during the in -camera session. Refer to page 11 for details. 13. IN CAMERA 13.1 In Camera Minutes — January 28 and February 3, 2015 MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicoll that the in -camera minutes of January 28 and February 3, 2015 be approved as circulated. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 13.2 Property Matter A matter pertaining to providing instruction and direction to officers and employees of the Municipality pertaining to the acquisition / sale of land in regard to: 13.2.1 Property Acquisition — Governors Lake, NS — Private and Confidential Report MOVED by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Councillor Mosher that Halifax Regional Council direct staff to negotiate an acquisition of vacant lands in the Governors Lake area, Timberlea, for public water access as outlined in the private and confidential staff report dated March 3, 2015 and to return to Regional Council, if required, for the approval of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 13.2.2 Property Matter — Bancroft Lane Burnside Park, Dartmouth — Private and Confidential Report MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Councillor Mason that Halifax Regional Council: 10 Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 1. Approve the sale of a portion of PID 41093477 and 41093485, Bancroft Lane, Burnside Park, Dartmouth, further to the terms and conditions outlined in Table 1 of the private and confidential staff report dated February 3, 2015; 2. Approve a temporary construction easement over a portion of PID No.'s 41093477 and 41093485 being the existing Bancroft Lane, Dartmouth further to the terms and conditions outlined in Table 1 of the private and confidential staff report dated February 3, 2015; and 3. Approve the sale of the remaining portions of PIDs 41093477 and 41093485, Bancroft Lane, Dartmouth, further to the terms and conditions outlined in Table 2 of the private and confidential staff report dated February 3, 2015. It is further recommended that this report not be released to the public until the transaction has closed. Mr. Peter Stickings, Manager of Real Estate, Corporate Real Estate, responding to questions from Councillor Watts, noted that the zoning for the area is 12 and the property is within the boundary of Burnside Industrial Park. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 14. ADDED ITEMS - NONE 15. NOTICES OF MOTION — NONE Council convened to an in -camera session at 3:57 p.m. to address the following matter: 12.1 Councillor Hendsbee That Halifax Regional Council request an in -camera staff report to deal with an issue of refunding and/or reversing a tax -sale proceeding or entertaining a land exchange proposal as a means to resolve a development dispute. This matter was dealt with in private session. Council reconvened to public session at 4:11 p.m. 16. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Cathy J. Mellett Municipal Clerk 11 Form 24 Purpose: to change the registered interest, benefits or burdens Instrument code: 450) Ifchanges) requested relate(s) to one or more ofthefollowing and no other interests are being added or removed on this form: manner of tenure, description of manner of tenure, non-resident status, parcel access or NSFLB occupant. Note: This form cannot be used to correct an error in a parcel register). Instrument code: 451) Change to existing servient or dominant tenement PID number in a parcel register as a result ofsubdivision or consolidation.. Note: This form cannot be used to correct an error in a parcel register) For Office Use Registration district: Submitter's user number: Submitter's name: Kum COI.INr v LANn RFGismATioN oww JwKN 4het MAR doo UM was mg tared or reoadrd moo— "vq- ft Imawlay, rlepfsW ocumaM JUN 3 0.2015 S In the matter of Parcel Identification Number (PID) Fna me - PID 280271 PID Expand box for additional PIDs, maximum 9 PIDs perform) HALIFAX 3951 MICHAEL C. MOORE The following additional forms are being submitted simultaneously with this form and relate to the attached document (check appropriate boxes, if applicable): X Form 24(s) Form SA(s) Additional information (check appropriate boxes, if applicable). This Form 24 creates or is part of a subdivision or consolidation. This Form 24 is a municipal or provincial street or road transfer. This Form 24 is adding a corresponding benefit or burden as a result of an AFR of another parcel. May 4, 2009 Power of attorney (Note: completion of this section is mandatory) The attached document is signed by attorney for a person under a power of attorney, and the.power of attorney is: recorded in the attorney roll recorded in the parcel register incorporated in the document OR x No power of attorney applies to this document This form is submitted to make the changes to the registered interests, or benefits or burdens, and other related information, in the above -noted parcel register(s), as set out below. The registered interests and related information are to be changed as follows: Instrument type N/A Interest holder and type to be removed (if applicable) Interest holder and type to be added (if applicable) Note: include qualifier (e.g., estate of, executor, trustee, personal representative) if applicable Mailing address of interest holder to be added (if applicable) Manner of tenure to be removed (if applicable) Manner of tenure to be added (if applicable) Description of mixture of tenants in common and joint tenancy (if applicable) Access type to be removed (if applicable) Access type to be added (if app#cable) May 4, 2009 Percentage or share of interest held (for use with tenant in common interests) Non-resident (to quaked solicitor's information and belief) (Yes/No?) Reference to related instrument in parcel register (if applicable) Reason for removal of interest (for use only when interest is being removed by operation of law and no document is attached) Instrument code: 443 The following tenant in common interests that appear in the section of the parcel register(s) labelled "Tenants in Common not registered pursuant to the Land Registration Act" are to be removed because the interests are being registered (insert names to be removed):N/A I have searched the judgment roll with respect to this revision of the registered interest and have determined that it is appropriate to add the following judgment(s) or judgment -related documents to the parcel register, in accordance with the Land Registration Act and Land Registration Administration Regulations: Instrument type N/A Interest holder name and type to be added Interest holder mailing address Judgment Roll reference The following benefit is to be added in the parcel register: Note: An amending PDCA is required if the changes being made to the benefit section are not currently reflected in the description in the parcel register). Instrument type I Award May 4, zoos Interest holder and type to be removed (if applicable) Interest holder and type to be added (f Together with an Easement/ROW — applicable) Note: include qualifier (e.g., estate Easement/ROW Holder (Benefit) of, executor, trustee, personal representative) (if applicable) Mailing address of interest holder to be added f applicable) Servient tenement parcel(s) {list all affected 279968 PIDs): Reference to related instrument in names -based roll/parcel register (if applicable) Reason for removal of interest (for use only when interest is being removed by operation of law) Instrument code: 443 The following burdens are to be added and/or removed in the parcel register(s): Note: An amending PDCA is required if the changes being made to the burden section are not currently reflected in the description in the parcel register). Instrument type N/A Interest holder and type to be removed (if applicable) Interest holder and type to be added (if applicable) Note: include qualifier (e.g., estate of, executor, trustee, personal representative) (f applicable) Mailing address of interest holder to be added if applicable) Reference to related instrument in names -based roll/parcel register (if applicable) May 4, 2009 Reason for removal of interest (for use only when interest is being removed by operation of law) Instrument code: 443 The following recorded interests are to be added and/or removed in the parcel re>ister: Instrument type Interest holder and type to be removed (f applicable) Interest holder and type to be added (if applicable) Note: include qualifier (e.g., estate of, executor, trustee, personal representative) (if applicable) Mailing address of interest holder to be added if applicable) Reference to related instrument in names -based roWparcel register (tf applicable) Reason for removal of interest (for use only when interest is being removed by operation of law) Instrument code: 443 The textual nualifications are to be changed as follows: Textual qualification on title to be removed insert any existing textual description being changed, added to or altered in any way) Textual qualification on title to be added insert replacement textual qualification) Reason for change to textual qualification for use only when no document is attached) Instrument code: 838 The following information about the occupier of the parcel, which is owned by the Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board, is to be changed: May 4, 2009 Name and mailing address of occupier to be removed Name and mailing address of occupier to be added Certificate of Legal Effect: I certify that, in my professional opinion, it is appropriate to make the changes to the parcel register(s) as instructed on this form. Dated at Halifax, in the County of Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia, on June 15, 2015. Signature ofauthorized lawyer Name: Michael C. Moore Address Walker, Dunlop 1477 South Park Street Halifax Nova Scotia B3J 2L1 Phone: 902-423-8121 E-mail: michaelmoore@walkerdunlon.ca Fax: 902429-0621 This document also affects non -land registration parcels. The original will be registered under the Registry Act and a certified true copy for recording under the Land Registration Act is attached. May 4, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF the Private Ways Act, R.S.N.S 1989 c. 358, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF the lands of Rita Marie Cron and Charles Claudius Edward Cron at 15 Milton Drive, Halifax, Nova Scotia AND IN THE MATTER OF an arbitration for compensation pursuant to the Private Ways Act, R.S.N.S 1989 c. 368, as amended, held on September 23rd, 2014 at Halifax; AWARD OF THE ARBITRATION PANEL UNDER THE PRIVATE WAYS ACT , WHEREAS Susan Sutherland applied to Halifax Regional Council under the Private Ways Act for a private way over the lands of Rita Marie Cron and Charles Claudius Edward Cron at 5 Milton Drive, Halifax, Nova Scotia; AND WHEREAS an arbitration for compensation pursuant to the Private Ways Act was held on September 231d, 2014 at Halifax; AND WHEREAS the Arbitration Panel issued a decision dated November 17, 2014; THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION PANEL IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The award for the value of the land under the access easement is $45,800; 2. The award for the loss in value of the land is $95,0D0; 3. Rita Marie Cron and Charles Claudius Edward Cron shall be awarded costs in the amount of $16,800, plus their expert appraiser fees and reasonable disbursements. Dated atT4Pthis 1S K`day of April, 2015. Kathryn Dumke Chair of the Arbitration Panel H ALIFAX HALIFAX REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES March 24, 2016 PRESENT: Mayor Mike Savage Deputy Mayor Lorelei Nicoll Councillors: Barry Dalrymple David Hendsbee Gloria McCluskey Darren Fisher Ways Mason Jennifer Watts Linda Mosher Russell Walker Stephen Adams Reg Rankin Brad Johns Steve Craig Tim Outhit REGRETS: Councillor Bill Karsten Councillor Matt Whitman STAFF: Mr. Richard Butts, Chief Administrative officer Mr. John Tmves, Municipal Solicitor Ms. Sherryll Murphy, Deputy Municipal Clerk Ms. Phoebe Smith, Legislative Assistant The following does not represent a verbatim r000rd of the proceedings of this meeting. R video recording of this meeting is available: httu llarchive.isiclobal. a&odlhal#Warchive 2015-03- 24 We.=4.htm! The agenda, supporting documents, and information items circulated to Councif are available online: htto:l/wwty hafifax (zWcounciUagendasall $0324rc-aaenda.php Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 The meeting was calied to orderat 1:00 p.m. and recessed at 2:36 p.m. Council reconvened in at 2:55 p.m. Council moved into an in -camera session of 3.57 and reconvened to the public session at 4:11 p.m. Council adjourned at 4:15 p.m. 1. INVOCATION The Mayor called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. with the Invocation being led by Councillor Walker. 2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Councillors noted a number of special community announcements and acknowledgements. Council observed a moment of silence in memory of Allan Rowe and Stephen Mont, Mayor Savage and Mr. Richard Butts, GAO provided an update on the municipal response to the recent storm. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 28 & February 3, 2016 Councillor Hendsbee referred to page 5 of the February 3, 2015 minutes and noted that he addressed municipal election reform and the issuance of receipts. He asked that the minutes be revised to reflect his comments. MOVED by Deputy Mayor Nicoll, seconded by Councillor Johns that the minutes of the Regional Council meetings of January 28 and February 3, 2016 be approved, as amended. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 4, APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS'AND DELETIONS At the request of Councillor Mason, Council agreed to bring forward Information Item 2 — Memorandum from the Director of Operations Support dated March 3, 2015 re: Supplemental Building Information — 1588 Barrington Street and Information Rem 3 — Memorandum from the Director of Parks and Recreation dated March 3, 2015 re: Status of Arts Incubator Pilot at 1588 Barrington Street to the agenda of the April 14, 2015 meeting for discussion. Councillor Hendsbee requested to refer item 12.1 to in -camera. MOVED by Deputy Mayor Nicoll, seconded by Councillor Walker that the agenda be approved as revised. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 6. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES — NONE 6. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION — NONE 7. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION — NONE S. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS — NONE 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 10. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 10.1 Correspondence The Clerk noted that correspondence was received for item 11.1.4 and information items 2 and 3. This correspondence was circulated to Council. For a detailed list of correspondence received refer to the specific agenda item. 10.1.1 Fly-past Request— Deadman's Island Remembrance Event The following was before Council: Correspondence dated March 10, 2015 from Lieutenant David S. Deese, Senior Base Chaplain of the United States Navy. MOVED by Councillor Mosher, seconded by Councillor McCluskey that Halifax Regional Council grant permission for a CH424 Sea King to perform a fly-past at levels as low as 600 feet over Deadman's Island Park, Halifax on Monday, May 25, 2016 at 11:16 a.m. In conjunction with the Deadman's Island Remembrance Event MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 10.1.2 Fly-past Request — HMCS IROQUOIS Paying Off Ceremony The following was before Council: Correspondence dated March 12, 2015 from Commander Robert J. Watt, Commanding Officer of the Royal Canadian Navy. MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Watts that Halifax Regional Council grant permission for a Sea King helicopter to perform a fly-past at levels as low as 500 feet which may also include a hover, approaching HMCS IROQUOIS at her berth on November Bravo Jetty In the vicinity of the Halifax Casino on Friday, May 1, 2016 between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. In conjunction with the HMCS IROQUOIS Paying Off Ceremony. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 10.2 Petitions - NONE 10.3 Presentation - NONE 11. REPORTS 11.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 11.1.1 Award — UnIt Price Tender No. 16-211— Street Planer Patching — Various Locations The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 26, 2015. MOVED by Councillor McCluskey, seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicoll that Halifax Regional Council award Tender No.16-211, Street Planer Patching, Various Locations, to the lowest bidder meeting specffications, ARCP —Atlantic Road Construction & Paving Ltd., for a Total Tender Price of 1,186,461.82 (net HST Included) with funding from Project Account No. CR000005 — Street Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2016 Recapitalization, as outlined in the Financial Implications section of the February 26, 2016 staff report. Councillor Johns noted that within the report some areas are misidentified as belonging to District 14. He noted that items 28, 29, 30 and 38 all fall within the boundaries of District 15 and the report should be amended. Mr. Dave Hubley, Manager, Project Planning. and Design Servlces, responding to a question from Deputy Mayor Nicoll, noted that the patching technique is part of preparation for a micro -program being developed for 2016/17.' MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.1.2 Award — Unit Price Tender No.15-201, Pedestrian Overpass Remediation —Victoria Road — East Region The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 26, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Fisher, seconded by Councillor McCluskey that Halifax Regional Council: 1. Award Tender No.16-201, Pedestrian Overpass Remedlation - Victoria Road - East Region, to the WA*M bidder meeting spectficatlons, Greendale Resources Ina for a Total Tender Price of $663,745.61 (not HST included) with funding from Project Account No. CRU01077 - Bridges, as outlined In the Financial Implications section of the report dated February 26, 2016. 2. Award construction Inspection services to Campbell Comeau Engineering Limited in the amount of $26,360.70 (net HST Included) with funding from Project Account No. CRU01077 Bridges, as outlined In the Financial Implications section of the report dated February 26, 2015. A discussion ensued with Mr. Dave Hubley, Manager, Project Planning and Design Services responding to questions. In response to questions from Councillor McCluskey, Mr. Hubley noted that Victoria Road becomes a provincial road just past Highfield Park Drive, and that the work will take roughly 10 weeks to complete due to the amount of concrete work to be done. Pedestrians will not be able to cross, and one lane on each side of the divided road will be closed. Responding to a question from Councillor Hendsbee, Mr. Hubley confirmed that the consultant who completed the design work was the only consultant to submit a bid for the project. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten, Johns and Whitman 11A.3 2016 Spring Debenture The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 27, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicoll that Halifax Regional Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to sign the Resolution for Pre -Approval of Debenture Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 20,16 issuance, subject to Interest rate confirmation not to exceed 5.0%, to enable the Halifax Regional Municipality to Issue a 10-year debenture of $27,000,000. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten, Johns and Whitman 11.1.4 Petition of Susan Sutherland (formerly Sheehan) for Private Right of Way The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated February 26, 2015, with attached staff recommendation report dated February 17, 2011, Report of Commissioner Baker, Plan of Private Way, and Arbitration Decision. A staff presentation dated March 24, 2015 An extract of Minutes from Regional Council dated March 1. 2011, Correspondence dated March 13, 2015 from John A. Keith, Q.C., Partner at Cox & Palmer. Correspondence dated March 23, 2015 from Susan Sutherland, Petitioner. MOVED by Councillor Mosher, seconded by Councillor Mason that Halifax Regional Council: 1. Confirm the report of the Commissioner Deborah Baker, dated November 15, 2014, laying out a private way across.the property at 6 Milton Drive for the benefit of 9 Milton Drive; and 2. Confirm the award of the Arbitrators as set out In the decision of the Arbitration Panel dated November 17, 2014. Mayor Savage invited Ms. Karen E. MacDonald, Senior Solicitor, Legal Services to provide a presentation on the Petition of Susan Sutherland. Ms. MacDonald provided background, laid out the financial implications and gave an overview of the options before Council. Councillor Mosher noted that this has been a long-standing and difficult issue for both parties. She voiced concern with the recommendation to move the right of way further than the petitioner had requested onto the neighbouring property and questioned whether this was in line with the mandate to find the route that is the "most advantageous to the petitioner and least detrimental to the landowner.