HomeMy Public PortalAboutC A 2013-01-31Page 1 of 2
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Thursday, January 31, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 8:45 A.M.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1 Council - Thursday, January 24, 2013
3. MATTERS ARISING:
POLICIES:
3.1 SECOND/FINAL NOTICE -Youth Sponsorship Policy P-56 – Memo from Clerk to CAO dated
January 20, 2013 regarding amendments to Youth Sponsorship Policy - changes to the
policy were outlined in the August 2012 newsletter – there were no objections from the
public.
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
4.1 Fire Advisory Committee – January 9, 2013 – Deputy Warden Shatford
4.2 Citizens Landfill Monitoring Committee – December 17, 2012 – Councillor Church-
Cornelius/Councillor Armstrong
4.3 Joint Occupational Health & Safety Committee – December 19, 2012
4.4 Municipal Planning Advisory Committee – January 21, 2013 – Warden Webber
5. CORRESPONDENCE:
5.1 Our Health Centre (appointment at 6:30 p.m.)
a. Briefing Document
b. Business Plan
5.2 Card of thanks from 2012 NS Royal Beef Team regarding grant provided.
5.3 Correspondence dated January 18, 2013 from Service NS and Municipal Relations
regarding Report on Protecting and Preserving Agriculture Land in Nova Scotia.
5.4 Correspondence from Joanne MacDonald forwarded to Councillor Church-Cornelius
Regarding response received from the Village Commission.
6. NEW BUSINESS.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
Page 2 of 2
APPOINTMENTS ARRANGED
6:15 p.m. Carol Nauss, Chester Municipal Heritage Society – update
6:30 p.m. Our Health Centre Representatives (Gretchen McCurdy and others)
Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if required
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Minutes of Meeting of
COUNCIL
Held in Council Chambers at 151 King Street, Street, Chester, NS
On Thursday, January 24, 2013
The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m.
PRESENT
Councillors Warden Allen Webber Councillor Sharon Church-Cornelius
Deputy Warden Floyd Shatford Councillor Robert Myra
Councillor Brad Armstrong Councillor Tina Connors
Councillor Andre Veinotte
Staff Erin Beaudin, CAO Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor
Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Cindy Hannaford, Administrative Secretary
Jennifer Veinotte, Communications Officer
Press Adam Jacobs, Lighthouse Publishing
There were two people present in the public gallery.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
2.1 Council - Thursday, January 10, 2013
2013-028 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong the minutes
of the January 10, 2013 meeting be approved as circulated. CARRIED.
2.2 Council – Thursday, January 17, 2013
2013-029 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong, SECONDED by Councillor Myra the minutes of the
January 17, 2013 meeting be approved as circulated. CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 Memo from Director of Solid Waste to CAO dated January 21, 2013 regarding acceptance of
non-contaminated soils from ITS Construction.
The Director of Solid Waste reviewed the background regarding the soil.
2013-030 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by councillor Myra that Council
approve the acceptance of 750 tonnes of contaminated soil from ITS Construction
(Lunenburg Esso site) at a price of $15.00 per tonne. CARRIED.
5.2 Memo from Director of Solid Waste to CAO dated January 7, 2013 regarding waste
acceptance from Scotia Recycling.
The Director of Solid Waste provided a background regarding the material as outlined in the memo.
2013-031 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by councillor Myra that Council
approve the acceptance of 750 tonnes of contaminated soil from Scotia Recycling) at
a price of $80.00 per tonne. CARRIED.
MATTERS ARISING
Council (Continued) 24
Thursday, January 24, 2013
BY-LAWS:
3.3 Memo to CAO from Director of Solid Waste regarding suggested changes to Waste
Collection By-Law No. 131.
The Director of Solid Waste outlined the following suggested changes in the By-Law:
• Definition of clear bag and black bag
• Curbside inspector
• Time change for waste and special pick-up
There was discussion regarding the following:
• Enforcement of the current time of 8:00 a.m. time would be very difficult as the majority of
residents place waste at curbside the night before
• Education using the newsletter
• Change of time would increase possibility of animals getting into waste and covering waste
• Proper sorting would eliminate animals getting into waste
2013-032 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong the
amendments to the Waste Collection By-Law No. 131 be referred to First Reading
with the change in waste placement hours be considered for a one year trial basis.