* Councillor Mosher also requested legal commentary on the issue of liability and questioned how the funds disbursed would be recovered by Council. Ms. MacDonald responded that the Commissioner has discretion on where the private way will be laid out and noted that liability ultimately lies with whichever party is negligent. Ms. MacDonald advised that there is a signed contract with Ms. Suthertand whereby the latter agrees to repay the funds. She noted further that Council could adopt a by-law whereby the amount paid can become the first lien on the property to be collected as with taxes. Councillor Mosher noted that the correspondence received from the petitioner indicates she does not have the financial means to repay the funds and questioned further how the funds would be recovered by Council. She also reiterated her understanding that the Commissioner does not have the authority to choose the road location citing page 11 of the report. Ms. MacDonald clarified that the report being cited by Councillor Mosher was written by the Commissioner, not by staff. She confirmed that under the Act, the Commissioner does have discretion. Mr. John Traves, Municipal Soilcltor, confirmed that the Commissioner acted within their authority to lay out where the private way is to go. Mr. Traves commented further that Council is entitled to hold Ms. Sutherland to her agreement to repay the funds. Halifax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2016 Ms. MacDonald responded to a question from Councillor Hendsbee that there is no authority under the Private Ways Act for Council to question the costs incurred. Councillor Handsbee also questioned that if the costs exceed the assessed value of the property, how the funds would be collected if the petitioner and if the petitioner could apply for tax relief or a deferral of the lien. Mr. Traves noted that the property is currently assessed based on its value as a lot without road access and it is anticipated this value will change. He noted further that the bills were carefully reviewed in consultation with arbitrators and appraisers and deemed to reflect the level of work that was involved. Regarding collection of funds, Mr. Traves remarked that it is not within Council's authority to Inquire into a private individual's source of funding, and if the petitioner is unable or unwilling to meet the terms of the agreement. Council may seek a by-law to enforce the payment by lien or tax sale. Councillor McCluskey questioned why the matter was before Council, why the valuation was accepted even though the square footage was incorrect, and why the property was landlocked. Ms. MacDonald responded that under the Private Ways Act, a petitioner who is landlocked can apply to Council for resolution, She commented that the square footage was not included on the plan so the appraisers came to a consensus, and noted staffs concern that it would cost more to go back to the arbitrators than the difference in value. Finally, Ms. MacDonald noted that the property was unique in that at the time it was purchased it was believed that the property owner had a carriageway but in 1969, according to a Court of Appeals decision, he lost the right to that carriageway and the property was not considered landlocked as it can be accessed by foot and by water. Councillor Rankin noted that the process had been completed fairty and that Council cannot substitute their opinion for the opinion of the arbitrators or the Commissioner, it can only accept or deny the award Councillor Watts noted that Council could agree to cover the arbitration cost without seeking reimbursement by the petitioner. Mr. Traves agreed, adding that Council could direct staff to reduce the amount to be recouped from the petitioner. Councillor Watts put forward the following amendment: MOVED by Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Rankin that Halifax Regional Council amend the motion to reduce the cost to the petitioner by the arbitration cost in the amount of $61,683.62. Councillor Mosher indicated that she would not support the amendment, expressing concern that this amendment would set an unwise precedent, and respectfully asked Council not to support it. Councillor Fisher expressed his agreement with Councillor Mosher and inquired as to what the increase would be to the value of the property. Ms. MacDonald responded that the difference to the value of the property is not yet known. Councillor Watts clarified for the record that without notice to Ms. Sutherland, there was a securement of the grant on the infilled lands on behalf of the federal government. She noted there were a series of events that directly impacted the Suthedands' access to their property. Councillor Outhit questioned what kind of precedent passing the amendment would set. Mr. Traves responded that this is an anomaly and in future Council would have the discretion to grant the petition or not, and to make its own decision regarding the costs, so there is limited precedent. In response to questions from Councillor Adams, Ms. MacDonald noted that no legal advice or cost estimates were provided to either party_ MOTION TO AMEND PUT AND DEFEATED. (4 in favour, 11 against) In favour: Councillors Hendsbee, Watts, Walker, Rankin. Halffax Regional Council Minutes March 24, 2015 Against: Mayor Savage, Deputy Mayor Nicoll, Councillors Dalrymple, McCluskey, Fisher, Mason, Mosher, Adams, Johns, Craig, Outhit Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman MAIN MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.2 GRANTS COMMITTEE 11.2.1 Grants to Volunteer Search and Rescue Organizations Recommended Awards 2014 The following was before Council: A staff recommendation report dated March 4, 2015, with attached staff recommendation report dated February 4, 2015, MOVED by Councillor Dalrymple, seconded by Councillor Hendsbee that Halifax Regional Council approve the award of operating and capital grant funding to the four (4) volunteer ground search and rescue organizations described In the Discussion section of the staff report dated February 4, 2016, for a combined total of $138,500 from Operating Account C801-8004. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.2.2 Proposed Amendments to Administrative Order 2014-001-ADM, Respecting Tax Relief to Non -Profit Organizations — Referral by Council The following was before Council: An extract of Minutes from Regional Council dated January 13, 2015. A staff recommendation report dated March 4, 2015, attached was a supplementary staff report dated January 15, 2015. MOVED by Councillor Dalrymple, seconded by Councillor Walker that Halifax Regional Council repeat and replace Schedules 27, 28, and 29 of Administrative Order 2014-001-ADM Respecting Tax Relief to Nott-Profff Organizations as set out In Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the supplementary staff report dated January 16, 2016. Councillor McCluskey questioned why a full exemption was not given to the Atlantic Division of CanoeKayak Canada. Mr. Peter Greechan, Community Developer, Grants and Contributions, responded that the exemption may be reassessed in the grant program redesign. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. (14 in favour, 1 against) In favour. Mayor Savage, Deputy Mayor Nicoll, Councillors Dalrymple, Hendsb w Fisher, Mason, Watts, Mosher, Walker, Adams, Rankin, Johns, Craig, Outhit Against: Councillor McCluskey Not present: Councillors Karsten and Whitman 11.2.3 Proposed Amendments to Administrative Order 2014-012-ADM Respecting Grants for Rural Transit HALIFAX HALIFAX REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES May 31, 2022 PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Pam Lovelace Councillors: Cathy Deagle Gammon David Hendsbee Becky Kent Trish Purdy Sam Austin Tony Mancini Waye Mason Lindell Smith Shawn Cleary Kathryn Morse Patty Cuttell Iona Stoddard Lisa Blackburn Paul Russell Tim Outhit REGRETS: Mayor Mike Savage STAFF: Jacques Dube, Chief Administrative Officer John Traves, Municipal Solicitor lain MacLean, Municipal Clerk Annie Sherry, Legislative Assistant Eric Bowdridge, Legislative Assistant The following does not represent a verbatim record of the proceedings of this meeting. The agenda, reports, supporting documents, information items circulated, and video (if available) are online at halifax.ca. Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 The meeting was called to order at 3:31 p.m., and recessed at 5:24 p.m. Council reconvened in at 6:00 p.m. Council adjourned at 7:36 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Deputy Mayor Lovelace called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. and acknowledged that the meeting took place in the traditional and ancestral territory of the Mi'kmaq people, and that we are all treaty people. 2. SPECIAL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Councillors noted special community announcements and acknowledgements. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 17, 2022 MOVED by Councillor Kent, seconded by Councillor Stoddard THAT the minutes of May 17, 2022 be approved as circulated. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. 4. APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Additions: Item 18.1 Committee of the Whole Ratification - Funding for Stormwater Right -of -Way Cost as General Tax Item 18.2 Permission Under Administrative Order 53 to Give Permission to Serve Alcohol at Various Rugby Events Deletions: None MOVED by Councillor Kent, seconded by Councillor Blackburn THAT the agenda be approved as amended. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 5. CONSENT AGENDA MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Morse THAT Halifax Regional Council approve recommendations in the following agenda items: 15.2.1 Application for Halifax as a Bird Friendly City; and 15.3.1 Marketing Levy Special Events Reserve Grant Report 2022 MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 6. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES — NONE 7. CALL FOR DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS — NONE 8. MOTIONS OF RECONSIDERATION — NONE 9. MOTIONS OF RESCISSION — October 26, 2021 K Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 9.1 Councillor Austin The following was before Council: Request for Council's consideration form from by Councillor Austin Extract from the May 17, 2022 Draft Regional Council Minutes MOVED by Councillor Austin, seconded by Councillor Kent THAT Halifax Regional Council rescind item 15.3.1 "Lakeview Point Road/Hume Street Extension" from the October 26, 2021 meeting which requested a staff report as follows: That Halifax Regional Council request a staff report regarding the feasibility of converting Lakeview Point Road and Hume Street in Dartmouth into a one-way loop by creating a new exit for Hume Street at the existing traffic light at Grahams Grove." MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 10. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED BUSINESS— May 17, 2022 10.1 Property Matter — Parkland Acquisition The following was before Council: Declassified private and confidential staff recommendation report dated February 24, 2022 Extract from the May 17, 2022 Regional Council draft minutes MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Russell THAT Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to take no further action to acquire a portion of provincial lands in the Preston Area, identified as PID 40188781, for the purpose of creating a Preston Township Park until such time as there is a community -based, Provincially -led initiative regarding the development of these lands. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 11. NOTICES OF TABLED MATTERS — NONE 12. HEARINGS — NONE 13. CORRESPONDENCE, PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS 13.1 Correspondence Correspondence was received and circulated for item 15.1.1. For a detailed list of correspondence received refer to the specific agenda item. 13.2 Petitions 13.2.1 Councillor Blackburn Councillor Blackburn submitted a petition with approximately 12 signatures from residents of Silver Leaf Drive — Kinsac HRM requesting that Halifax Regional Council plan and immediately implement paving of Silver Leaf Drive for the 2022 construction season. Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 13.2.2 Deputy Mayor Lovelace Deputy Mayor Lovelace stepped down from the Chair and Councillor Outhit assumed the Chair Deputy Mayor Lovelace submitted a petition with approximately 282 signatures from residents requesting that the decision to move students in Grades 5 and 6 at Kingswood Elementary to Rocky Lake Elementary be reversed. MOVED by Deputy Mayor Lovelace, seconded by Councillor Blackburn THAT Halifax Regional Council request the Mayor write a letter to the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Ms. Becky Druhan, advising her that Halifax Regional Council received and tabled this petition from 282 residents in District 13, 14 and 16 who are negatively impacted by the decision Halifax Regional Centre for Education to separate families into three separate elementary schools beginning September 2022. Jacques Dube, Chief Administrative Officer responded to questions of clarification from Regional Council. Deputy Mayor Lovelace proposed removing the word "negatively" from the motion. As provided for in section 53 (2) of Administrative Order One, Respecting the Procedures of the Council, the amendment was accepted as friendly. The motion now read: MOVED by Deputy Mayor Lovelace, seconded by Councillor Blackburn THAT Halifax Regional Council request the Mayor write a letter to the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Ms. Becky Druhan, advising her that Halifax Regional Council received and tabled this petition from 282 residents in District 13, 14 and 16 who are impacted by the decision Halifax Regional Centre for Education to separate families into three separate elementary schools beginning September 2022. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. (15 in favour, 1 against) In favour: Deputy Mayor Lovelace, Councillors Deagle Gammon, Hendsbee, Kent, Purdy, Austin, Mancini, Mason, Smith, Morse, Cuttell, Stoddard, Blackburn, Russell, Outhit Against: Councillor Cleary Not present: Mayor Savage Deputy Mayor Lovelace resumed the Chair. 13.3 Presentation — None 14. INFORMATION ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD — NONE 15. REPORTS 15.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 15.1.1 Community Engagement Results on the Future of 10 Monique Avenue, Dartmouth (site of the Gray Memorial Arena) The following was before Council: Staff recommendation report dated April 7, 2022 4 Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 Correspondence from Tom Aquanno & Donna Goguen on behalf of Lacrosse Nova Scotia MOVED by Councillor Mancini, seconded by Councillor Mason THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Remove, pursuant to section 3(6) of Administrative Order 50, 10 Monique Avenue, Dartmouth from the list of properties which by the July 29, 2014 motion of Council was declared surplus to the needs of the Municipality; 2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to include $100,000 in the 2023/24 operating budget to dedicate adequate resources for the creation of a redevelopment program for 10 Monique Avenue, Dartmouth; and 3. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to utilize the redevelopment program to: a. re -assess municipal needs for 10 Monique Avenue, Dartmouth, to be informed by existing and proposed community facilities in the broader community; and b. progress the engagement findings and partnership interests generated from the community consultations. Leticia Smillie, Planner III, Maggie MacDonald, Executive Director, Parks & Recreation, and Nalini Naidoo, Director, Strategic Planning & Design responded to questions of clarification from Regional Council. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.1.2 Potential Indoor Skatepark Space The following was before Council: Staff recommendation report dated April 5, 2022 MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Mancini THAT Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to continue to support scheduling of wheeled sports and other dry floor recreation programs within the Gerald B. Gray Memorial Arena (located at 10 Monique Avenue, Dartmouth) including the promotion and booking of this facility for these uses for the timeframe described in the staff report dated April 5, 2022. Gareth Evans, Recreation Planning Specialist, Angela Green, Director, Recreation Programming responded to questions of clarification from Regional Council. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.1.3 Proposed Administrative Order 2022-002-ADM, Respecting Outdoor Community Rinks The following was before Council: Staff recommendation report dated April 5, 2022 Extract from the May 17, 2022 Regional Council draft minutes Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 MOVED by Councillor Morse, seconded by Councillor Deagle Gammon THAT Halifax Regional Council adopt Administrative Order 2022-002-ADM, the Outdoor Community Rink Administrative Order, as set out in Attachment 1 of the staff report dated April 5, 2022. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.1.4 First Reading Proposed By -Law R-109 - Integrated Pest Management Strategy, Pesticide By- law Repeal, and Rodent Control Rebate The following was before Council: Staff recommendation report dated April 11, 2022 Extract from the May 17, 2022 Regional Council draft minutes MOVED by Councillor Purdy, seconded by Councillor Mason THAT Halifax Regional Council give First Reading to By-law R-109, amending By-law R-100, the By-law and Ordinance Repeal By-law, the purpose of which is to repeal By-law P-800, the Pesticide By-law, as set out in Appendix B of the staff report dated April 11, 2022. Shannon Miedema, Director, Environment & Climate Change, Emma Bocking, Environment Specialist, and John Traves Municipal Solicitor responded to questions of clarification from Regional Council. Traves clarified that the motion before Regional Council was to give first reading of this By-law, with second reading providing for discussion on the subsequent recommendations outlined in the staff report dated April 11, 2022. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.1.5 Case 23600: Amendments to the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy to enable high rise redevelopment on Ridge Valley Road and Cowie Hill Road, Halifax The following was before Council: Staff recommendation report dated April 6, 2022 Extract from the May 17, 2022 Regional Council draft minutes MOVED by Councillor Cleary, seconded by Councillor Cuttell THAT Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to: 1. Initiate a process to consider amendments to the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy and Halifax Mainland Land Use By-law to modify zoning requirements for two R-4 zoned properties located at 30 Ridge Valley Road and 41 Cowie Hill Road; and 2. Follow the public participation program outlined in the Community Engagement section of the staff report dated April 6, 2022. Anne Totten, Planner II responded to questions of clarification from Regional Council regarding removal of surface parking for pre-existing buildings and alteration to the current skyline. Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.1.6 Petition for Private Right -of -Way The following was before Council: Staff recommendation report dated May 5, 2022 MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Kent THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Appoint a Commissioner pursuant to section 17 of the Private Ways Act, to consider the petition of the Petitioners; and 2. Before the Commissioner starts work on the Petition, Regional Council enter into an agreement with each of the Petitioners for reimbursement to HRM of any and all expenses incurred by HRM which are recoverable by HRM under the Private Ways Act. Specifically, all expenses associated with the Commissioner, Arbitrators, and any compensation payable to the adjacent landowners. MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Russell THAT the motion be deferred to a future meeting of Regional Council due to the sale of properties PID: 00533448 and PID: 00533505. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.1.7 Funding Request — Housing Trust of Nova Scotia The following was before Council: Staff recommendation report dated April 28, 2022 MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Stoddard THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Suspend the rules of procedure under Schedule 2, the Audit & Finance Standing Committee Terms of Reference, of Administrative Order One, the Procedures of the Council Administrative Order, that require the Audit & Finance Committee review and make recommendations on proposals coming to the Council outside of the annual budget or tender process; 2. Approve a one-time grant in the amount of $261,230 to the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia towards the purchase of 173 units of affordable housing located outside the Regional Centre that would otherwise be ineligible for consideration under the Affordable Housing Grants Program with funding from the fiscal 2021-2022 general rate surplus; 3. Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer or their designate to negotiate and execute a Contribution Agreement with the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia in the amount of $261,230 including the terms and conditions as set out in the Discussion section of the staff report Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 dated April 28, 2022; and 4. Refer the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia's request for funding for those properties located within in the Regional Centre and eligible for funding under the Affordable Housing Grants Program to the program's 2022 intake process. Peta-Jane Temple, Team Lead Grants Tax & Special Projects, Jacques Dube, Chief Administrative Officer, John Traves, Municipal Solicitor, and Jerry Blackwood, Executive Director, Finance & Asset Management/Chief Financial Officer responded to questions of clarification from Regional Council. Temple noted concerns of on -demand financing to rebate deed transfer tax, consideration for the Affordable Housing Grant Program, that the three years window after filing the affidavit is consistent with similar policy, the process for a Contribution Agreement including when monies can be given, and details for progressive transition of rent and the current tax relief program. Dube discussed the need for four-part agreements and changes to provincial legislation. Traves spoke to funding options and the process for amending the terms and conditions as set out in the Discussion section of the staff report dated April 28, 2022. As provided for in section 90 of Administrative Order One, the motion was separated for voting purposes. MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Stoddard THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Suspend the rules of procedure under Schedule 2, the Audit & Finance Standing Committee Terms of Reference, of Administrative Order One, the Procedures of the Council Administrative Order, that require the Audit & Finance Committee review and make recommendations on proposals coming to the Council outside of the annual budget or tender process; MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Stoddard THAT Halifax Regional Council: 2. Approve a one-time grant in the amount of $261,230 to the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia towards the purchase of 173 units of affordable housing located outside the Regional Centre that would otherwise be ineligible for consideration under the Affordable Housing Grants Program with funding from the fiscal 2021-2022 general rate surplus; 3. Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer or their designate to negotiate and execute a Contribution Agreement with the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia in the amount of $261,230 including the terms and conditions as set out in the Discussion section of the staff report dated April 28, 2022; and 4. Refer the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia's request for funding for those properties located within in the Regional Centre and eligible for funding under the Affordable Housing Grants Program to the program's 2022 intake process. Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 MOTION PUT AND DEFEATED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage Traves noted the definitions of "affordable housing" and "deep affordability" in Administrative Order Number 2020-008-ADM Respecting Grants for Affordable Housing. MOVED by Councillor Austin, seconded by Councillor Morse THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Approve a one-time grant in the amount of $445,500 to the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia towards the purchase of affordable housing. 2. Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer or their designate to negotiate and execute a Contribution Agreement with the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia in the amount of $445,500 including the terms and conditions as set out in the Discussion section of the staff report dated April 28, 2022. Councillor Smith proposed adding the following "with a revised agreement term reflective of the discussion and importance of affordable housing for the Halifax Regional Municipality." As provided for in section 53 (2) of Administrative Order One, Respecting the Procedures of the Council, the amendment was accepted as friendly. The motion now read: MOVED by Councillor Austin, seconded by Councillor Morse THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Approve a one-time grant in the amount of $445,500 to the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia towards the purchase of affordable housing; and 2. Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer or their designate to negotiate and execute a Contribution Agreement with the Housing Trust of Nova Scotia in the amount of $445,500 including the terms and conditions as set out in the Discussion section of the staff report dated April 28, 2022 with a revised agreement term reflective of the discussion and importance of affordable housing for the HRM. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillor Russell 15.2 ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY STANDING COMMITTEE 15.2.1 Application for Halifax as a Bird Friendly City The following was before Council: Environment and Sustainability Standing Committee report dated May 19, 2022 The following motion was approved as part of the Consent Agenda: MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Morse M Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 THAT Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to prepare a staff report evaluating the application from Halifax to Nature Canada for certification as a bird friendly City. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.3 SPECIAL EVENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 15.3.1 Marketing Levy Special Events Reserve Grant Report 2022 The following was before Council: Special Events Advisory Committee report dated May 13, 2022 with attached staff recommendation report dated March 18, 2022 The following motion was approved as part of the Consent Agenda: MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Morse THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Approve total funding in the amount of $1,134,500 from the Community and Events Reserve, Q621 as proposed in the following categories of the staff report dated March 18, 2022: a. 3 Distinguished, 12 Signature and 1 Major Hosting Event Grants for a total of 731,500 as identified in Table 1; b. 1 New (Emerging) Event Grants (previously approved) for a total of $13,000 as identified in Table 2; c. 1 Distinguished and 3 Major Hosting Events (previously approved) for a total of 390,000 as identified Table 3; 2. Pending final approval of the 2023/2024 budget, approve $766,500 as identified in Table 4 of the staff report dated March 18, 2022; and 3. Pending final approval of the 2024/2025 budget, approve $616,500 as identified in Table 5 of the staff report dated March 18, 2022. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage 15.4 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL 15.4.1 Councillor Austin — Dartmouth Cove Infilling The following was before Council: Request for Council's consideration form from Councillor Austin MOVED by Councillor Austin, seconded by Councillor Mason THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide a submission to Transport Canada regarding the potential infilling of a water lot in Dartmouth Cove (PID 00114132) during the 10 Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 application's comment period. The submission should consider the surrounding land uses, proximity to railway operations, what development rights the resulting property would have under the recently approved Centre Plan, and the potential negative implications for the greater public of disrupting access to the Harbour Trail; 2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide a staff report regarding what rights HRM has to require that access to the Harbour Trail be maintained, and whether the municipality is obligated to facilitate access to the PID 00114132 across municipal property (PID 41127036); and 3. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide a staff report on what the HRM, the Port of Halifax and others relevant stakeholders should undertake to situate pyritic slate disposal sites. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillor Russell 16. MOTIONS 16.1 Deputy Mayor Lovelace Deputy Mayor Lovelace stepped down from the Chair and Councillor Outhit assumed the Chair. MOVED by Deputy Mayor Lovelace, seconded by Councillor Mason THAT Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide a staff report outlining the operating agreement for The Bay Community Centre by the Head of St. Margaret Bay/Boutiliers Point Recreation Association including any sub leasing within the centre and that a report be brought back to Regional Council with recommendations regarding the governance model moving forward. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillors Cleary, Russell Deputy Mayor Lovelace resumed the Chair. 17. IN CAMERA (IN PRIVATE) 17.1 In Camera (In Private) Minutes — May 17, 2022 This matter was dealt with in public. MOVED by Councillor Mason, seconded by Councillor Kent THAT the In Camera (In Private) minutes of May 17, 2022 be approved as circulated. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillors Cleary, Russell 17.2 PROPERTY MATTER — Private and Confidential Report This matter was dealt with in public. The following was before Council: 11 Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 Private and confidential staff recommendation report dated May 31, 2022 MOVED by Councillor Austin, seconded by Councillor Hendsbee THAT Halifax Regional Council: 1. Adopt the recommendations as outlined in the private and confidential report dated May 31, 2022; and 2. Direct that the private and confidential report dated May 31, 2022 be maintained private and confidential. MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillors Cleary, Russell 18. ADDED ITEMS 18.1 Committee of the Whole Ratification - Funding for Stormwater Right -of -Way Cost as General Tax MOVED by Councillor Kent, seconded by Councillor Blackburn THAT Halifax Regional Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to prepare amendments to By-law C- 900 to reflect Option 2 — Area Rate as presented in the supplementary staff information report dated April 21, 2022. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. (11 in favour, 3 against) In favour: Deputy Mayor Lovelace, Councillors Deagle Gammon, Hendsbee, Kent, Purdy, Mancini, Mason, Smith, Cuttell, Stoddard, Blackburn Against: Councillors Austin, Morse, Outhit Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillors Cleary, Russell 18.2 Councillor Hendsbee — Permission under Administrative Order 53 to Give Permission to Serve Alcohol at Various Rugby Events MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Cuttell THAT, in accordance with section 7 of Administrative Order 53, Halifax Regional Council grant permission to serve Alcohol as follows: June 4, 2022 to Halifax TARS Rugby Game at Graves Oakley Sport Field; June 11, 2022 to Halifax Rugby Football Club Rugby Tournament at Graves Oakley Sport Field; and June 18, 2022 to Rugby Nova Scotia Games at Gorsebrook (St Francis Field). Location to be determined by parks staff. Maggie MacDonald, Executive Director, Parks & Recreation responded to questions of clarification from Regional Council. 12 Halifax Regional Council Minutes May 31, 2022 As provided for in section 90 of Administrative Order One, the motion was separated for voting purposes. MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Cuttell THAT, in accordance with section 7 of Administrative Order 53, Halifax Regional Council grant permission to serve Alcohol as follows: June 4, 2022 to Halifax TARS Rugby Game at Graves Oakley Sport Field; and June 11, 2022 to Halifax Rugby Football Club Rugby Tournament at Graves Oakley Sport Field Location to be determined by parks staff. MOTION PUT AND PASSED. (12 in favour, 3 against) In favour: Councillors Deagle Gammon, Hendsbee, Austin, Mancini, Mason, Smith, Cleary, Morse, Cuttell, Stoddard, Blackburn, Outhit Against: Deputy Mayor Lovelace, Councillors Kent, Purdy Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillor Russell MOVED by Councillor Hendsbee, seconded by Councillor Cuttell THAT, in accordance with section 7 of Administrative Order 53, Halifax Regional Council grant permission to serve Alcohol as follows: June 18, 2022 to Rugby Nova Scotia Games at Gorsebrook (St Francis Field) Location to be determined by parks staff. MOTION PUT AND DEFEATED. (2 in favour, 13 against) In favour: Councillors Hendsbee, Outhit Against: Deputy Mayor Lovelace, Councillors Deagle Gammon, Kent, Purdy, Austin, Mancini, Mason, Smith, Cleary, Morse, Cuttell, Stoddard, Blackburn Not present: Mayor Savage, Councillor Russell 19. NOTICES OF MOTION 19.1 Councillor Mason TAKE NOTICE that, at a future meeting of Halifax Regional Council, I intend to move proposed Administrative Order 2022-003-ADM, the Tiered Commercial Taxation Areas Administrative Order. The purpose of which is to create a tiered tax structure across five taxation areas. 20. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. lain MacLean Municipal Clerk 13 Pam Myra (she/her) From: Nick Moore <nmoore@MuttartsLaw.ca> Sent: October 31, 2022 11:59 AM To: Pam Myra (she/her) Cc: Dunbar, Ian; Mroz, Robert Subject: RE: Private Ways Act Petition Keddy/Aalders Attachments: For Council Presentation -Oct 27 2022.pdf; Keddy Consolidation Deed Map.pdf; Collage Road Damage & Repairs _Exhibit 3 jpg; Truck Traffic Logs Leaving Hunts Lake Rd_July 7th 2021.JPG_Exhibit 2.JPG; Pic of Former Russel Land with no ROW After Cutting Dec 2 2021_Exhibit 1 jpg; Culvert installation_Sep 29 2021_Exhibit 4.JPG EXTERNAL EMAIL** Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Hi Pam, Further to my email below and council's request for my client's prepared statement/notes from his presentation, please find attached the relevant materials. Best regards, Nick Nick Moore Lawyer t. 902.678.2157 x240 f. 902.678.9455 e. nmoore(@-muttartslaw.ca muttarts law firm PO Box 515, 20 Cornwallis St. Kentville, Nova Scotia Canada B4N 3X3 www. m uttartslaw. ca Firm incorporated as G. Muttart Law Corporation Inc. This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Any references to matters which are or may be subject to litigation/arbitration are without prejudice. From: Nick Moore Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 3:11 PM To: Pam Myra (she/her) <pmyra@chester.ca> Cc: Dunbar, Ian <ian.dunbar@mcinnescooper.com>; Mroz, Robert <robert.mroz@mcinnescooper.com> Subject: Private Ways Act Petition Keddy/Aalders Hi Pam, Further to the council meeting earlier today, I wanted to provide a follow-up regarding Councilor Andre Veinotte's questions. Please forward this email along to Council. Councilor Veinotte had asked how subdivision would occur if the municipality subdivision controls would not allow it. I appreciate Mr. Veinotte's expertise on this and will defer to his knowledge that a 25-foot-wide road would be inadequate for subdivision approval. The answer to his question, however, would be that 10 hectares (25 Acres) strips of land could be subdivided along Hunts Lake and these 25 acre lots could then avoid subdivision approval altogether using the Municipal Government Act exception found in section 268(2)(a). Based on the size of PID 60122231 being 434.7 acres, the most 25-acre strips that could be created without needing subdivision approval would be 17 lots. I was also accused in Mr. Dunbar's letter dated October 26th of misleading Council and also by Mr. Keddy during the meeting. I take these accusations seriously and do not believe I have misled Council. With that being said, there are a few items I want to clear up based on assertions Mr. Dunbar and his client made: They spoke regarding a 40-foot-wide easement that Keddy obtained for access —the Exhibit F of the Petitioner's affidavit containing the easement they refer to is one for Nova Scotia Power Inc. —this easement does not appear to give the Petitioner access (rather it gives NSPI access). If there is a recorded easement to the Petitioner for access over the Butler/Young property to the Petitioner's entire property, I would ask Mr. Dunbar provide Council and me the Registry of Deeds/Land Registry reference for that easement. Mr. Dunbar stated that the Gold River Pulp Company Limited easement has not been referenced in any recent deeds, however a deed dated July 23, 2021 for PID 60122082 references the easement and the burden is registered on the parcel register with the 1931 deed. 1 am also not disputing that Mr. Dunbar and his client's assertion that they will pay all costs associated with the process to Council. My point is simply that any compensation owing to my client, is owing from Council to my client and it's up to Council to recover those funds. In the Sutherland petition, my understanding is that HRM paid the Cron's compensation and commissioner and arbitrator fees and then Ms. Sutherland had to pay back HRM, which was done through a payment plan and a lien on her property. We should also keep in mind that pursuant to section 16(d) of the Private Ways Act, an owner "includes any person having an interest in land or in an easement or right in land", which would include all the existing property owners with a right over the existing private road. Land is also defined as including "any easement or right in land (s.16(c)). For full transparency, I've copied all the relevant HRM council minutes, documents, and the commissioner reports relating to the Cron and Sutherland petitions. The 2015 Commissioner's report is too large to attach, but a link to it is copied below: https://Iegacycontent.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/150324ca1114.pdf I've also attached the 2022 petition minutes that I believe were the ones Mr. Dunbar referenced in his presentation and copied below a link to the council report recommending a commissioner prepare a report. This does not appear to be a petition made by a developer Company or forestry company, rather just individual land owners who were having trouble selling their parcels of land, but for transparency, I've provided the link and attachment of minutes to Council. I also question whether this petition is moot as the petitioners have both sold their properties in May 2022 (PID 00533505 and 00533448). Petition for Private Right -of -Way - May 31/22 Regional Council I Halifax.ca Lastly, as mentioned during my presentation, the following CBC articles provide a quick summary of Cron and Sutherland petition: Halifax home with decades -long driveway dispute up for sale I CBC News Halifax driveway dispute case nears costly conclusion I CBC News 2 If Council has any questions for me, I am more than willing to answer them. I will also provide a copy of my client's submissions as soon as I obtain a copy from him. I've cc'd Mr. Dunbar so that he has an opportunity to respond to this email and I understand he wishes to also submit further factual submissions from his client's perspective of the narrative. Yours truly, Nick Moore Lawyer t. 902.678.2157 x240 f. 902.678.9455 e. nmoore(cD-muttartslaw.ca muttarts law firm PO Box 515, 20 Cornwallis St. Kentville, Nova Scotia Canada B4N 3X3 www.muttartslaw.ca Firm incorporated as G. Muttart Law Corporation Inc. This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and may be privileged. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Any references to matters which are or may be subject to litigation/arbitration are without prejudice. Statement to Chester Municipal Council INTRODUCTION: Thank you for the opportunity to address council in regards to the petition to initiate The Private Ways Act presented by McInnes Cooper on behalf of M Keddy Farm and Forest Limited to extend a right-of-way to the portions of PID60122231 (formerly 3 PID's prior to consolidation). These properties do not have recorded right-of-ways over my property to use The Hunts Lake Road and Woods Road, a matter that is already in the litigation process before the Supreme Court pertaining to former Russell owned land PID60123486 & P.ID60123494 as indicated on the survey plan. I will refer to these as the Lakeside Russell Properties. See Survey Plan) One court date has been completed earlier in the summer with another court date set for the end of January 2023. An Interim Order is in place to prevent the continued trespass of M Keddy Farm and Forestry Limited, their agents, employees, and contractors from accessing the Lakeside Russell Properties for all forestry and development purposes until Jan 30 2023. My lawyer has provided the relevant court filings to council in advance of this meeting. An additional adjacent property has since been acquired in 2022, identified as PID601222132 that I will refer to as the North Russell Property. I have not been contacted in regards to providing an access for the North Russell Property nor has any offer for compensation been made. It is impossible to be in agreement or disagreement when there is no offer to consider. Unless M Keddy Farm and Forestry Limited concedes the current litigation, this petition should not move forward as they have claimed in the lawsuit to have a right -of --way so they shouldn't be in a position to petition a right-of-way unless they consent to judgment in the Supreme Court case. Both arguments cannot be true. I am here today to ask you to NOT approve the petition presented by McGinnis Cooper to initiate this obscure piece of legislation that is The Private Ways Act and initiate a process that appears to have only been used once (2 according to McInnes Cooper) in Nova Scotia. What is being petitioned here today is a situation of a Corporation wanting to use the Municipality, for its own commercial purposes, to retroactively enact a piece of legislation to force a right-of-way agreement on two private land owners. As far as timber removal is concerned, the corporation has already trespassed and removed the timber from the land (See Photo Exhibit 1) I want to call this what it is, this is the Keddy's using timber extraction as a guise to obtain a right-of-way to develop lake lots for cottages and substantially increase the traffic on the existing private roads for their own profit. Keddy's are now seeking any means possible to gain a legal access to their acquired land so they can continue to profit from forestry and development activities. From my research, the Private Ways Act it is not intended to provide access for development purposes. In fact, Part 1 of the Private Ways Act is intended to address timber extraction and Keddy's are not pursuing a right-of-way under that part. BACKGROUND: I was first approached and introduced to Michael Keddy by Herbie Young at my cottage on Hunts Lake in the fall of 2020. Michael told me he was interested in purchasing the two Russell Properties (Lakeside Russell Property) that bordered the lake and wanted to know if I was interested in selling him a right-of-way to access those properties using my existing roads if he went forward with the purchase. I explicitly told him no, that I was not interested in giving any more right-of-ways over my property. His company proceeded to purchase the two Lakeside Russell Properties along with the adjacent parcel PID6012223, previously owned by Gerald Arnburg that contained the only legal right-of-way and which is the now the PID number identifying the consolidated parcel. Based on Michael Keddy's explicit knowledge that the properties did not have a right-of- way prior to his purchasing, it would appear disingenuous that Mr. Keddy would go ahead with the purchase and use the Municipality to circumvent commercial relations between private citizens. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the municipality to step in and essentially arbitrate a property dispute between private citizens. SPRING/SUMMER 2021: When I arrived from Alberta in mid June 20211 witnessed first hand the newly extended roads and timber extracting activities in progress. I had a conversation along the access road with Gerald Keddy where he explained that they were logging and I expressed directly to him that he didn't have permission to do those activities over my property. Gerald told me that he intended to keep going regardless. The message has been clear since the beginning and continued throughout subsequent meetings that Keddy's are going to do what they want regardless if they have my permission or not. After initially being told by Gerald Keddy that providing compensation to me wasn't required while handing me a copy of the Private Ways Act, what I would consider a low offer for compensation was eventually offered which I declined. I was told by Gerald that he didn't negotiate and I should take the offer because they were going to do what they want anyway. A second slightly higher offer presented to me as a good will offering would follow later in the summer that was given with conditions of a wider access, shared maintenance of the access road, and to install an upgraded gate which I also declined. I was open to granting a temporary agreement for timber removal but this wasn't executable to Keddy's. A couple letters were sent by my lawyer over the summer to cease the trespass with one of those letters requesting a larger compensation to cover the 8 months of extensive use for timber extraction and new road development. This letter was ignored by Keddy's. Any number not provided by Keddy is deemed unreasonable. So far they have trespassed and told me what that is worth to me. I was told by Keddy's and their contractors that the lawyers letters weren't worth the paper they were written on and that only a court order could stop them. I was even given a legal lecture by a contracted truck driver while I was parked on my own property. At this point I was forced to take them to court. BURDEN: I disagree that there is no burden involved in the granting of a a right-of-way. By definition adding a right-of-way to a property is a burden to the grantor of that easement and a benefit to the grantee. Some of the burdens to in this case include: a) Increased commercial vehicle traffic for myself and other cottage owner's who use the first part of the access road (See Photo Exhibit 2) b) Interference with the quiet enjoyment and safe access to my property due to large trucks and equipment travelling through it. c) Noise disruption to myself as well as other cottage owners from chainsaws, trucks, and other heavy equipment d) Damage to roads and the effort/cost to try to get that damage repaired e) Conflicts that arise from road damage in shared areas and who is responsible to repair it f) And most importantly residential or recreational lakeside cottage development would have permanent traffic and liability implications. Right-of-way will increase by the number of lots subdivided and construction activities could last for years. In 2021 timber extraction operations started as early as 3:30am in the morning and would continue into the evening. The noise from operations could be easily heard by all the near by cottage owners on the lake. The timber extraction and truck traffic occurred for the duration of the summer to the end of November 2021 on average 6 days a week with multiple trucks hauling 50 ton loads of timber across my private roads. Accessing my own property by any means became less safe and more difficult because of the large truck traffic occurring all day long interfering with the quiet enjoyment of my land. There was damage to the Woods Road and rutted corners on the Hunts Lake Road where large trucks drove outside the footprint of the road. ORCHARD: The 12 foot wide access road consisting of the the Hunts Lake Road and Woods Road being petitioned as a right-of-way runs through an old orchard that starts on the approach to the gated area leading back to the Woods Road and continues through the gate. Established apple trees are present and I have started work to clear the orchard. Plum trees have been planted with plans to expand the orchard in coming years on both sides of the road with additional apple trees, hops, juniper as well as an area for bees. This is the only area suitable for growing with any agricultural potential on my property. Section 5 Private Ways Act - No right of way through building or orchard 5 Where the commissioner finds on examination that the proposed right of way runs through any house, building, orchard or garden, he shall, without further inquiry, so report to the Governor in Council and no further proceeding shall take place on such petition. R.S., c. 358, s. 5. Again, Keddy is seeking right-of-way for timber extraction but have failed to apply under Part 1 of the Act. My position is that council does not have the authority to grant a right- of-way under Part 2 of the Act. If council is going to consider a right-of-way for timber extraction, which I suggest they do not have the authority to do, then section 5 must be considered in their determination. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS: I do not believe there have been $10,000 of infrastructure improvements ($15,000 claimed today by Michael Keddy to council) to the portion of the access road located on my property. To my knowledge: a) There was 1 load of Class A gravel spread at the entrance to HWY 12 to repair damages from 50 ton trucks turning in/out loaded that was making it rough to transition from the paved road to the dirt road for cottage owners in light vehicles b) 50 ton trucks created ruts that were outside the area of the foot print of the road on a couple corners on sections of the Hunts Lake Road. Coarse rock was put in them to repair the ruts. (See Photo Exhibit 3) c) 1 culvert was added on the Hunts Lake Road because 1 was damaged by heavy vehicle traffic (See Photo Exhibit 4) d) Pit run gravel from the gravel pit located on the Lakeside Russell Property was used to repair damage caused on the Woods Road and the Class A gravel that Harry Freeman and Son's allocated for road repairs for the entire road starting at HWY 12 was spread on the Wood's Road portion only. This was not purchased aggregate. A large portion of the 100,000 dollar cost Keddy's claim to have occurred for road building must placing a value on their own aggregate or capital expenditures .on equipment? Ignoring the fact the damage was caused by the trespass in the first place, these are road maintenance activities from damages caused by Keddy's and their contractors and it is their responsibility as part of their original right-of-way agreement for PID60122231 to fix them. These were not infrastructure improvements in an effort to increase the value of my property. LANDLOCK & ACCESS: The Lakeside Russell Properties were subdivided plots of land that would appear to be originally owned by the Gold River Pulpwood Co Ltd. with a grant of easement south of Hunts Lake over the Adams Road as outlined in the letter submitted by my lawyer to council prior to the meeting. The Adams Road is owned and maintained by the municipality. A right-of-way could be found at the Land Registry for the two lakeside properties when I searched the deeds prior to the consolidation. Why do Keddy's need to apply for access if one is already registered? My mother and I are not the sole landowners surrounding the properties purchased by Keddy. There are a number of partial roads on other adjacent properties that would provide potential access which include but are not exclusive to: A woods road that connects to a main road from Lake Ramsey that connects to the original PID60122231 via ATV trail A partial road that is located on the adjacent McGreggor property and Bezanson property leading towards the North Russell property It would appear there were other options to pursue for access prior to purchasing the property identified in the petition. How can Keddy apply for The Private Ways Act to be used as a last resort when they haven't pursed all their options. Why don't these land owner's want to give access to Keddy's over their property in exchange for money? They claim to have spent $100,000 on new road development. They could clearly afford to build some roads elsewhere if necessary? I am firm believer that a lack of planning on the part of Keddy's does not constitute an emergency on my part. SUMMARY AND CLOSING: M Keddy Farm and Forest Limited "invested" in land and infrastructure on their own properties knowing they did not have a legal right to access them. I was upfront with Micheal Keddy and made it clear in the presence of Herbie Young in the fall of 2020 before he purchased any of the properties that there were not sufficient right-of-ways in place to access those properties over the Hunts Lake Road and connecting Woods Road and that I was not interested in providing any access over my land or roads to access the two parcels he was interested in purchasing. I have not been approached for access in regards to the North Russell Property that was acquired this year so it would be impossible to be in agreement or disagreement. All the land being petitioned that was purchased is adjacent to other land owners with partial roads leading to different points of access on their properties and the original subdivision of the Lakeside Russell Property has an existing right-of-way on Adam's Road. This is a private land dispute to use access roads that are not controlled by the Municipality. This issue is currently being litigated before the Supreme Court. The personal costs incurred to date to pursue this matter in the court system is substantial as well as the ongoing emotional stress. How much more stress should two people have to be put through to defend their basic rights as a property owners. As a private land owner you should have the right to decide how your property is used, who uses it, and what level of compensation is adequate to change that use. How can The Private Ways Act be used as an arbitration tool to determine a fair amount of compensation when Keddy's haven't applied under Part 1 of the Act and the majority of the timber has already been extracted? I need you to ask yourselves when making this decision, if this was your property would you want outside people in your community deciding to initiate a process that could force an unwanted right-of-way over your private property that will burden that property and you as the owner, change the way that property is used forever, and provide no long term benefit to you as the owner, all so a corporation can make money. This is the result of the precedent you will set by approving the petition. Lastly and possibly most importantly, this is a poor guise to obtain a right-of-way so lake front lots can be subdivided and conveyed for building cottages, permanently increasing the traffic on private roads with no oversight and for the sole profit of M Keddy Farm and Forest Limited. With this in mind there has been absolutely no reasonable offer or discussion from Keddy with me about permanently extending a right-of-way to dozens of potential lakefront properties. Please let the Supreme Court do it's job and decide on this matter. It is there to protect the rights of all citizens. Thank you, Ashley Aalders AR£ o 12393 ACRLS A o P \FH r R EDDY FAR M `A ND FO RES T L/M/TED T OT AL A REA \ = 434,3 ACRES ARM = l03E ACRES t �' etie .vmsc+'ae ..✓ au, au t in.. . 10 w^ HUNTS L ANCE N N N / SCALE:1" e]W ' Purpose:. to record verwin "a of 600-1,10bling 40cl(MeAty in apqrced-register: Rogistration district; &;V U'a' Tas G, 0- (.-"L. Stiliz litter's .user iuiiiliei': 14146 The :attached olan/docuhient rdlat!at&to the fdllom 9;parcelg, registered under the Land, RegWration Act PID 601--Z- -5qeo 9xpan04vjbr additional PID-Y) Muld6ri4i.,file number or -land registration rile number orzginaWww*ed ditring.pre-approV40-1. LUNENBURG COUNTY LAND REGISTRATION OFFICE I certify that this p1jan was registered or recorded as shown here. Rebecca Bond, Registrar I I q.,) T2-A q_') '_ LR M/FODEI SEP 13 2021 I 1 17 ff- DD YYYY Time used vvhah P-IDs were Thislbim.' b'- "w'd t record the'fbillow Ii . bl' g. instrument in .the above -noted parcel re: jster( . sl) . (select one): pun boundary line Eigtoement lristrtiment of subdivision jQ .statutory dechiratidn regarding46.-facto consolidation condominium declaration initial condominium bylaws condominium plan n repeal of suibdivision temination of cojidominium El other (specify) qAhd.i : themit4gr of ogi%qed ow. 4or (innrt name) J/ Note., An amending Parcel. Description.Ceriijilcation ApjRicili.611 may. 6.0: M444red_ Dated at Bridgewater LUnenburg Province of Nova AAn .2 Signature: afapplic..W'. M ic; I lc?a, ownerlage Milne., AL PO Box 418, Bridgpwa ,Address., tor, B4V -2X.6 Pone E-mail; fi,ax: 902-543-7447 May 4, 2009 I4vi wx 0 a 0 C- CL m I M 11 , 7 1 rt L,u tW: 1s t a ; s.. 1 Our File: 211561 November 3, 2022 BY E-MAIL: council@chester.ca Chester Municipal Council 151 King Street Chester NS B0J 1N0 Dear Members of Council: RE: M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to address the petition put forward by M. Keddy Farm and Forest Limited (“Keddy”) for a right-of-way pursuant to Part II of the Private Ways Act, RSNS 1989, c. 358, at the Municipal Council meeting on October 27, 2022. After that meeting, on both October 27 and 31, Mr. Aalders, the respondent to Keddy’s petition, submitted further documents, including a “statement” which is replete with legal argument. Keddy does not intend to respond to each point raised by Mr. Aalders, as most of the matters he raised during and since the meeting go to the location and merits of the requested right-of-way, which are matters properly evaluated by a commissioner under the Private Ways Act process. At present, the issue Keddy is asking Municipal Council to decide is simply whether a commissioner should be appointed to review the petition and all the background information in detail and then provide an independent and unbiased recommendation to Council as to its merits, in accordance with the Private Ways Act. There are three further points Keddy wishes to clarify emerging from the material the respondent has submitted since the October 27 Council meeting, namely: Council’s jurisdiction, the allegation that this matter is already before the courts, and certain background facts. We address these in turn below. Jurisdiction The respondent claims that Council is without jurisdiction to consider a “timber right-of-way” because that authority is assigned to the province under Part I of the Private Ways Act. Part I of the Private Ways Act assigns a limited power to the province to grant requests for rights-of-way for the specific purpose of resource extraction. Municipal Council enjoys a broader power under Part II of the Act. Ian R. Dunbar Direct +1 (902) 444 8421 ian.dunbar@mcinnescooper.com 1969 Upper Water Street Suite 1300 Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax NS Canada B3J 2V1 Tel +1 (902) 425 6500 | Fax +1 (902) 425 6350 - 2 - Keddy’s petition is being advanced under Part II of the Private Ways Act, which provides that any landowner may petition Council for a private way or road. The Act does not limit the purpose of that private way or road. Section 17(1) of the Private Ways Act states: 17 (1) Any freeholder or freeholders of any municipality may present a petition to the council praying for the obtaining and laying out of a private way or road, either open or pent. By its nature, a right-of-way is a right of access. A right-of-way allows a landowner to reach its property by crossing the lands of another. Often, rights-of-way are granted for “all purposes”. Indeed, the right-of-way Keddy has over Mr. Aalders’ lands was granted by Ronald and Ruth Aalders for “any purpose associated with the use” of the lands. While Keddy intends to harvest timber from its lands, future and other use of the properties may take place as described in our petition, and as discussed with Council on October 27. Keddy therefore completely disagrees with the respondent’s assertions that Part I of the Private Ways Act has any bearing on its petition. This is properly a petition made under Part II of the Private Ways Act. Court Proceeding The second point that requires clarification is the respondent’s claim that this dispute is already before the courts. Respectfully, that is a mischaracterization of the existing court proceeding, which is, in essence, a claim of trespass by Mr. Aalders against Keddy. To be clear, the court will not be adjudicating the matter that is before Council. The existing proceeding and the commissioner’s review are entirely separate processes, which are capable of occurring simultaneously without any risk of one infringing upon the other’s jurisdiction. If there has been no trespass, the court will essentially have decided that Keddy has a valid right- of-way, making the need for a commissioner moot. Any fees incurred by the commissioner up to that date will be paid by Keddy. However, if there has been trespass as Mr. Aalders alleges, the commissioner’s ongoing work will be unaffected. Background Facts A council meeting is a difficult place to debate disputed facts. This is not a court of law, and no witnesses will be questioned or cross-examined. Suffice to say that Keddy does not agree with Mr. Aalders’ presentation of the background facts. In the Private Ways Act applications considered by HRM, council had the benefit of its own staff review for an independent look at the background facts. Here, we believe that role would best be filled by a commissioner who can provide an independent and unbiased account of the material facts to Council as part of the eventual report. That being said, for present purposes, Keddy has highlighted the following statements Mr. Aalders has made that are incomplete or inaccurate: 1) Mr. Aalders stated that Keddy put one load of class A gravel on the access road. This is incorrect. Keddy originally dealt with a road committee on this issue. With the agreement of the road committee, Keddy twice improved the entryway to the access road, supplying - 3 - a total of three loads of class A gravel. Keddy first levelled a small pile of gravel the road association had stockpiled and later replaced the full amount at its own expense. Keddy then hauled and supplied two further loads of class A gravel to level out the bumps where the road met the pavement, which Keddy says were pre-existing. The culvert, as well as a second culvert, were replaced not because it was damaged by Keddy but because they were old, and Keddy did not want a problem to arise where Keddy would be blamed for them collapsing. In Keddy’s view, a third culvert ought to be replaced but Mr Aalders has refused to give his permission for Keddy to do so (despite Keddy offering to do so at its expense). Keddy has spent more than $15,000 on Mr. Aalders’ portion of the access road, including building up the entire base of the road after the gate and topping the entire length of the road with class A. The former chair of the road association and another member who worked with Keddy to address the above issues were declared by Mr. Aalders to be too “friendly” to Keddy and he called a meeting last summer and had them removed. 