CARRIED.
POLICIES:
3.1 SECOND/FINAL NOTICE - Procurement Policy P-04 - Memo from CAO dated December 18,
2012 regarding revised policy - First Notice was held July 26, 2013 – changes to the policy
were outlined in the August 2012 newsletter – there were no objections from the public.
The CAO reviewed the proposed changes to the Procurement Policy P-04 indicating that the
majority of Municipalities are not yet compliant with provincial regulations. The proposed policy
will be stricter than the provincial regulations.
There was some discussion regarding the terms of surveying, engineering, banking,
grinding/chipping, and heavy equipment services.
2013-033 MOVED by Councillor Myra, SECONDED by Councillor Church-Cornelius that the
amendments to Procurement Policy P-04 be approved with the change to the terms
for banking and surveying to three (3) years and that staff provide a report regarding
the potential of a three (3) year term for engineering. CARRIED.
3.2 FIRST NOTICE – Youth Sponsorship Policy P-56 – Memo from Clerk to CAO dated January
20, 2013 regarding amendments to Youth Sponsorship Policy - changes to the policy were
outlined in the August 2012 newsletter – there were no objections from the public.
2013-034 MOVED by Councillor Church-Cornelius, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that
the amendments to the Youth Sponsorship Policy P-56 be forwarded to Second
Notice. CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE (continued)
5.3 Jami Fay, Civic Address Coordinator regarding new road name change
a. Horseshoe Drive West, New Russell
The Civic Address Coordinator reviewed the request for the road name.
Council (Continued) 25
Thursday, January 24, 2013
2013-035 MOVED by Councillor Connors, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong that Council
approve the road name Horseshoe Drive West, New Russell and direct the Civic
Address Coordinator to advise the appropriate departments. CARRIED.
b. Barkie’s Way, Harriston
The Civic Address Coordinator reviewed the request for the road name.
2013-036 MOVED by Councillor Connors, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong that Council
approve the road name Barkie’s Way, Harriston and direct the Civic Address
Coordinator to advise the appropriate departments. CARRIED.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Municipal Planning Advisory Committee – January 21, 2013 –Warden Webber
Warden Webber briefly reviewed the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee held on January 21
at Forest Heights Community School indicating that nine (9) people registered to speak and all
spoke regarding concerns for the location, distance from properties, health concerns especially
those regarding infrasound, and ice from rotating blades.
The recommendation was forwarded from the Committee to Council and Council must determine if
it is in a position to go to Public Hearing or not.
Councillor Connors noted the concerns raised at the meeting should be reviewed by Council before
making the decision to move to public hearing. She was unsure of the next steps but thought that
Council would not be making any decisions because they have not had the opportunity to deliberate
as Council. Why can’t Council wait at least a week before determining if they feel the project can be
referred to Public Hearing? Can the concerns of residents be addressed by someone without an
agenda?
Warden Webber asked how many presenters left their notes and the Clerk indicated four had left
their presentations behind. He indicated that the information will be part of the Public Hearing and
there will be more time for people to provide information.
Deputy Warden Shatford commented that many people thought the Municipal Planning Advisory
Committee meeting was part of the public process but the process starts here and people can
provide information for debate at the Public Hearing.
The Public Hearing is a mechanism to hear from everyone; Council must move the project to public
hearing in order to begin the public portion of the process.
Councillor Connors felt that part of the process was learning all that could be learned and finding
sources for answers. Community engagement and awareness is part of the process.
There was continued discussion regarding the following:
• Time for public hearing
• Approving with conditions
• Setbacks
• When questions can be asked of the developer
• There has been no other project of this size in Nova Scotia to make comparisons
• Five turbines in particular are close to residences
The Director of Community Planning indicated that she reviewed the issues raised at the meeting
noting that some were addressed in reports reviewed and some were not. For example, infrasound
was not addressed.