2) Mr. Alders stated he has planted an orchard at his property. He also stated the location was the only location possible for that orchard. Much of the Aalders property was old farmland and there are a number of places to an orchard could be planted. In any event, Keddy is not looking for a right-of-way to be placed within an “orchard” but rather across an existing access road. 3) Mr. Aalders neglected to inform Council that prior to Keddy acquiring the Gerald Arenburg property, Mr. Arenburg gave Mr. Aalders the right of first refusal to purchase it. Mr. Aalders did not take advantage of that opportunity. 4) Keddy attempted to get a right-of-way from Mr. Aalders, however its efforts were rebuffed, with Mr. Aalders making what Keddy considers to be outrageous demands. Meanwhile, Keddy purchased a more broadly worded right-of-way from the Youngs, over whose parcel the road also runs, in order to access the entirety of its lands. 5) Keddy wishes to briefly comment on the respondent’s submission about the historical Gold River Pulpwood Company right-of-way. We understand respondent’s counsel submitted that this “appeared” to be an alternate means of access based on a “cursory review of title”. Again, a commissioner would be best-suited to delve more deeply into this issue. The property in question, now owned by Stephen and Cherry Workman, came from a deed from Gordon Turner who purchased it from the Gold River Pulpwood Company Limited in 1935. There is no road from that property to the Keddy properties, nor is it apparent from a review of the documents on title to either lot that a right of access exists. The parcel register for Keddy’s property, which has been migrated, does not contain any such benefit. 6) The traditional access road from Route 12 to the lands on the north side of Hunts Lake is the very road Keddy uses now. This road is clearly shown on the old grant maps. It is our position that the respondent is holding access to an otherwise landlocked parcel hostage, demanding unrealistic sums of money for a license, revokable at his will, to traverse an existing road that already services other portions of petitioner’s land. - 4 - The tenor of the respondent’s submissions highlights that the parties are at an impasse. In Keddy’s submission, this is precisely the scenario the Private Ways Act is intended to address, and it would therefore be appropriate for Council to refer the matter to a commissioner. The process would be entirely paid for the Petitioner and would not involve any expense to Council. If the commissioner recommends in a report that Keddy should have a right-of-way, Council can then vote to approve or disallow that report at a later date, with the benefit of a full record of the commissioner’s findings. For now, Keddy simply requests that Council vote in favour of appointing a commissioner to review the situation further, pursuant to Part II of the Private Ways Act. Thank you again for your ongoing attention to this matter. I would be pleased to address any questions Council may have arising from the above. Yours very truly, Ian R. Dunbar IRD/co c. Clients c. Counsel for Mr. Aalders REQUEST FOR D ECISION Prepared By: Bruce Blackwood Date October 26, 2022 Reviewed By: Tara Maguire Date October 26, 2022 Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date October 26, 2022 CURRENT SITUATION Across Lunenburg County there has been fortunately little need for Naloxone (Narcan, 4mg) kits in the emergency treatment of opioid overdoses. Historically, the Narcan kits have been supplied through REMO to our Fire Departments to assist in emergency treatment of its members who may have been accidently exposed during a response. It was decided by the REMO Advisory not to include this kit supply in the REMO budget for 2022. It is noted that although previously REMO did arrange for a bulk purchase, actual costs were invoiced to the individual Municipalities. REMO is no longer bulk purchasing these Narcan Kits. The REMO Advisory recommended however that Municipal units that wanted to continue purchasing the kits for their fire departments could do so directly with the kit distributor. Although there have been no incidents requiring the use of the kit within the MOC over the years, our fire departments have indicated that this Narcan kit is much easier and quicker to administer compared to the ampoule-based kit supplied by EHS to Medical First Response (MFR) agencies and those available from some pharmacies. The kits previously supplied to the MOC departments are expiring. Staff has received feedback that the majority of our 7 fire departments (6 yes, 1 no comment) would like to continue carrying the Narcan (4 mg) kit on the apparatus and have it readily available for use with firefighters that may have been exposed during an incident. The kit is not intended for use with patients under the care of EHS. RECOMMENDATION As the Fire Departments have indicated a desire to continue carrying naloxone Narcan (4mg) kit on their response apparatus for the protection of their membership, it is recommended MOC purchase and distribute one kit of Narcan (4mg) for each of the 7 fire departments. Direct costs to the MOC for 7 kits is $ 875 (plus HST) and can be covered within the Fire Services budget. Current distributor inventory has a shelf life to 2025. REPORT TO: Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Bruce Blackwood, Fire Services Coordinator DATE: October 26, 2022 SUBJECT: Narcan (Naloxone) kits for Fire Services ORIGIN: Fire Services 2 Request For Decision BACKGROUND In 2017, in response to rising incidents of opioid overdoses and due to the possibility of first responder exposure to such potent drugs as fentanyl while on an incident scene, the Municipalities through REMO, purchased and supplied one kit of Naloxone (Narcan 4 mg) for each of the fire departments in Lunenburg County. This kit was intended for the protection of our first responders. Other lower dosage kits of a different format were supplied by Emergency Health Services (EHS) to registered Medical first response agencies. D ISCUSSION Naloxone nasal spray continues to be the accepted initial treatment of a known or suspected opioid overdose emergency with signs of breathing problems and severe sleepiness or unresponsiveness. These Narcan kits are not to be used on the general public and are not associated with the Medical First Response program as administered by EHS. These kits are intended to support the volunteer fire fighters and medical first responders should they come across a situation in which one of their members is accidently exposed to opioids during a response. IMPLICATIONS Policy: N/A Financial/Budgetary: Within current fires services budget. Environmental: No Impact. Strategic Plan • Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility • Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services Work Program Implications • Covered in work program of Fire Services Coordinator. OPTIONS 1. Purchase 7 Narcan kits and distribute to the Fire Department for use in response to a situation in which a fire department member is accidently exposed to opioids during a paged incident. 2. Choose not to proceed with purchase of the Narcan kits. A TTACHMENTS None COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) Communications to Fire Departments as required. REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: November 10, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation Dept. SUBJECT: New Road Name Assignment ORIGIN: New Private Road Name Request Date: 2022-10-19 Prepared by: Sylvia Dixon, Development & Planning Technician Date: 2022-11-01 Reviewed by: Chad Haughn, Director of CDRD Date: 2022-11-01 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION It is recommended that Municipal Council approve the proposed private road name Violet View Lane. CURRENT SITUATION A private right-of-way accessed off of Highway 3 in Western Shore (map attached) that will provide access for a future development of three or more addressable structures requires a name. The landowners have proposed the road name of Violet View Lane. BACKGROUND When there are three or more addressable structures using an unnamed shared right-of-way/driveway, the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to Municipal Policy P-44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement (66%) from the landowners that are served by the shared right-of-way. In this instance, the property owners have proposed the following road names: Violet View Lane (1st choice), High Tide Terrace (2nd choice), Coastline Lane (3rd choice), Ocean Vista Drive (4th choice). These proposed names were suggested by a majority of the property owners, representing 66.7% of the properties. One of the three property owners, representing 33.3% of the properties, has also proposed Ocean View Drive, Island View Drive, and Wild Rose Drive as potential road names. DISCUSSION Violet View Lane would be a unique road name in the Municipality of Chester and Nova Scotia. It is of note that the proposed new road names are similar to the following: - Violette Crt, Cow Bay, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Violet's Walk, Liscomb Mills, Municipality of the District of St. Mary's, Guysborough County - High Tide Rd, Stewiacke, Town of Stewiacke, Colchester County - Hightide Lane, Queensland, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Coastal Lane, Sambro, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Ocean Vista Dr, East Berlin, Region of Queens Municipality, Queens County - Oceanview Dr, Blandford, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Ocean View Dr, Chester Basin, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Island View Rd, East Chester, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Island View Lane, East Chester, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 - Wild Rose Dr, East Mountain, Municipality of the County of Colchester, Colchester County - Wildrose Lane, Lawrencetown, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Wild Rose Lane, Caribou Island, Municipality of the County of Pictou, Pictou County Comments received for Violet View Lane: - District 5 Councillor – Councillor Abdella Assaff: no objection with the proposed name Violet View Lane - Municipal Public Works – no objection with the proposed name Violet View Lane - Western Shore Fire Dept. – Fire Chief: no objection with the proposed name OPTIONS 1. Municipal Council can approve the road name Violet View Lane. 2. Municipal Council can decide not to approve the name and direct staff to assign a name of Council’s choosing. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy Policy P-44 – New Road Names and Road Name Changes. Financial/budgetary A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Infrastructure & Operations Department. Environmental N/A Strategic Priorities N/A Work Program Implications N/A Has Legal review been completed? N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition Received 2. Location Map 6337 6336 18 15 6354 6340 42 14 7 6346 34 6330 19 6344 24 25 6328 H i g h w a y 3 S w i n i m e r R d Rev.:Date:Description: 0 MUNICIPALITY OF THEDISTRICT OF CHESTER From Date: N /ATo Da te : N/ADate Printed: 22/10/12 ® Legend ^_New Civic Address Civic Address Road Driveway/Trail Building Footprint Affected Property Property Boundary Waterbody 20 0 2010 Metres 22/10/12 Digital Folders Entry ID:1254553 Status: Ex istsProject ID: N/AClassification #: N/A Representation of Municipality of Chester within Nova ScotiaScale: 1:12 ,500 ,0 00 Scale: 1:1,000 New Private Road Name Proposed:Violet View Lane New Private Road Naming Sources:Digital Base Map Data from Service N ova Scotia andMunicipal Relations Prepared by the Municipality of the District of Chester Coordinate System/Datum: UTM NAD83 CSRS ZONE20N Map Disclaim er:Information shown on these drawings is compiledfrom numerous sources and may not be complete oraccurate. The Municipality of the District of Chester isnot responsible for any erro rs, omissions ordeficiencies in these drawings. Date printed do es notreflect date ofdata. Actual Map Size: w 11" x h 8.5" ) Community:Western ShorePID:60156189, 60156163, 60156155AAN:01420747, 01145231, 00990779Fire Dept:Western Shore Fire Dept.Description:New private road namerequirement New Private Road Name Proposed:Violet View Lane Page 13 NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1st &nz- ,4 z\/.i kPAJ 2nd,' b[C-66 3rd UL)Q-Q-e Signature of affected landowners: PID #: Name: Signatures: PID #: Name: Signatures: PID #: Name: Signatures: 60156189 John & Marion Ernst X MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER COMMUNITY DEVFL OPMIENT DEPARTMENT SEP 0 6 2022 60156163, Jennifer Buchanan, Paul Buchanan, Eilidh Buchanan & Timothy Peat 60156155 Jennifer Buchanan & Timothy Peat i THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: November 10, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation Dept. SUBJECT: New Road Name Assignment ORIGIN: New Private Road Name Request Date: 2022-10-24 Prepared by: Sylvia Dixon, Development & Planning Technician Date: 2022-11-01 Reviewed by: Chad Haughn, Director of CDRD Date: 2022-11-01 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION It is recommended that Municipal Council approve the proposed private road name Cliff Top Lane. CURRENT SITUATION A private right-of-way accessed off of Highway 329 in Deep Cove (map attached) that will provide access for a future development of three or more addressable structures requires a name. The landowners have proposed the several suggested road names with Cliff Top Lane being the most favored. BACKGROUND When there are three or more addressable structures using an unnamed shared right-of-way/driveway, the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to Municipal Policy P-44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement (66%) from the landowners that are served by the shared right-of-way. In this instance, the property owners have proposed the following road names: Cliff Top Lane, Sanctuary Lane, Tranquility Lane, Whiskey Jack Lane, Spindrift Lane, Lodestar Lane, and Longview Lane as potential road names. The proposed names of Cliff Top Lane, Spindrift Lane, Longview Lane were suggested by one of the four of the property owners, representing 25% of the property owner groups (or two of the five properties, representing 40% of the properties). The proposed names of Sanctuary Lane, Cliff Top Lane, Tranquility Lane were suggested by one of the four of the property owners, representing 25% of the property owner groups (or one of the five properties, representing 20% of the properties). The proposed names of Whiskey Jack Lane, Spindrift Lane, and Lodestar Lane were suggested by one of the four of the property owners, representing 25% of the property owner groups (or one of the five properties, representing 20% of the properties). Of the five affected properties, one property owner has not responded. Three of the five properties, representing 60% of the properties (or two of the four property owner groups, representing 50% of the property owner groups) have proposed Cliff Top Lane. DISCUSSION Cliff Top Lane would be a unique road name in the Municipality of Chester and Nova Scotia It is of note that the proposed new road names are similar to the following: - Cliff Rd, New Russell, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 - Cliff View Dr, Franey Corner, Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Lunenburg County - Conspic Cliff Crt, Deep Cove, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Sanctuary Crt , Fall River, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Sanctuary Dr, Masstown, Municipality of the County of Colchester, Colchester County - Sanctuary Rd, Trafalgar, Municipality of the District of St. Mary's, Guysborough County - Tranquility Lane, Ponds, Municipality of the County of Pictou, Pictou County - Tranquility Lane, Sand Point, Municipality of the County of Colchester, Colchester County - Tranquility Way, Third Lake, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Tranquility Cres, Dayton, Municipality of the District of Yarmouth, Yarmouth County - Spinnaker Dr, Deep Cove, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Longview Cres, Tantallon, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County Comments received for Cliff Top Lane: - District 1 Councillor – Councillor Andre Veinotte: no objection with the proposed name - Municipal Public Works – Fred Whynot: no objection with the proposed name - Blandford Fire Dept. – Mike Schnare, Fire Chief: no objection with the proposed name OPTIONS 1. Municipal Council can approve the road name Cliff Top Lane. 2. Municipal Council can decide not to approve the name and direct staff to assign a name of Council’s choosing. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy Policy P-44 – New Road Names and Road Name Changes. Financial/budgetary A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Infrastructure & Operations Department. Environmental N/A Strategic Priorities N/A Work Program Implications N/A Has Legal review been completed? N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition Received 2. Location Map 6509 36 6507 6453 6475 48 Highway329ConspicCliffCrt Rev.:Date:Description: 0 MUNICIPALITY OF THEDISTRICT OF CHESTER From Date: N /ATo Da te : N/ADate Printed: 22/10/21 ® Legend ^_New Civic Addresses Civic Address New Private Road Name Road Driveway/Trail Building Footprint Waterbody Property Boundary Affected Property 60 0 6030 Metres 22/10/21 Digital Folders Entry ID:1259189 Status: Ex istsProject ID: N/AClassification #: N/A Representation of Municipality of Chester within Nova ScotiaScale: 1:12 ,500 ,0 00 Scale: 1:3,000 New Private Road Name Requirement New Private Road Naming Sources:Digital Base Map Data from Service N ova Scotia andMunicipal Relations Prepared by the Municipality of the District of Chester Coordinate System/Datum: UTM NAD83 CSRS ZONE20N Map Disclaim er:Information shown on these drawings is compiledfrom numerous sources and may not be complete oraccurate. The Municipality of the District of Chester isnot responsible for any erro rs, omissions ordeficiencies in these drawings. Date printed do es notreflect date ofdata. Actual Map Size: w 11" x h 8.5" ) Community:Deep CovePID:60489762, 60489770, 60064524,60064532, 60064540AAN:08237697, 05800846, 05800803,05800811, 05800838Fire Dept:Blandford Fire Dept.Description:New private road namerequirement New Private Road NameRequirement NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1st 2nd 3rd Tof £ Alt f LA,L'' Lp .11 Signature of affected landowners: PID #: 60489762 Name: High Tide Homes Inc. Signatures: PID #: 60489770 Name: Arthur Paul & Dawne Michelle Vardjas Signatures: PID #: Name: Signatures: 60064524,60064532 en Joy Richardson PID #: 60064540 Name: Urich Boll & Horst -Wilhelm Breuer Signatures: THE OF CHESTER Page 13 NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1st Lcx /1 Q-- cy C l 1 ^ co")s CA 1 2 nd 0) 44 7L h-l n aY v_U1,J 3 rd -\ /OC 1 1 Cl Vl l 1 4— Y) Signature of affected landowners: PID #: 60489762 Name: High Tide Homes Inc. Signatures: u + PID #: 60489770 Name: Arthur Paul & Dawne Michelle Vardjas Signatures: C V G ' PID #: 60064524, 60064532 Name: Kathleen Joy Richardson Signatures: PID #: 60064540 Name: Urich Boll & Horst -Wilhelm Breuer Signatures: THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1st _______________________ _ 2nd _______________________ _ 3rd _______________________ _ Signature of affected landowners: PIO#: Name: Signatures: PIO#: Name: Signatures: PIO#: Name: Signatures: PIO#: Name: Signatures: 60489762 High Tide Homes Inc. 60489770 Arthur Paul & Dawne Michelle Vardjas 60064524,60064532 Kathleen Joy Richardson 60064540 Urich Boll & Horst-Wilhelm Breuer THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER PageJ3 Whiskey Jack Ln Spindrift Ln Lodestar Ln REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: November 10, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation Dept. SUBJECT: New Road Name Assignment ORIGIN: New Private Road Name Request Date: 2022-10-25 Prepared by: Sylvia Dixon, Development & Planning Technician Date: 2022-11-01 Reviewed by: Chad Haughn, Director of CDRD Date: 2022-11-01 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION It is recommended that Municipal Council approve the proposed private road name Dogwood Lane. CURRENT SITUATION A private right-of-way accessed off of Highway 3 in Martins Point (map attached) that will provide access for a future development of three or more addressable structures requires a name. The landowners have proposed the road name of Dogwood Lane. BACKGROUND When there are three or more addressable structures using an unnamed shared right-of-way/driveway, the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to Municipal Policy P-44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement (66%) from the landowners that are served by the shared right-of-way. In this instance, the property owners have proposed the following road names: Dogwood Lane (1st choice), Dogwood Drive (2nd choice), and Hickory Lane (3rd choice). The proposed names were suggested by a majority of the property owners, representing 100% of the properties. DISCUSSION Dogwood Lane would be a unique road name in the Municipality of Chester and Nova Scotia. It is of note that the proposed new road name is similar to the following: - Dogwood Dr, Middle West Pubnico, Municipality of the District of Argyle, Yarmouth County - Dogwood Dr, Port Howe, Municipality of the County of Cumberland, Cumberland County - Dogwood St, Westphal, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County Comments received for Dogwood Lane: - District 5 Councillor Abdella Assaff: no objection with the proposed name - Municipal Public Works – Fred Whynot: no objection with the proposed name - Western Shore Fire Dept. – Fire Chief Jared Swinemar: no objection with the proposed name R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 OPTIONS 1. Municipal Council can approve the road name Dogwood Lane. 2. Municipal Council can decide not to approve the name and direct staff to assign a name of Council’s choosing. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy Policy P-44 – New Road Names and Road Name Changes. Financial/budgetary A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Infrastructure & Operations Department. Environmental N/A Strategic Priorities N/A Work Program Implications N/A Has Legal review been completed? N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition Received 2. Location Map 11 19 98 95 6925 6942 22 6952 83 76 7022 66 34 6966 6992 94 6924 6984 6961 92 97 6916 11 7014 6933 6927 6960 6993 6953 58 6999 57 28 6917 23 6922 6941 91 6969 50 Highway 3 H i l t z R d Mc G i n n i s Rd Dorey Park Rd Rev.:Date:Description: 0 MUNICIPALITY OF THEDISTRICT OF CHESTER From Date: N /ATo Da te : N/ADate Printed: 22/10/24 ® Legend ^_New Civic Address Civic Address Road Building Footprint Property Boundary Affected Property Waterbody 60 0 6030 Metres 22/10/24 Digital Folders Entry ID:1260165 Status: Ex istsProject ID: N/AClassification #: N/A Representation of Municipality of Chester within Nova ScotiaScale: 1:12 ,500 ,0 00 Scale: 1:3,000 New Private Road Name Requirement New Private Road Naming Sources:Digital Base Map Data from Service N ova Scotia andMunicipal Relations Prepared by the Municipality of the District of Chester Coordinate System/Datum: UTM NAD83 CSRS ZONE20N Map Disclaim er:Information shown on these drawings is compiledfrom numerous sources and may not be complete oraccurate. The Municipality of the District of Chester isnot responsible for any erro rs, omissions ordeficiencies in these drawings. Date printed do es notreflect date ofdata. Actual Map Size: w 11" x h 8.5" ) Community:Martins PointPID:60604089, 60604071, 60604063AAN:09187529, 09326413, 09326421Fire Dept:Western Shore Fire Dept.Description:New private road namerequirement New Private Road Name Proposed:Dogwood Lane ) Sign a r of affected landowners: Three (3) road name choices (Maxtmun 6 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): �d Lane drive Hick Lane Name: Signatures: 60604089 Peter Myers Pin 44: 60604071, 60604063 Name: Charlene Dawn Adams Signatures: 41e - CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: November 10, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation Dept. SUBJECT: New Road Name Assignment ORIGIN: Privately Maintained ROW w/ Rd Name Requirement Date: 2022-10-28 Prepared by: Sylvia Dixon, Development & Planning Technician Date: 2022-11-01 Reviewed by: Chad Haughn, Director of CDRD Date:2022-11-01 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDED MOTION It is recommended that Municipal Council approve one of the proposed road names. CURRENT SITUATION A privately maintained right-of-way accessed off of Highway 12 in Seffernville (map attached) that will provide access for a future development of three or more addressable structures requires a name. The landowners have proposed several road names. BACKGROUND When there are three or more addressable structures using an unnamed shared right-of-way/driveway, the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to Municipal Policy P-44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement (66%) from the landowners that are served by the shared right-of-way. In this instance, property owners have proposed the following road names: Bella Lane, Jacob Drive, Bumpy Path Road, Sadie Lane, Cheyanne Drive, Otis Drive, Seffern Loop, Barnells Road, and Sleepy Pig Hollow. The proposed names of Bella Lane, Jacob Drive, and Bumpy Path Road were suggested by one of the four of the property owners, representing 25% of the properties. The proposed names of Sadie Lane, Cheyanne Drive, and Otis Drive were suggested by one of the four of the property owners, representing 25% of the properties. The proposed names of Seffern Loop, Barnells Road, and Sleepy Pig Hollow were suggested by one of the four of the property owners, representing 25% of the properties. Of the four affected properties, one property owner has not responded. DISCUSSION Of the suggested road names the following do not include personal or family names, Bumpy Path Road, Seffern Loop, and Sleepy Pig Hollow, all of which would be unique road names in the Municipality of Chester and Nova Scotia. It is of note that the proposed new road names are similar to the following: - Barnsley Crt, Middle Sackville, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Bella Vista Lane, Enfield, Municipality of the District of East Hants, Hants County - Bell Rd, Martins Point, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Bumpy Lane, Lake Echo, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Cheyenne Rd, Militia Point, Municipality of the County of Inverness, Inverness County (Alias) - Jacob Dr, Baileys Brook, Municipality of the County of Pictou, Pictou County R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 - Otis Dr, Boutiliers Point, Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax County - Saddle Island Rd, Bayswater, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Seffern Lake Rd, Seffernville, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Sefferns Lake Dr, Aldersville, Municipality of the District of Chester, Lunenburg County - Sleepy Hollow Rd, Martins River, Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Lunenburg County Comments received for proposed road names: - District 6 Councillor – Tina Connors: no objection with the proposed names - Municipal Public Works – Fred Whynot: Preference for Jacob Drive, Bumpy Path Road, and Barnells Road based on comparison with existing road names in the Municipality - New Ross Fire Dept. – Fire Chief Lyle Russell: Comments “I think any of them would fit fine, Barnells Road or Otis Dr would be ones that live on the road or have, I am not familiar with any of the others I suspect kids of residents. I would like to stay away from Seffern Loop if possible as there are already two Seffern(s) Lake Roads. Overall, nothing really stands out as more suitable.” OPTIONS 1. Municipal Council can approve one of the suggested road names. 2. Municipal Council can decide not to approve the name and direct staff to assign a name of Council’s choosing. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy Policy P-44 – New Road Names and Road Name Changes. Financial/budgetary A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Infrastructure & Operations Department. Environmental N/A Strategic Priorities N/A Work Program Implications N/A Has Legal review been completed? N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition Received 2. Location Map 2736 2738 2787 2860 2754 H i g h w a y 1 2 Rev.:Date:Description: 0 MUNICIPALITY OF THEDISTRICT OF CHESTER From Date: N /ATo Da te : N/ADate Printed: 22/10/20 ® Legend ^_New Civic Address Civic Address Private Driveway Requiring Name Road Driveway/Trail Building Footprint Property Boundary Waterbody Affected Property 80 0 8040 Metres 22/10/20 Digital Folders Entry ID:1247898 Status: Ex istsProject ID: N/AClassification #: N/A Representation of Municipality of Chester within Nova ScotiaScale: 1:12 ,500 ,0 00 Scale: 1:4,000 New Private Road Name Requirement New Private Road Naming Sources:Digital Base Map Data from Service N ova Scotia andMunicipal Relations Prepared by the Municipality of the District of Chester Coordinate System/Datum: UTM NAD83 CSRS ZONE20N Map Disclaim er:Information shown on these drawings is compiledfrom numerous sources and may not be complete oraccurate. The Municipality of the District of Chester isnot responsible for any erro rs, omissions ordeficiencies in these drawings. Date printed do es notreflect date ofdata. Actual Map Size: w 11" x h 8.5" ) Community:SeffernvillePID:60134756, 60134764, 60134772, 60531191AAN:05928001, 06337686, 10415705, 04214633Fire Dept:New Ross Fire Dept.Description:New private road name requirement. New Private Road NameRequirement Page 13 NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1st 5 r- 2nd ZG rYl f%Rz j 3rd -S/CPi,ri ! ik4(5,jj, (" Signature of affected landowners: MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PID #: 60134772 Names: Adam Arenburg Signatures: PID #: 60531191 Names: Jose Bernard Duffne Signatures: c4 r`/ e, (A Or Q PID #: 60134764 Names: Michael David Reyno Signatures: PID #: 60134756 Names: Otis Lenihan Signatures: 41* THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER OCT 21 2022 Page 13 NEW PRIVATE ROAD NAME PETITION Three (3) road name choices (Maximum 16 Characters/Letters including spaces and road suffix): 1st r 2nd e v 3 rd f Signature of affected landowners: PID #: 60134772 Names: Adam Arenburg Signatures: PID #: 60S31191 Names: Joseph Bernard Duffney Signatures: PID #: 60134764 Names: Michael David Reyno Signatures: PID #: 601347S6 Names: Otis Lenihan Signatures: MUNIG'AUTY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER CONIMu `,IJTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OCT 14 2022 E® THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER 1l C O w C C C] a 75 m CrN O Mr1 in cn uj ` • 0 0 0 0 C o Q c Q E C Q E C a4 ca • bn c are p Z c) a Z V) Ci, Z cin l REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: November 10, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Grants Review ORIGIN: Grant Program Date: November 1, 2022 Prepared by: Chad Haughn, Director of CD&R Date: November 1, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council review and make funding decisions for the Council, Tourism and District applications that have been submitted by groups. CURRENT SITUATION The first Council & Tourism grant deadline for the 2022-2023 fiscal year was May 31, 2022 and grants to various groups were approved on June 23rd. The second deadline of October 31st has passed and the next step is for Council to review the submissions and make decisions on how the remaining grants budget will be allocated. Two District Grant applications have been received and require review as well. DISCUSSION The following three tables list the grants previously approved in 2022-23 and the new applications requiring review are highlighted in yellow: COUNCIL GRANTS GROUP Grant Request Amount Approved Date Approved Christmas Daddies 100.00$ 100.00$ June 23, 2022 Lunenburg County Lifestyle Centre 5,000.00$ Society of Saint Vincent de Paul 2,200.00$ 1,000.00 June 23, 2022 United Way of Lun Co (Match employees) 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ June 23, 2022 Chester Brass Band 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ June 23, 2022 Chester Farmers & Artisans Market 2,000.00$ 1,500.00$ June 23, 2022 Heritage Handwork 700.00$ New Ross Farmers Association 2,227.00$ 1,500.00$ June 23, 2022 New Ross Summer Evening Market (RCL #79) 1,200.00$ 750.00$ June 23, 2022 Our Health Centre 4,700.00$ 3,000.00$ June 23, 2022 St. Stephens Anglican Parish Musical Friends 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ June 23, 2022 Hubbards Area Lions Club 3,312.00$ 3,000.00$ June 23, 2022 Royal Canadian Legion, Br. 79, New Ross 2,000.00$ 1,000.00$ June 23, 2022 Total $30,639.00 $19,050.00 Council Grants Budget $25,000.00 Remaining Funds $5,950.00 R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 Note – The LCLC (2022 Para Hockey Cup) has confirmed funding from other Municipal partners for the event. The contributions are as follows: Municipality of the District of Lunenburg $7,500 Town of Bridgewater $5,000 Town of Lunenburg $1,000 Town of Mahone Bay $ 500 TOURISM GRANTS The table below lists the Tourism grants approved in June as well as the one new application that needs to be reviewed: DISTRICT GRANTS Two District Grant applications were received, both for District 1: TOURISM GRANTS GROUP Grant Request Amount Approved Date Approved Chester Yacht Club 5,000.00$ 4,000.00$ June 23, 2022 Chester Merchants 5,000.00$ New Ross Regional Development Society 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ June 23, 2022 Total 11,000.00$ 5,000.00$ Council Grants Budget $8,000.00 Remaining Funds $3,000.00 Requested Approved Date Approved East River Village Hall: Christmas Event & Hall operating costs 2,000.00$ Forest Heights Community School: Prom 2022 300.00$ 300.00$ May 12, 2022 Ocean Swells Community Association:Parking Lot & Garbage Box 2,500.00$ $2,500.00 September 8, 2022 Parish of Blandford: Community Gardens 200.00$ TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 2,800.00$ TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 7,200.00$ R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 3 IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy NA Financial/budgetary Council has approved the 2022-23 grants budget and the totals of each grant area are listed in the tables above. Environmental NA Strategic Priorities The approval of grants will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework: Priority Outcomes: Healthy & Vibrant Communities 1. Ensure residents have access to facilities, natural assets, programs, and services that enrich a quality of life and provide safe communities for residents and visitors alike. Work Program Implications No new impact on staff work program. Staff will issue grants cheques as approved by Council. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A COMMUNICATIONS All groups that submitted a grant application will receive official correspondence that outlines the decision of Council. The Municipal Government Act requires that municipalities disclose to the public a list of grant recipients. Staff annually advertise a list of all approved grants in an issue of the Municipal Insight Newsletter. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Grants Applications 1.1 Lunenburg County Lifestyle Centre (2022 Para Hockey Cup) 1.2 Heritage Handwork 2. Tourism Grants Applications 2.1 Chester Merchants 3. District Grants Applications 3.1 East River Village Hall – District 1 3.2 Parish of Blandford – District 1 TI as rtCItAL car• CHESTER MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER GRANT APPLICATION FORM Council or Tourism Grant Request Name of Organization Applying Lunenburg County Lifestyle Centre Contact Person Kent Walsh Position with Organization General Manager Mailing Address 135 North Park St. Bridgewater NS Incorporation Number with Reg'stry of Joint Stocks (if applicable) 831899059 Phone: 902-530-4100 Fax: Email: Kent.walsh@lcic.ca Date: October 29th 2022 Type of Grant Council Grant _X_ OR Tourism Grant Signature of Signing Officer(s) and their position with Organization: Nam ORGANIZATION AND/OR EVENT INFORMATION: 1. Purpose or objective(s) of your organization (i.e. mission statement): The LCLC is the platform for inclusive sport, recreation and cultural activities and is recognized as a leader for the health and economic success of our region!" 2. For Council Grants - Please provide an outline of the project and its benefits to residents. For Tourism Grants - Please provide an outline of how the project will improve visitor attraction and benefit the local economy in the Municipality (attach separately if insufficient space). Hosting the 2022 Para Hockey Cup creates an opportunity for us to bring the south shore to an international stage. Beyond that it will give your residents an opportunity to take in the highest level of para hockey competition, we are anticipating a rematch of the Olympics gold medal game from last year. From an economic perspective we know that the event in 2016 had over a million dollars in economic benefit for the region, and again this time around we will have two of the teams staying at Oak Island Resort, upwards of 30 rooms for 9 days, their meals will also be catered by Oak Island during their stay. We aim to attract events during the offseason to support the local economy year- round. 3. How much money are you requesting? 5,000 4. Budget • Please attach a project budget showing all revenue and expenses. • You must demonstrate fundraising efforts and include a list of financial contributions from all sources. • If your project exceeds $5,000, please include a copy of your most recent yearly financial statement. • If your organization has a reserve account or large amount of savings for a designated project, please note the purpose or intended use of those funds. 5. How do you plan to spend any Council / Tourism Grant funding received? As outlined in the attached budget the Municipal contribution will go to support the delivery of the event including a $15,000 legacy contribution to local para-athletics. 7. Is your grant request time sensitive (for example, an event on a specific date)? Yes the event is taking place November 27 to December 3rd 2022. 8. Is there additional information that may support your grant application? Please attach letters of support, etc. 9. Did your organization receive funds last year from the Municipality of the District of Chester? Yes No _X_ If yes, was it a Council Grant Recreation Grant Tourism Grant How much was the grant? $ (Please attach a copy of completed report form if not previously submitted) APPLICATION CHECKLIST - DID YOU INCLUDE WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A written outline of the project and its benefits to residents _ Project budget including Revenues and Expenses Financial Statement (for projects exceeding $5,000) Incorporation Number (if applicable) List of Directors Application signed by signing officer(s) Copy of report regarding previous year's grant (if a grant was received last year) If you require assistance, please contact the Municipal Office at: Phone (902) 275-3490 Fax (902) 275-3630 Email chaughn@chester.ca REPORT TO COUNCIL - HOW WAS YOUR EVENT AND HOW WERE THE FUNDS SPENT? Following your event or upon the completion of your project it is requested that you provide a very brief report regarding the project and how the Grant money was spent. If a follow-up report is not received future requests may be affected. Please forward applications and reports to the following: Director of Community Development and Recreation "Grant Report" Municipality of the District of Chester PO Box 369 Chester NS BOJ 1J0 OFFICE USE ONLY ❑ Essential Services ❑ Local Non -Profit ❑ National/Provincial, ❑ Regional Services ❑ Community Halls Cultural/Health Services ❑ Report Received Revenue ACOA Province of Nova Scotia Hockey Canada 2022 Budget $55,000 $20,000 $20,000 unicipal Contribution $17,500 Grants Sponsorship 0/50 chandise Hockey Canada Medical Hockey Canada Vehicle Ticket Sales Other Total Revenue Description of Cost Facility Expense Laundry/Towel Service Pre -Game Snacks 50/50 Expense Hospitality Marketing $16,000 $8,000 $8,000 1,000 $40,000 186,400 $42,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,400 $8,000 $22,000 Ground alon . $55,000 Medical Service $4,000 Learning, Legacy, and Leadership $15,000 Merchandise cost Administration Credit Card & Ticket fees Officials Miscellaneous/contingency Total Costs $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $5,000 $17,000 186,400 2022 2016 Actual Actual $0.00 $40,301.04 $20,000.00 $30,000,00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 000,00 $14,000.00 3,000,00 $14,000,00 000.00 $13,000.00 $0.00 $14,000.00 $0,00 $6,207.35 $0.00 $1,863.00 $2.,511.52 $0.00 $51,551,00 $ 2,852.48 $66,000.00 $206,286.39 $0.00 $43,842,70 $0.00 $1,934.75 $500.00 $1,247.6... $0.00 $1,115.70 $0.00 $8,908.86 $0.00 $32,355.91 $0.00 $40,225.12 $0.00 $3,726,00 $0,00 $32,671.76 $0.00 $5,075.94 $0.00 000.00 $0.00 $4,413.