Council (Continued) 26
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Information was provided in a presentation by the Director of Community Development from a
2012 Wind Turbine Health Impact Study by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, a 2012 study by the Municipality of the County of Kings entitled Health and Safety
Impacts from Large Scale Turbines, and a 2010 report by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health
entitled The Potential Health Impacts of Wind Turbines, as well as information based on the South
Canoe model that outlined information regarding the following issues:
• Shadow flicker
• Ice from turbines
• Sound
• Low frequency sound (infrasound)
• Property values
Some discussion was held regarding the information provided as follows:
• Final turbine layout could potentially change as a result of continued studies and
monitoring. For example, DNR is reviewing location of three turbines because of concerns
for mainland moose migration routes
• Night time shadow flicker – modeled on 24 hour sunlight, 365 days per year which should
sufficiently cover flicker from moonlight
• Environmental assessment indicates turbines have ice control systems in place but this is
being confirmed with Minas Basin (since the Environmental Assessment credits the
Canadian Wind Energy Association with this information).
• Information from the County of Argyle indicates that property values in some areas went
down slightly but then increased over time (Councillor Connors asked if the developer could
put this in writing)
• Measurements for sound versus noise – pressure and frequency
• Additional requirements in the Environmental Assessment can be included in the
Development Agreement as provisions where Council feels it is appropriate Development
Agreement contains provisions regarding sound levels and shadow flicker (consistent with
Environmental Assessment Approval)
• The Development Agreement can be discharged if it does not meet the criteria – two clauses
in the Development Agreement regarding discharge and decommissioning and
consequences of violating criteria and not remedying
• Low frequency – below 100 dB but some sources say it’s below 200 Hz
• Infrasound – below 20 Hz
• Studies regarding infrasound affects on humans
• Information provided before the public hearing
• Setbacks
• Letters read at the meeting will be included in the public hearing package
The Director of Planning provided mapping outlining turbine locations and how a 150 m, 165m,
200m, 225m, and 300m buffer around those locations would compare to third party property lines.
The Environmental Assessment currently requires a 165 m buffer, which is what the developers are
proposing.
Councillor Armstrong indicated that some people said the turbines were too close to property lines.
There was some discussion regarding locations, changing locations, and how that affected the
location of other towers.
Councillor Connors asked if the change from 50 to 34 towers might mean moving the 34 towers
back from the property lines to the best sites. She also asked for a copy of the independent study of
Minas Basin regarding the best placement of the highest wind points.
There was some discussion regarding the study and it was asked if the information might be
proprietary or part of their business case plan.
Council (Continued) 27
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Councillor Connors asked if the turbines could be moved if they have better locations for wind
towers. It was noted that Minas Basin had meteorological towers in place and the data analyzed.
That information is theirs.
Councillor Veinotte indicated that the question for Council is whether the turbines are permitted or
not. Does it meet the Land Use By-Law?
The Director of Community Development indicated that the project does meet the criteria through
the Development Agreement process and does it meet the intent of policies 8.0.4 and 8.0.5.
Warden Webber noted that the decision has to be made based on whether the projects meets or
does not meet the requirements. Currently windmills are permissible by Development Agreements.
Setbacks from residences were discussed. Currently it is 1.2 km.
The Director of Community Development indicated that if the setbacks were to be increased to
2km, it may mean there would need to be either an amendment to the Environmental Assessment
or an entirely new Environmental Assessment.
Councillor Connors indicated that people at the meeting encouraged Council to “err on the side of
caution.” The health and welfare of citizens is the top priority. She was concerned about the
unknowns.
Councillor Church-Cornelius commented that from the information available the setback of 1.2 is
reasonable.
Warden Webber indicated that if additional data is provided that the information will be
considered.
Councillor Armstrong indicated that he was concerned about infrasound; however, the information
provided today has lessened his concerns. He felt that Council needed to move to the part of the
process.
There was some discussion regarding the date and location of the public hearing, the
advertisements that would be placed, and the residents who would be notified (properties within 2
km of the proposed project). It was agreed to hold the public hearing at Forest Heights Community
School and the Director of Community Development indicated that she would confirm the
availability before the end of the Council meeting.
Councillor Connors asked if the potential revenue to the Municipality was public information and it
was noted that the estimated revenue would be $600,000 to $800,000 per year.
A short break was held.
CORRESPONDENCE (continued)
5.4 Letter from Office of Ombudsman dated December 11, 2012 regarding completion of
review.
The CAO indicated that the review by the Ombudsman was carried out following a complaint. The
report regarding the planning process and minutes was provided by the Office of the Ombudsman
but was deemed confidential; however, she has obtained permission to provide the information in a
public session.
She indicated that the report indicates that the Municipality must better define what a structure,
wharf, and deck are; the Municipality is compliant with the procurement of legal services; minutes
will capture the rationale for In Camera sessions, and there was no error on the issuing of permits.
Council (Continued) 28
Thursday, January 24, 2013
COMMITTEE REPORTS (continued)
4.1 The Director of Community Development returned and indicated that Forest Heights
Community School was available the night of February 21 to hold the Public Hearing.
2013-037 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong, SECONDED by Councillor Church-Cornelius that
Council accept the recommendation of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee as
follows and hold a Public Hearing on February 21, 2013 at Forest Heights Community
School at 7:00 p.m. and a Public Information Session held on February 11, 2013:
2013-026 - MOVED by Carol Nauss, SECONDED by Roy Conrad that Option 1, as
outlined in the Report dated January 17, 2013 South Canoe Lake Wind Energy Project,
be forward to Council for consideration to approve the Draft Development
Agreements as presented, subject to the determination of setback distance and
changes considered appropriate taking into consideration comments made by the
public tonight, and subject to all necessary leases being in place.
A recorded vote was requested:
In Favour – Councillor Veinotte, Councillor Myra, Councillor Church-Cornelius, Deputy
Warden Shatford, Warden Webber, Councillor Armstrong.
Opposed – Councillor Connors
CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE (continued)
5.5 Memo from Director of Public Works to CAO regarding cost shared paving of J-Class
Subdivision Streets and copy of letter from NS Department of Transportation &
Infrastructure Renewal regarding cost shared paving of J-Class Subdivision Streets
(2013/14).
The CAO reviewed the report from the Director of Public Works and it was suggested the
information be provided at an upcoming meeting for discussion regarding a policy.
Councillor Connors left the meeting.
5.6 Sponsorship Request from “Curl for a Cause” being held February 22-24 in Lunenburg –
proceeds for the purchase of a specialized tub for the Alternate Level of Care Unit.
2013-038 MOVED by Councillor Church-Cornelius, SECONDED by Councillor Myra that Council
approve $50.00 for the sponsorship for “Curl for a Cause” being held February 22-24
in Lunenburg – proceeds for the purchase of a specialized tub for the Alternate Level
of Care Unit. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Council Meeting – February 14, 2013
Warden Webber indicated that some members of Council will be away on vacation and some others
will be at a conference on February 14.
2013-039 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council
cancel the February 14, 2013 Council meeting as several members of Council will be
at a conference or on vacation. CARREID.
6.2 Sustainable Communities Conference
Council (Continued) 29
Thursday, January 24, 2013
There was a brief discussion on who would attend.
2013-040 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong that the
Warden and one other member of Council attend the Sustainable Communities
Conferences. CARRIED.
2013-041 MOVED by Councillor Veinotte, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong that Councillor
Myra attend the 2013 Sustainable Communities Conference in Ontario with the
Warden. CARRIED.
6.3 Parking in the Village – Councillor Armstrong
Councillor Armstrong indicated that people are continuing to park in no-parking zones which does
not allow room for emergency vehicles to pass. This would be provided to the RCMP Advisory
Board Committee meeting being held next week.
6.4 Community Sign – Marriotts Cove – Councillor Church-Cornelius
2013-042 MOVED by Councillor Church-Cornelius, SECONDED by Councillor Myra that a letter
be forwarded to the Department of Transportation & Infrastructure Renewal
requesting that the community sign of Marriotts Cove be replaced as well as the
Marriotts Cove Road sign which is missing as well. CARRIED.