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,768.74 $500.00 $206,286.39 Net Surplus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outh Shore Sledge Sharks October 4, 2018 Attention: Hockey Canada – Bid Selection Committee Re: Canadian Tire Para Ice Hockey Cup It is with great pleasure that I write this letter in support of WKH/XQHQEXUJ&RXQW\ /LIHVW\OH&HQWUH– Bid Committee in their efforts to secure the 2020 Canadian Tire Para Hockey Cup. I am the coach of the South Shore Sledge Sharks Team, a player (Halifax Sledge Grinders) and parent of sledge hockey players. As a strong proponent of sledge hockey and the Co-chair of the 2016 World Sledge Hockey Challenge I know the impact that such an event has on the sport as we continue to grow in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia needs more opportunities to promote the sport to potential new players and teams. The Canadian Tire Para Hockey Cup will bring together the world Vbest players and will provide excellent exposure of the sport to all the programs in Nova Scotia. Sincerely, David Waters Head Coach South Shore Sledge Sharks 902-521-5945 dave.waters@modl.ca. ‡        (6+"+61$q-6+39q*6)4&.61/-2"q"+31"q-1/-13&-+q q+Z`eIq0:aOq2eq aKBHDk:eD`q+2q 7qq 0Iq  q  q #mq  q q kkk R?R? ?:q -?eZ<D`q q q !D:aq%Z?PDnq:X:B:q -\DYDBqLXq qeIDq(gXDX<gaHqZgXenq)KEDbenSDqDXeaDqLbq:qEgSSnq :??DcdK=SDqce:eDqZEq eIDq:aeqVgReLp \ga]ZdDqE:?LSKenq SZ?:eDBqKXqaLBHDk:eD`q +Zj:q2?ZeK:q:RZXHqeIDq<D:geKFhSq2ZgeIq2IZ`D q 5IDq)gXDX<gaHq ZgYenq (LEDbenSDq DXeaDq?ZXbKbebqZEqeI`DDqV:LXq?ZV\ZXDXebqeIDqRD:`l:eDaq2D:EZZBbq`DX:qeIDq*-q #LX:Y?M:Rq$`Zg\q_g:eK?qDXeaDq :XBqeIDq *:aH:`Deq%DXXLH:aq0g<SK?q(K>`:ao q SZXHqkKeIqeIDbDq :VDXLeLDbqeIDq DXeaDq :SbZqI:bq:qXgV<DaqZGq?ZVVZXq:`D:bq VDDeLXHqb\:?Dbq ?ZY@DbcKZXbq :?eKjDqSLjKXHq :aD:bq:XBqbDjDYq BaDbbLXHqaZZVb q 8LeJq:qbD:eKXHq?:\:?KenqZGqqeIDq:`DX:q I:bq<DDXqjDanq :?eKjDqbKX?Dq[^DYLXH q 3IDq(gXDX<gaHqZgXenq )LEDcenTDq DXe`DqLbq IZVDqeZqeIDq 2ZgeIq2IZ`Dq &?Dq2I:aObq*LXZ`q %Z?ODnqdcZ?K:eLZXqeIDq2ZgeIq2IZaDq *gce:XHdq *:NZaq*LBHDeq%Z?ODnq Sg<qeIDq 2ZgeIq2IZaDq (gV<D`N:?Obq'hXK[aqq%Z?ODnqSg<q aLBHDk:eDaq2O:eLXHqSg<qeIDq2ZgeIq2IZ`Dq2RDBHDq2I:`Obq :XBqXgVD`Zgbq$DXeRDWDYbqeD:Vb q 3IDq DXe`DqI:bq:SbZqbg?ADdbFgSTnqIZdeDBqeIDq q 8ZaSBq2SDBHDq %Z?ODnqI:SRDXHDq q,:fK[X:Rq 2RDBHDq 5D:Vq%KHIq0DaF[aW:X?Dq5a:KXKXHq:V\q:XBqeIDq q"bb;qg\ q 5IDq)iYDX<gaHq ZgXenq(KEDbenRDqDXe`DqLbq?ZXELBDXeq eI:eqeIDqE:?LRLenqaD_gK`DVDXebqeZqIZbeq eIDq  q :X:BL:Xq3LaDq 0:`:q%Z?ODnqg\q?:Xq<DqVDeq:XBqkDq:`DqDm?KeDBqeZqV:QDqeILbqDjDXeq:qIgHDqbg??Dbb q 2KXADaDUnq  3agCnq0:nXDq !L`D?eZaqZEq1D?aD:eLZXq2D`jK?Dbq          ,=[R;AVg  g  g 2Rg6GRPg H[g *9dg !RQ=AVQg &g9PgTMA9YA?g[RgTVR_I?Ag[GIYgMA[[AVgRCgY^TTRV[gCRVg[GAgY^;PI[[A?g;I?g[Rg;VIQEg[GAg  g!9Q9?I9Qg2IVAg-9V9g %R=LAdg!^Tg[RgR^Vg9VA9g %9_IQEg TVA_IR^YNdgGRY[A?g [GAg 6RVM?g 0MA?EA g %R=LAdg !G9NNAQEAg [GIYg 9VA9g G9YgYGRaQgGRag I[gY^TTRV[YgY^=Gg A_AQ[Yg[GVR^EGg9[[AQ?9Q=Ag9Q?g_RM^Q[AAVIQEg 6AgLQRag[G9[g[GAg  g!9Q9?I9Qg2IVAg-9V9g%R=LAdg!^TgaR^M?g;Ag9gEVA9[gY^==AYYg9Q?gTVR_I?Ag YIEQICI=9Q[gA=RQRPI=g;AQACI[g [Rg[GAg3RaQgRCg VI?EAa9[AVg9Q?g (^QAQ;^VEg!R^Q[dg9Q?gRQ=Ag9E9IQg YGIQAg [GAg YTR[MIEG[gRQgR^Vg9P9eIQEg3RaQg 9Q?g /AEIRQg 3GAg2RaQgRCgVI?EAa9[AVgY^TTRV[Yg[GAg;I?gCVRPg (^QAQ;^VEg !R^Q[d g )ICAY[dNAg!AQ[VAg9Q?g 0R^[Gg 0GRVAg 0MA?EAg 0G9VLYg aI[Gg[GAgY^TTRV[gRCg#_AQ[Yg (^QAQ;^VEg!R^Q[dg -MA9YAg =RQ[9=[gPAgICg dR^gVAU^IVAg9??I[IRQ9MgIQDRVP9[IRQ g 8R^VYg [V^Ndg "9_I?g*I[=GANMg *9dRVg  g.MB:Z:Q\g1]WBB]g XJ@FBb:]BWg +S`:g1>S\K:g 5g7g 4BOg g fg $:cg   g bbb <XJ?FBb:]BW >:g         K Ė¶;ĖI5cgĖ 6Yƒ&;Ė ‘Ė ÉĖĔ ,  Ė<)Æ_Ė=R#R3¢6RĖ J0Ė ´ebĖ£ÏïĀXÙÚĖzЁsXĖ iāëÛä’ĒªĂÔ«ÜăĖ ö÷ēÀdĖÍą¬ìsĖ ôÕÖXÁdĖ imЋĖ nÅgĖ {Ž|ĉúøÝ»Ė†”bTĖS¤Ė…ĖmÄSgĖnĖ¹ĖÇĖ §Ė |žÂʘ¼Ė‡•©TĖS¦Ė…Ėe½ĕ¥Ė¸­T¿õĖ ¨Ė ÑҏÞz™ĖÎíóá¾Ėč®¯Ďa°±²àOa“×Ė         #Zkd<wZ?wdd<V6Qsw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ct 22, 11:02a p.2 Signature llil. M1,4L L %i I F1' 4➢I CHESTER Name of Organization Applying Contact Person Position with Organization Mailing Address MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER GRANT APPLICATION FORM Council or Tourism Grant Request �,g,�j.J)Go �'�E'occd4' �c-�TX�:�' i�� CTOif Incorporation Number with Registry of Joint Stocks (if applicable) Phone: Fax: Email: Type of Grant f Council Grant 1.,'" -OR Tourism Grant Date: 7. ea - c -7.7/5' Signature of Signing Officer[s) and their position with Organization: Name Position 0///-6- Lc&_/71/Ae-6-- 'Ge,/,9/,0A.Y7D,E y , ma c -c. ,6&7 ORGANIZATION AND/OR EVENT INFORMATION: 1. Purpose or objective(s) of your organization (i.e. mission statement): a r c r•-- n C4i' v Q Q.4 26 Oct 22, 11:02a p.3 2. Please provide an outline of the project and its benefits to residents: People are given the opportunity to learn the old crafts that interest them at a very minimal fee, as often as they wish.. They can also borrow certain equipment at no charge. Crafts such as rug hooking, knitting, crochet, quilting, embroidery, sewing, felting, etc. The group meets two Tuesdays a month (2' & 4th) from 10 am. To 4 pm. They are free to come and go at whatever times work for the individual. Some of the crafts, such as rug hooking and felting help to promote recycling for the materials used. 3. How much money are you requesting? $ 700. 4. Budget a) Project budget attached. b) In the past we have made a group hooked rug and sold tickets to raise funds. Covid restrictions and shutdowns had put such a project on hold but we hope we hope to get something started this year. To execute a group rug or quilt requires passing the project around from house to house & hands to hands. Not everyone is ready for that yet. Members pay $3 per visit towards expenses, but we are considering raising the fee, as much as we don't like to add an increase to people on limited budgets. c) Financial statement attached just for information purposes. 5. How do you plan to spend any Council Grant funding received? Our biggest and most necessary expense is rent, at the Blandford Community Centre. Due to our low bank balance, we are not planing to purchase any new equipment or supplies for general use. We may have to buy some fabrics in order to execute a fundraising item to raffle. 7. Grant is not time sensitive. 8. Heritage Handwork started up again this year on September 27 and we have had lots of interest at both sessions so far as well as new people turning out to see what we are all about and staying for most of the time. 26 Oct 22, 11:02a p.4 HERITAGE HANDWORK GROUP Financial Statement September 2021 to August 2022 Bank Balance Forward $1,144.44 INCOME: Drop In Fees $712.25 Total Income: EXPENSES: Rent $1,260.00 Photos $32.70 Newsletter Ads $120.00 Bank Chrgs fr Previous Year $17.55 Bank Chrgs fr Sept 1/21 to Aug 311 $41.17 Signed: Signed: + $712.25 Total Expenses: - $1,471.42 co.0.2de-z_ Heather Hector BANK BALANCE: $385.27 26 Oct 22, 11:03a p.5 HERITAGE HANDWORK GROUP Project Budget for Sept. 2022 to May 2023 INCOME: Drop In Fees Council Grant (on approval) $800.00 $700.00 Total Income: $1,500.00 EXPENSES: Rent $1,300.00 Advertising $90.00 Historical Photo Supplies $50.00 Bank Charges $40.00 $1,480.00 We are hoping to be able to make a group item throughout the year to raffle. 26 Oct 22, 11:03a p.6 9. Did your organization re§eive funds last year from the Municipality of the District of Chester? Yes No If yes, was it a Council Grant Recreation Grant Tourism Grant How much was the grant? $ (Please attach a copy of completed report form if not previously submitted) APPLICATION CHECKLIST - DID YOU INCLUDE WITH YOUR APPLICATION: ✓A written outline of the project and its benefits to residents ✓ Project budget including Revenues and Expenses _4 Financial Statement , Incorporation Number (if applicable) i%List of Directors 1/Application signed by signing officer(s) Copy of report regarding previous year's grant (if a grant was received last year) If you require assistance, please contact the Municipal Office at: Phone (902) 275-3490 Fax (902) 275-3630 Email chau ;hn@chester.ca REPORT TO COUNCIL - HOW WAS YOUR EVENT AND HOW WERE THE FUNDS SPENT? Following your event or upon the completion of your project it is requested that you provide a very brief report regarding the project and how the Grant money was spent. If a follow-up report is not received future requests may be affected. Please forward applications and reports to the following: Director of Community Development and Recreation "Grant Report" Municipality of the District of Chester PO Box 369 Chester NS BOJ 1.10 OFFICE USE ONLY L Essential Services L Regional Services - Local Non -Profit Community Hails E: National/Provincial, Cultural/Health Services __ Report Received MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER GRANT AP ICATIPN FMtivf (i!MpFq, ¶r TptOsirla Grion 14 q ct t i ©ranization ailing Address 1p.corpora (� applica Rhone: NIZATION AND/OR EVENT ORMATION: Purpose or phjective(s) of your grgapizatjgn (i.e. mi lijgn st4tPme419. Por Council Grants - Please provide an outline of the project and its benefits to residents.. nl Tourism Grants - Please provide an outline of how the project will improve visitor a benefit the local economy in the Municipality (attach separately if insufficient space). Budge h money are you requesting? Please attach a project budget showing all revenue and expenses. You must demonstrate fundraising efforts and include a list of financial contributions from all sources. if your project exceeds $5,000, please include a copy ofydur most recentyearly financial statementt, if your organization has a reserve account nor large amount of savings for a designated project please note the purpose or intended use of those funds, do you plan to spend any Council / Touris Grant funding received? 7. Is your grant request time sensitive [for example, an event on a specific date)? s there additional information that may sup ac rtyour grant application? Pip se ul:Gach letters of sup «r Did your organization receive funds last year from the Municipality of the District of Chester? Yes No If yes, vas it a -Council Grant Recreation Grant — Tourism Grant; C f not previously submitted) (Please at much was the grant? ch a copy of completed repoi APPLICATION CIIFCKLIST - DID YOU INCLUDE WIT YOUR APPLICATION written outline of the project and its benefits to residents reject budget including Revenues and Expenses Financial Statement (for projects exceeding $5,000) ncorporation Number (if applicable) ist of Directors -A plication signed by signing officer(s) Copy of report regarding previous year grant (if a grant was received lasty'eai If you require sistance, please contact l lunicipal Office at. Phone (902) 275 3490 Fax (902) 27S-3630 Ismail. cc REPORT TO COUNCIL - HOW WAS YOUR EVENT AND HO RP THE EFINDS SPENT? Following your event or upon the completion of your project it is requested that you provide a very brief report regarding the project and how the Grant money was spent. If a follow-up report is not received future requests may be affected. Please forward applications and reports to the following: Director of Community Development and Recreation "Grant Report Municipality of the District of Chester PO Box Chester NS 130)11 OFFICE USE ONLY Essential Services Regional Services Report Received. Local Non -Profit Community Halls National/Provincial; tral/Health Services 1. The Chester Merchants Association ( CMA) exists to: Support the merchants of chester via the networking aspects of the group Provide a forum for the discussion of Concerns and constraints encountered as a business operator in Chester . Maximize the oppporunities to access and leverage disparate talents and expertise within the group. Present a unified identity as businesses of Chester from a tourism perspective Brainstorm problems and generate collaborative ideas. Chester Village Christmas was CMA way to help bring tourist dollars back to Chester Village in the shoulder season. 2.Project Outline The CMA would like to apply for a tourism grant. Chester Village Christmas has been building momentum for the last few years, to become a full weekend christmas event,for locals and tourists alike. Chester Village Christmas is a family fun events that brings our community together and in return brings tourism dollars back into Chester businesses. Many of our merchants are doing 15-20% more business during and around the christmas event, helping our seasonal businesses stay open longer. We have made Chester village Christmas a community event adding Chester Farmers Market" Chrismas Market" and Heritage Society "Christmas Show". With the adding of our celebration of tree event it brings another level of community involvement, With Chester Art Center, Chester Playhouse ,Chester District school,Forest Heights spirit squad, just to name afew, taking part in the event to raise money for local charities 2021 (food bank). Chester Village Christmas event includes • Christmas tree lighting with Mrs and Mr Claus. • Christmas fun fair for children and the young at heart • Gingerbread house competition • Gingerbread Fun Run • Pet parade • Celebration of Trees • With many of our Merchants have special events, sales and special menus. 3. The CMA is requesting $5000.00 4.The Budget Chester Village Chester 2021 Total event expense exceeded $12,000.00 We are looking at a roughly the same expense this year. 4 Total Event expense overview 2021 ( PM) Pemits, advertising, website, radio ads,and event hosting $3575.00 General Festival Expense Christmas Tree Lighting Gingerbread Central / prizes Friday night Radio Remote & Merry Market Celebration of Trees Saturday Fun Fair & Gingerbread Run/ prizes Picture Place on Duke Sunday Merry Market & Family Dress up Parade storage space $710.95 $300.00 $1374.65 $ 399.22 $2124.01 $600.00 $ 465.67 $ 300.00 $2100.00 $12415.17 With the nature of this event of this is no revenue to report ( all activities are by donation) and all funds collected are donated to a local charity ( 2021 lighthouse food bank) We are actively looking for financial contributions, from businesses and private individuals. As of this early date, we have none to report. Last year we raised $4000.00 cash + prizes/supples. Over 30 local businesses and/or individuals donating in 2021. 5 The Funding received form the Tourism Grant, will be used for advertising, Banner and signage, and Trees ! ( real trees from a local supplier,for family games, tree lighting and trees to decorate the downtown core for the holiday season.) and overall General expenses for example port -a potty/ handstanitzer lighting, prizes ect. Print and radio advertising $2400 Banner and signage $1300 25 Trees $600 General Expenses $700 $5000 6. Yes our request for tourim grant is time sensitive. The Event is November 25-27 2022 And with a volunteer base event, time is a asset, receiving the tourism grant will help us get a jump start on banners signage and ads, for this event. 7. Chester Village Christmas brings our community together and gives our tourist's and locals experience of a Magical Village Christmas. Alternative way to shop for their loved ones this holiday season, spending their dollars at Chester Merchants. * Attached are letters of support September 15, 2022 We are writing in support of the Chester Village Christmas festival. As a business we gain sales during this weekend event and it is very encouraging to see the residents come together for a community festival. We participate in the festival as we can — mostly by offering store sales and a contest. This will be the fifth year for the festival as it is now and we feel it needs to continue and bring some joy into an otherwise dull time of the fall. Children, smiles, laughter, games and contests for individuals and community groups is always a great thing! Please help us to continue the Chester Village Chris as festival! Angela Kitching Pat McNamee The Village Emporiu 902 275 4773 11 Pleasant St Chester SINCE 1939 CHESTER PLAYHOUSE Board Execuattvrc Sara Filbee Chair Susan Cracker Vice Chair Tom Boyne Secretary Mary Jane Andrews Treasurer Board Members Alexis Milligan Carol Dodds Caroline March Catherine Read Frank Metzger Liz Crocker Kathy McNab Kirk. MacCulloch Matthew Ross Executive Director Andrew Chandler Potion Sir Christopher Ondaatje Sep 27, 2022 To whom it may concern, l am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the application to support the Chester Village Christmas. While an initiative of the Chester Merchant's Group, this event benefits our entire community. As a recently arrived resident to Chester, with a young family, I'm delighted to have a holiday celebration that incorporates events for young and old, including cultural events, opportunities for holiday shopping, and opportunities to meet and mingle with our neighbours. After several years where the COVID-19 pandemic has made it hard to meet and connect with others, I applaud the continuation of this initiative that fosters community spirit, celebration, and connection. The Chester Village Christmas is a yearly tradition that draws visitors from across our municipality, and beyond, to kick off the season together, supporting not just our local merchants and artisans (though this is important in and of itself), but our community spirit. At a time when connection to our neighbours is more important than ever, I strongly encourage the council to support the Chester Village Christmas. All my best, Andrew Chandler (he/him) Executive Diirector, Chester Playhouse e: andrew( chester la h rse.ca ca 9©2.98'1,6349 22 Pleasant Street Po Box 293 Chester, Nova Scotia. BOJ 1JO 902 275-3933 I Inf©Qchesterplayhouse.ca I chesterplayhouse.ca CHESTER ART CENTRE September 22, 2022 Attn: Municipality of the District of Chester Re: Chester Village Christmas Grant Application The Chester Art Centre fully supports the Chester Village Christmas programming. We will offer both of our indoor spaces, the gallery at 60 Queen Street and the Annex at 5 Pleasant Street as well as our yard in any way that is needed by Chester Village Christmas. We will have our annual Mini's Auction underway but will still have lots of room in the gallery. With our permanent liquor license in place, we can even host some evening events. We have contributed in this way in the past including hosting the Gingerbread House Competition for example. We prepare art activities every year to enjoy in person as well as art kits for families to take home, The Chester Art Centre values all local businesses and organizations. A cohesive effort creates greater capacity and engagement for everyone. Christmas is also a lovely time to give back to our local community by offering free activities for everyone. Growing and evolving the Chester Village Christmas events to serve both the businesses and the community with a reasonable amount of volunteer time and financial contributions will benefit everyone involved not to mention the donations raised for the Lighthouse Food Bank every year! Please don't hesitate to contact me for clarification. Warm regards, Sue LeBlanc Executive Director Chester Art Centre sue@c hesterartcentre. ca 902-299-0139 60 Queen. Street, P© Box 654, Chester, Nova. Scotia BOJ 1 JO 902.275,5789 info@chesterartceritre.ca www,cltesterartcentre,ca 111. Sit 'tf('IitlklJi V 01 CHESTER MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER DISTRICT GRANT APPLICATION Deadline to Apply: February 28 Name of Organization h +4 cJ( Etas+- Pxv-exr Contact Person cam. -441 r-} I Position with Organization ti ( ems} cam' Organization Mailing Address ua_ , -t-9,r\ Ecr-+, WS. I T-0 Phone: Email:+ Date: , -7, ao v Signature of Signing Officer(s) and their position with Organization: JKn (r Position 4 h-e I _44 i rile Endorsement(checkbox) I declare I am a member of the organization and have authority to submit this application. Amount Requested: $ odn ,oe' Municipal District # 1) Please provide a brief description of your project or event. (Maximum 1250 characters) mot .) I • _ _41 2) Please provide a brief description of how you plan to spend any District Grant funding. (Max soo characters) 11 miiiiiil IMMrwItr /1./ ! ' .I I1e/ r' Ill ;. .I Ll iJf• '_1V•l. 11 ti f _I _ I R.' " l it ./1. /.