2013-043 MOVED by Councillor Myra, SECONDED by Councillor Church-Cornelius the meeting
convene “In Camera” to discuss contract negotiations regarding the fire services
agreement with the Village Commission. CARRIED.
2013-044 MOVED by Councillor Church-Cornelius, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong the
meeting adjourn. CARRIED. (12:28 p.m.)
_______________________________ _________________________________
Allen Webber Pamela Myra
Warden Municipal Clerk
Information regarding South Canoe:
1. Planning Advisory Committee Minutes of January 21, 2013
2. Report from Director of Community Development dated January 17, 2013
3. Development Agreement – Minas Basin
4. Development Agreement – NS Power
5. Development Agreement – Oxford Frozen Foods
6. Info from Pamela/Nance Ackerman received at January 21 Meeting
7. Briefing note from George Broome received at January 21 Meeting
8. Information from Emery Peters received at January 21 Meeting
9. Information received from Steven Porter at January 21 Meeting
10. Email from CAO to Pamela Ackerman dated December 3, 2012
11. Letter from Daniel Flinn to Councillor Connors along with Noise & Health article
12. Email from Karen Flinn dated January 21
13. Email from Emery Peters dated December 4, 2012
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Minutes of Meeting of
MUNICIPAL PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Held at Forest Heights Community School, Chester Grant, NS
On Monday, January 21, 2013
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Members Mary Ellen Clancey, Chair Warden Allen Webber
Councillor Sharon Church-Cornelius Deputy Warden Floyd Shatford
Leslie Taylor Carol Nauss
Larry Ryan Roy Conrad
Dawn Elliott
Staff Tara Maguire, Director of Community Development
Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor
Bill DeGrace, Senior Planner
Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk
Regrets Herb Fraser
There were approximately 50 people present in the public gallery.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
2.1 December 11, 2012
Larry Ryan noted that the minutes indicate the Solicitor was absent, however, he arrived late and
this should be reflected in the minutes.
2013-025 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Carol Nauss that the minutes of
the December 11, 2012 meeting of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee be
approved as circulate with a correction noting that the Solicitor was in attendance.
CARRIED.
SOUTH CANOE WIND ENERGY PROJECT
The Chair, Mary Ellen Clancey, introduced members of the Committee and staff seated at the table
and outlined the composition of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee; how it was formed
and why.
The Chair commented that there were packages of information available; however, there were
some submissions that were not included in the package copied for this evening. A complete
package was available at the front of the room.
The Chair indicated that the Committee’s role this evening was consideration of the proposed
project and whether it meets the requirements of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-
Law. The Committee will not approve or reject the project; that is Council’s decision. The
Committee may ask for more information, recommend to Council to proceed with a public hearing,
or not proceed to public hearing. Usually this Committee does not receive presentations but
because of interest it has been agreed that the Committee will entertain public presentation;
presentations are normally made to council during the public hearing process.
The Chair indicated that the Committee will receive the report from staff this evening; the Director
of Community Development will outline the proposal; the Committee may ask speak and questions;
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (Continued) 17
Monday, January 21, 2013
the developer will speak on the project; the Committee may ask questions of the developer; the
public may speak by invitation; and the Committee will hear and consider the information and
deliberate on whether to recommend that Council consider the project. At that time Council will
consider the recommendation and deliberate whether they will proceed to public hearing or not
proceed or whether more information might be required. There will be a public information
process and notification of the meeting dates/times.
The Chair asked that all comments be addressed to the Committee through the Chairperson and
that speakers state their names and addresses.
The Director of Community Development reviewed the report dated January 17, 2013 – South
Canoe Lake Wind Energy Project commenting on the following:
• Project description – 3044 hectares located in New Russell
• Location (shown on map)
• History
• Environmental assessment
• Property ownership
• Site conditions
• Surrounding land uses
• Turbine description
• Whether the proposed development reasonably carries out the intent of the Municipal
Planning Strategy (MPS) and Land Use By-Law (LUB)
The role of the Municipal Planning Advisory Committee is to make a recommendation to Council,
but the final decision rests with Council. (Full details of the information reviewed is included in the
January 17, 2013 Report)
The Director of Community Development indicated that staff feels the project is reasonably
consistent with relevant policies and requirements of the MPS and LUB and recommends that the
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council to approve the draft Development
Agreements as presented, subject to the determination of setback distance and changes considered
appropriate, as well as all necessary leases being in place.
The Chair asked if there were any questions/comments from the Committee. There were none. She
then invited the developer to speak.
Present on behalf of the Developers were John Woods Vice President, Energy Development, Minas
Basin Pulp and Power; Sean Brennan Project Manager for Nova Scotia Power; Mary-Frances Lynch
Energy Project Coordinator of Minas Energy (a Division of Minas Basin Pulp and Power Co. Ltd.;
Rick Cecchetto of Bragg Group of Companies (parent company to Oxford Frozen Foods Ltd.; and
Bruce MacDonald, Woodland Supervisor for Minas Basin Pulp and Power.
Mr. Woods provided copies of the presentation to the Committee and commented on the following:
• The background with regard to the project and the three companies involved – Oxford
Frozen Foods, Minas Basin Pulp and Power, and Nova Scotia Power.
• The partnership and the two projects for 78 and 24 MW (total of 102 MW) to be developed
on the project site. The estimated production of the projects is 315,000 MW/year which
will provide enough electricity for 32,000 homes.
• The project site history – installation of towers in 2002 and 2010.
Mr. Brennan commented on the following:
• The number of turbines proposed – 34
• The location between Highway 14 an the New Russell Road
• The size of the site which is approximately 3,000 hectares of land
• The negotiations with Acciona Windpower North America for the turbines commenting on
the design and size as well as the number of turbines worldwide.
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (Continued) 18
Monday, January 21, 2013
• The high fleet availability of 98.2% (2011 North America)
• The reputation of the company which is both a supplier and operator
• The 15 year operating and maintenance agreement
• Acciona will provide the site manager and the technicians will be from Nova Scotia – he
commented that the site manager is originally from Nova Scotia
• The layout design criteria including criteria and setback distances
• How the energy assessment was carried out using design criteria, terrain, wind, and
technology to determine outputs
• The location of the turbines in relation to concerns from Nova Scotia Environment and
Department of Natural Resources (to determine if there is a natural corridor for wildlife,
how it is used, and how to mitigate)
• Project Milestones and what those milestones entailed
• System impact study will be carried out to determine where the project will tie into the grid
• He and Mary Frances Lynch are the contact people for the project if anyone wished to have
more questions answered
Ms. Lynch reviewed the following information:
• Visual assessment – several photos were shown that included turbines where their
approximate location would be on the horizon from various locations
• Sound modeling inputs – receptor locations, topography, turbine locations, turbine size,
turbine height, sound power data (max levels used from manufacturer)
• Sound monitoring – there was equipment placed at several locations for a week and they
will be placed again after the turbines are in place
• Mapping showing the output of sound noting that all residences fall below the 40 dBA levels
(included was a table showing examples of sound modeling)
• Shadow flicker study (occurs when rotating wind turbine blades cast shadows upon
stationary objects) – this only occurs during very specific conditions which were briefly
outlined and shown on a map
• Lighting plan – they are working with Transport Canada to determine location, colour, and
type during construction and operation – likely red as it is less intrusive than white light.
They will also use dark sky compliance lighting.
Mr. Brennan commented on the Transportation Plan, noting the following:
• They will be using the New Ross Road and will work with NS Department of Transportation
& Infrastructure Renewal (DOTIR), the Municipality, and Acciona on a plan
• Someone had suggested that they should not transport the turbines while buses are running
• There will be approximately 10 trucks per day in order to deliver three turbines per week
• They will sign an agreement with DOTIR and the Municipality regarding use of the roads –
the roads will be in the same condition as they were before the project began.
The Chairperson asked if there were any questions or comments from the Committee.
Larry Ryan indicated that he has had questions from the public regarding the amount of cutting to
take place and what the age of the forest was on the property.
Bruce MacDonald, Woodland Supervisor for Minas Basin Pulp and Power, indicated that a large
amount of trees had been cut in the last 10-15 years although some areas still have large trees.
They will try to use existing road networks already in place to work with the construction layout.