• jj j II r 1 Who should the cheque be made payable to?e Please forward applications to the following: ATTN: Recreation & Parks Services Municipality of the District of Chester PO Box 369 Chester NS BOJ 1.10 Email: recreation@chester.ca 9IIt."srcIi`.t1 41 V II CHESTER MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER DISTRICT GRANT APPLICATION Deadline to Apply: February 28 Name of Organization Parish of Blandford Contact Person Claudia Zinek Position with Organization Environment Committee Organization Mailing Address W 3 ei A 1N D4-ORo Ivs. T Z) Phone: Email: I Date: 10/ 17/22 Signature of Signing Officer(s) and their position with Organization: Name (printed) Position 441-ceL41 DC/ttLI,(-/? Amount Requested: $ 200.00 Endorsement (check box) I declare I am a member of the organization and have authority to submit this application. Municipal District # 1 1) Please provide a brief description of your project or event. (Maximum 1250 characters) With an ever -aging population in the village, it was considered that waist -height gardens would be beneficialtoour co rrrrrrunity gardens- - - 2) Please provide a brief description of how you plan to spend any District Grant funding. (Max 800 characters) We wish to expand the community gardens. There presently are three smaller garden boxes ti— ia-t cowhave sides erected. e wou -d purc ase lumber to build tne sides and prepare more gardens, for curing Who should the cheque be made payable to? PARS54 tn]E A L;k N nf;Q R'LN. Please forward applications to the following: ATfN: Recreation & Parks Services Municipality of the District of Chester PO Box 369 Chester NS BOJ 110 Email: recreation@chester.ca REQUEST FOR QUOTATION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: November 10, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Corporate & Strategic Management SUBJECT: BDO Zone Initiative ORIGIN: Investment Attraction Date: October 26, 2022 Prepared by: Erin Lowe, Sr. Economic Development Officer Date: November 3, 2022 Reviewed by: Tara Maguire, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 3, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, Chief Administrative Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION Direct staff to prepare a letter of support for inclusion in Nova Scotia Innovation Hub’s application to Natural Resources Canada’s Clean Fuels Fund and furthermore, authorize staff time to establish a Southwest Nova Scotia Bioeconomy Development Opportunity Zone. CURRENT SITUATION The Nova Scotia Innovation Hub (NSIH) is seeking municipal support in the form of both a letter of support and staff time commitment to establish a BDO Zone in Southwest Nova Scotia. NSIH is seeking to participate in the BDO Zone Initiative (www.bdozone.org ) which is a certification and regional risk rating program that identifies and scores prime areas for biobased project development, accelerating the clean energy transition and creating jobs. Refer to Attachment A for a more detailed overview of this initiative in the form of a project briefing document and presentation. The cost to participate in this initiative is approximately $70,000. To offset this cost, the NSIH is preparing an application to Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) Clean Fuels Fund in the ‘Establishing Biomass Supply Chains’ stream. The goal of the biomass supply chain component of the Clean Fuels Fund is to ensure a steady and usable supply of sustainable feedstock is available to clean fuel production facilities across the country and supports the establishment of regional hubs to gather feedstock from diverse sources and locations. The ‘feedstock’ that the NSIH is looking to certify in Southwest Nova Scotia is low-quality wood fibre and sawmill residuals. The goal is to provide a market for mill and woodlot owners for this product by attracting investment from bio-based developers to our region. Markets for low-quality wood fibre and sawmill residuals have been negatively impacted by the closures of Bowater and Northern Pulp. BACKGROUND MOC's economic development efforts are guided by six target priority sectors we defined through market research and cross-sector industry consultation, and these priority sectors also inform the development of our investment attraction efforts. Past work has resulted in the development of the Invest Chester website, and our investment attraction marketing plan where we set forth the goals and strategies for the MOC marketing effort for our overall investment attraction and retention efforts. This work involved the development of key messages about our region for target sectors and the development of an engagement plan to create dialogue with prospects, strategic partners, and multipliers (consultants, site selectors, trade associations, cross border professional services, provincial/federal partners, key influencers, venture capitalists). R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 The BDO Zone initiative would be considered a ‘multiplier’ for our efforts focusing on attracting investment from the bioeconomy. The bioeconomy falls in what we define as Green Industry and if successful, supports our forestry sector by providing a market for low-quality wood fibre. DISCUSSION The BDO Zone initiative has two components: 1. The rating process uses internationally recognized risk metrics to credibly quantify, and signal key biomass feedstock and infrastructure “success” characteristics valued by biobased developers and investors around the world. This component can take up to five months and requires the development of an advisory team. NSIH has requested that MOC’s Sr. Economic Development Officer sits on that advisory team. 2. Promotion of the SW NS BDO Zone for 12 months on bdozone.org, in a press release to over 50 bio- based organizations and sector publications worldwide, on webinars featuring our zone via BDO ZoneCONNECT, and private, hosted discussion groups with prequalified bio-project developers, investors and strategic partner companies actively looking to build new bio-based plants in BDO Zones. Benefits in participating: Investment readiness: BDO Zones undergo rigorous and extensive due diligence using a standardized framework of over 100 transparent and validated risk indicators. This includes gathering data on the amount of feedstock available to support a bio-based development project, determining the commitment of suppliers, and analyzing the infrastructure in the region to support investment such as host sites, transportation, logistics, etc. Having an A or AA rating through this initiative signals to investors that our region and associated host sites have been prequalified for some of the attributes that those investing in the industry care about. Alignment: one of the objectives in our investment attraction plan is to ensure we are aligning our efforts with our municipal neighbours, provincial attraction goals and federal attraction goals where possible. Promotion of the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park: this initiative also identifies and promotes potential host sites for biobased manufacturing plants, the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park has been identified as one of these host sites. This project is complimentary to our other investment attraction efforts for the park including:  Receiving Atlantic Canada Site Certification for the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park. The Atlantic Canada Certified Site Designation certifies sites across Atlantic Canada as development ready, creating a roster of quality properties for investors. The goal is to provide investors with immediate access to data and other property information to bring attention and focus to development-ready, high-quality sites across Atlantic Canada that are primed for investment opportunities. This is Atlantic Canada’s only site certification and network of pre-qualified, development-ready sites.  Selection of the Kaizer Meadow Industrial Park as a priority site for the Industrial Bioeconomy Assets of Nova Scotia Project – an initiative of the NSIH in affiliation with Nova Scotia Business Inc. (NSBI). This project showcases the features and value of the site as a high-potential bioeconomy host site. R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 3 OPTIONS 1. Direct staff to prepare a letter of support for inclusion in Nova Scotia Innovation Hub’s application to Natural Resources Canada’s Clean Fuels Fund and furthermore, authorize staff time to establish a Southwest Nova Scotia Bioeconomy Development Opportunity Zone. 2. Do not approve. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy N/A Financial/budgetary N/A Environmental N/A Strategic Priorities The BDO Zone Initiative will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework: Priority Outcomes: Economic Development 1. Partner in the development of infrastructure and opportunities for business development and attraction. 2. Promote and grow the Municipality’s economic sectors. 3. 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: Environmental Stewardship 1. Seek opportunities for innovation and leadership in waste management. 2. Explore options for integrating green energy and sustainable technologies in municipal infrastructure and program delivery. 3. Support environmental conservation & protection initiatives and efforts to tackle the impact of climate change. Work Program Implications This is aligned with investment attraction efforts in the current work program for economic development staff. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: BDO Zone Briefing Document and Presentation The BDO Zone Initiative Supporting county efforts to attract biomass- based manufacturing and drive clean energy economic development Jordan Solomon President & CEO, Ecostrat Chairman, BDO Zone Initiative The BDO Zone Initiative is a regional risk-rating and certification program that enables regions to leverage local biomass assets to attract new bio-based manufacturing plants--and create jobs. A BDO Zone rating is a qualified assessment of biomass feedstock and infrastructure attributes of a region with respect to development potential of new biofuel,renewable chemical,biogas or bioproduct manufacturing plants. www.bdozone.org ✔Use internationally recognized risk metrics to credibly quantify and signal key biomass feedstock and infrastructure “success” characteristics valued by biobased developers and investors around the world. ✔Connect ‘A’ and ‘AA’ rated communities with bio-based project developers looking to build new plants in BDO Zones. ✔Help get biomass-based manufacturing plants built in the places they are most likely to succeed. BDO Zone Ratings Objectives… •BDO Zones undergo rigorous and extensive due diligence using a standardized framework of over 100 transparent and validated risk indicators. •“A” and “AA” BDO Zone Ratings identify the optimal zones in the country for new biobased development. BDO Zone Ratings Due Diligence •BDO Zone Ratings are issued within the framework of the Canadian national Standards for Biomass Supply Chain Risk. •Accredited National Standard in March 2021 by CSA and SCC (CSA W209:21).ANSI accreditation planned for 2023. •6 years of development led by Ecostrat,150-member industry stakeholder group,and a 65 member,$60B capital market ratings review committee. •>$6MM funded by federal governments.Natural Resources Canada (NRCan),Standards Council of Canada (SCC),US Department of Energy (USDOE)/Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO). Recognized, Credible, Transparent, Standards-based Ratings Framework Risk Ratings Protocols and Scoring Metrics: Probability of Risk Occurrence x Impact What does a BDO Zone rating look like? ‘A’ rating for 300,000 tons of wheat straw Impact of BDO Zone Rating: 10X increase in bioproject dealflow for City of Melville *In year prior to BDO Zone designation Publication and Press ⮚All ratings published and downloadable on bdozone.org ⮚Press release to over 50 bio-based organizations and sector publications worldwide. ⮚Inbound inquiries directed to BDO Zone Local Development Leader (LDL) How BDO Zones generate deal-flow For compete list of publications contact bdozone.org Invest in Canada drives deal-flow to BDO Zones ⮚Invest In Canada is the federal government’s global investment attraction and promotion agency. It is the global investor’s primary point of contact to unlock business opportunities and facilitate job growth and expansion in Canada. ⮚Invest In Canada has endorsed the BDO Zone Initiative as a means to drive bio-based investment into Canada. ⮚Invest In Canada promotes BDO Zone Ratings through over 160 offices around the world. >> Click here to view Barnwell County, SC BDO ZoneCONNECT << BDO Ratings supercharge bio-based economic development: BDO ZoneCONNECT connects BDO Zones with hundreds of developers and investors worldwide ‘Bio-Business Development’ Webinars Viewed by >1000 bio-project developers and investors worldwide Access to TheDigest’s >5 million unique online bioeconomy sector readers,140,000 streaming viewers bio-industry stakeholders and 45,000 daily newsletter subscriptions. ‘Rapid Accelerator’ Meetings Private,hosted discussion groups Private zoom meetings with 50-100 pre- qualified bio-project developers,investors and strategic partner companies actively looking to build new bio-based plants in BDO Zones. The BDO Zone Investment Coalition is a group of leading biobased capital markets¹with a collective goal of investing $1 billion in BDO Zones to build new biofuel, renewable chemical, biogas manufacturing plants. The BDO Zone Investment Coalition April 22, 2021: Announces $1 Billion for bio-based investment in BDO Zones See all BDO Zone Investment Coalition members: www.bdozone.org/us/support See all 65 BSCR RC members: ecostrat.com/standards/participants¹ Made up 15 members of the BSCR Review Committee BSCR Risk Ratings Review Committee Members The BDO Zone Summit-August 17, 2021 View the BDO Zone Summit here: https://bdozone.org/the-bdo-zone-summit-2021/ BDO Zone Ratings: ✔Enable communities to powerfully signal key economic development “success” characteristics valued by biobased developers and investors. ✔Connect ‘A’ and ‘AA’ rated communities “one-on-one” with hundreds of project developers around the world. ✔Help get biomass-based manufacturing plants built faster and create jobs. BDO Zone Ratings: The Bottom Line… www.bozone.org jordan.solomon@ecostrat.com info@bdozone.org Jordan Solomon President & CEO, Ecostrat Chairman, BDO Zone Initiative 1 | Page BDO Zone Briefing Document – Canada BDO Zone Briefing Document Overview A BDO Zone Rating is a powerful economic development tool that de-risks project finance and helps get clean energy plants built in areas where they are most likely to succeed. The BDO Zone Initiative (www.bdozone.org) is a certification and regional risk rating program that identifies and scores prime areas for biobased project development; accelerating the clean energy transition and creating jobs. The Problem Many communities across the country have substantial biomass assets—agricultural residues, wood fiber, food and farm waste. These are the essential feedstocks required by new manufacturing facilities to produce ground/aviation biofuel, renewable chemicals, biogas, and bioproducts. The problem is that they do not have the budget, the platform, or the credibility to communicate this to biobased investors and developers around the world. As a result, these communities can miss out on the new wave of biofuel, renewable chemical and biogas economic development valued at over $200 billion1. BDO Zone Ratings solve the problem by enabling communities to powerfully leverage local biomass assets to serve as anchors for clean energy economic development. BDO Zone Ratings • BDO Zone Ratings accelerate deal-flow to BDO Zones by applying advanced risk scoring protocols to rate biomass availability, supply chain resilience, infrastructure, and community interest for new plant development in their region. • BDO Zone Ratings enable communities to effectively and credibly signal and promote key “success” characteristics valued by biobased developers and investors around the world. • ‘AA’ or ‘A’ BDO Zone Ratings identify the best places in the country for new bio-based plant development. BDO Zone Ratings are credible because they are issued within the framework of the Standards for Biomass Supply Chain Risk - the state-of-the-science for investor assessment of feedstock risk2. • The BDO Zone Initiative drives deal flow by enabling BDO Zone Communities to connect directly with hundreds of bio-project development companies worldwide looking to build new plants in places with BDO Zone “success” characteristics. Governance The BDO Zone Initiative is a collaborative project between the non-profit Alternative Fuels and Chemicals Coalition (AFCC), the Agricultural Technology and Innovation Partnership Foundation (ATIP) and Ecostrat. The BDO Zone Initiative Chairman is Jordan Solomon, President of Ecostrat. 1 https://thefutureeconomy.ca/op-eds/jeff-pasmore/ 2 The BSCR Standards were developed under direction of US Department of Energy (BETO) by Idaho National Labs, Ecostrat, a 150-member industry stakeholder group, and 65 member, $60B capital market ratings review committee. BSCR Standard development in Canada was carried out by Ecostrat and supported by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). They became an accredited National Standard of Canada in March 2021 by CSA and SCC (CSA W209:21). 2 | Page BDO Zone Briefing Document – Canada Powerful economic impact and GHG reduction A BDO Zone rating is a powerful economic development tool: BDO Zone rated communities have seen new “deal flow” increase by up to 1000% in less than one year. BDO Zone ratings for Arlington, OR, Barnwell County, SC, Siloam Springs, AR, and the City of Melville, SK, were issued in 2021. All issued ratings are available for download here. The economic impact of a new bio-based plant can be transformative for a distressed community: every new sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) plant can provide, on average, 321 jobs and $29M per year to the local economy, as well as reduce CO2 emissions by 300,000 metric tons per year (Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)). National economic impact potential in Canada is estimated at 16,060 direct, indirect and induced jobs, and over $1.48B annually in direct and indirect economic benefits. Total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction impact potential of the BDO Zone Initiative is estimated at 2% of overall net emissions for Canada. This is the equivalent of replacing 18% of all passenger cars in Canada with electric cars. The “100 BDO Zones in 4 Years Plan” will catalyze biobased investment and infrastructure development, strengthen energy independence, create jobs, and contribute to long term prosperity. Recent Press In April 2021, the BDO Zone Investment Coalition announced the mobilization of $1BB of capital for deployment to biobased infrastructure and manufacturing plants located in Bioeconomy Development Opportunity Zones. On April 5th, 2022, the first BDO ZoneCONNECT Webinar was launched and featured presentations from BDO Zone community representatives in Melville, SK and Siloam Springs, AR. See more press here. Quotes Jordan Solomon, Chairman of the BDO Zone Initiative and CEO of Ecostrat says: “BDO Zone Ratings help attract new energy infrastructure and biobased manufacturing plants to the areas where they are most likely to succeed and where they will have the greatest social impact.” Todd Lewis, President of Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) which represents over 16,000 farmers says: ““We support standardization and certification levers which will help businesses increase their innovation capacity and decrease the risk of bringing their innovations to market. We also support this opportunity to attract new innovative bio-marketplaces to rural Saskatchewan. In addition to introducing more sustainable products like biofuels, bio-products, bio- chemicals into the Canadian marketplace, The BDO Zone Initiative can provide increased market diversification opportunities for our farmers and ranchers.” Ralph Goodale (former Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Foods, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of Finance, Minister of Public Works, UK High Commissioner): “Serious investors need to be ready to roll. That’s where the idea of Bioeconomy Development Opportunity Zones can be really helpful, to have that independent, third party, standards-based legitimacy attached to, for example, the City of Melville, who now have a step up on all of its competition around the province…Bioeconomy projects can pay farmers for their waste, get rid of some of the toughest crop residues, and offset job losses in the coal sector.” For more information, please contact aryn@bdozone.org or go to www.bdozone.org.