The trees that are cut will be sold on the wood market.
Carol Nauss asked how much leeway there was to relocate a turbine if Council decides to change
the setback to 1,500 or 2,000 metres.
Mr. Brennan commented that the locations of the 34 turbines have been set and noted that 1,200
metres is the largest setback in the Province. They had considered the concerns of the public and
the Municipality in the layout.
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (Continued) 19
Monday, January 21, 2013
The Chairperson asked the Developers if they would be prepared to stay late after the meeting to
answer any specific questions and they indicated that they would do so. She indicated that there
are nine people who have registered to speak and asked that speakers keep their comments to five
minutes if at all possible. The Committee agreed to the speakers who requested a time to address
the Committee.
Susan Deal of 2803 New Russell Road made the following comments:
• Her residence is in front of the proposed site
• This mega-project will be an industrial site
• Had she been aware that such a project would move ahead she would not have considered
moving there
• The developers have kept quiet about the project
• The community is unique and the residents are hard working – some of those people won’t
be heard from (may be intimidated by the process)
• Many residents knew nothing of the project
• Is the developer prepared to provide binding agreements with residents to have properties
appraised pre-project and purchase at full market value?
• Is the developer prepared to provide medical assessments for residents within a certain
range of the project?
• One question raised at the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) was if there was a plan if
there are negative health issues associated with the project
• Will there be financial compensation in order for residents affected to gain quality of life?
• The 1.2 km setback should be from the property boundary line and not the residence – this
will limit some owners who then have properties only 500 m from a turbine in terms of
future development
• There needs to be more criteria – there is no foundation for a project of this magnitude
• She can see the tax revenue for a project such as South Canoe
• Is this much power actually needed? In five years there have been many changes and she is
not convinced there is a market for this power
• Why would the Municipality agree to the destruction of woodland if the necessity is not
there?
Daniel Flinn a cottage owner on Long Lake made the following comments:
• Concerned regarding potential health issues – after looking at information from the
scientific community
• Infrasound is a big concern – it can’t be heard but is “felt” – it is a big concern when people
are sleeping when it seems to bother them most
• He previously sent information to the Committee
• Infrasound was not discussed this evening or at the CLC meeting
• Feels the information is not balanced – only one-sided
• The Committee can’t pretend infrasound doesn’t exist – the information comes from
credible sources
Steven Porter of 2803 New Russell Road made the following comments:
• He has become well read on the subject and there is lots of information from both sides –
some he supports and some he does not
• Some people are affected by health concerns but has heard the developer state there are no
proven medical effects on people living near the wind power sites
• The project is 1.2 km to the nearest residents; however, setbacks should be at a greater
distance – once they are up it is too late to change if there is a concern
• He suggested a 4-5 km setback
• He asked the Committee to consider the horizon and asked about wind turbines on the
Chester harbour view plane
• People from the outside areas are not affected but those near the area will be affected 24
hours a day/365 days a year.
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (Continued) 20
Monday, January 21, 2013
Mr. Porter left a copy of his notes.
The Chairperson asked if speakers could leave or forward their notes to staff to retain in the file.
David McCall of New Russell Road commented on the following:
• Lives 1.4 km from the site
• Trying to start a small farm
• He understands the reason for a wind farm
• He is concerned about the setback of 1,200 m which was suggested by the proponent
• Was there any other model used to consider setbacks?
• Was there any other research on infrasound that might suggest a greater setback?
• Kinds County decided to put wind towers on hold because they did not have all the answers
• There are no established setbacks or policies – do current by-laws inform the committee
enough to make a decision (sections 8.0.4 and 8.0.5 – criteria of Development Agreement –
permitted use as per the by-law)
• He would like a second opinion
• He asked the Committee to consider 34 turbines at 50 stories in height
• He asked that the Committee think of the scale of the project and if the policies in place are
enough to make informed decisions before passing on to Council
George Broome of 1136 New Russell Road made the following comments:
• He was previously the Command General Safety Officer for Maritime Command in the
Department of Defense
• He considers three phrases – “What if?”, “Eliminate the hazard” and “Err on the side of
safety.”
• He has two major concerns – the proposed setback and adverse health effects on humans
and wildlife in the area
• He echoed the comments of the previous speakers and recommended a minimum setback of
2 to 3 km
• Health Canada is planning a study in 2014 to better understand the effects of such sites
• This will be an important decision of Council – generations will have to live with the
decision.
Mr. Broome left a copy of his notes.
Emery Peters of Long Lake, New Russell, made the following comments:
• He hoped that the Planning Advisory Committee understands the feelings of residents
• Three years ago he built a cottage for his retirement
• In late August 2012 he learned of the proposed facility – no one made an effort to contact
him or the other residents
• He wished to make three points:
1) Communication – there is no rational argument that can justify why communication
did not happen – an environmental review process was conducted, prepared, and
submitted – and approved – with little public input from the area
2) Impacts – there is a lot of information available – both positive and negative – the
financial viability of a large scale windmill project seems questionable and the need
for more information regarding medical impacts particularly infrasound
3) Municipal Planning Strategy – the proposal is outside any development envisioned
during the preparation and approval of the MPS. He suggested that the Committee
send the project back to staff and provide them with the tools and mechanisms to
properly evaluate the proposal and take into account the interests of the community
• He suggested the following actions:
1) Not permit the proposal to proceed or initiate a buffer of 4-5 kms from homes or
cottages (at least until the Health Canada Study is complete)
2) Undertake efforts with the Department of Environment to have the CLC revamped
to become a Committee that can receive input.
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (Continued) 21
Monday, January 21, 2013
Mr. Peters left a copy of his notes.
Peter Coolen of 2804 New Russell Road made the following comments:
• He is the most impacted as he is closest to the turbines
• He found out about the project at a community store in Vaughan
• He is building a retirement home
• He attended the meeting in Vaughan
• He is in favour of renewable energy
• He commented on the size of the turbine noting that he watched a television program about
this company and these turbines which were designed and built for offshore use in Europe
• Great Britain has placed a moratorium on large scale turbines
• With the project going ahead his property value will decrease
• He hasn’t yet finished his house – now there will be turbines close by
• Infrasound is a concern
• He indicated that he does not want to hear or be affected by the project
• Ice flying off turbines is a concern
• He has windows on the east, west, and south sides of his house and there will be turbines on
the east, west, and south sides of his house
• He does not want to see, hear, or feel the proposed project
• He commented on an article he read regarding electrical energy – how the turbines will
affect the ground static electricity
• He referred to the Digby and Earltown projects and commented that people can hear the
turbines from 1.2 km away
• Where his house is located he can hear his neighbour 1-2 km away start his tractor
• Turbines are not designed to be near people
• He would like to see a larger setback – but doesn’t want the project “killed” as a lot work
will come out of the project
• He is concerned that infrasound can be felt although it can’t be heard
Pamela Ackerman who owns a cottage on Lewis Lake made the following comments:
• She is concerned that during the presentation infrasound was not mentioned although that
is the health issue of turbines
• Her daughter, Nancie Ackerman, studied wind farms and she read her daughter’s
submission which was also provided to staff which outlined in detail the health effects she
felt while near a wind farm in Gulliver’s Cove
• South Canoe will drastically affect residents living nearby.
• If those effects are felt who is responsible and what recourse is there if homes become
unlivable?
Ms. Ackerman left a copy of her daughter’s submission.
Larry Keddy of Glengarry Road made the following comments:
• He has more questions than answers
• When this goes to Council will the Committee’s role be finished? The Chairperson answered
yes
• Will Council provide an opportunity to speak? The Chairperson answered yes
• He is in favour of turbines but someone has to take responsibility for the affects it will have
• Wind affects many things
• He commented on the mechanics of the turbines noting that if bearings wear the sound of
the motor increases
• He understood infrasound as he worked on oil rigs – it is there. They were required to wear
earplugs/earmuffs even though they couldn’t hear anything
• He hopes that he questions and concerns were passed on to Council and hoped there was an
opportunity for people to have their say
Municipal Planning Advisory Committee (Continued) 22
Monday, January 21, 2013
The Chairperson indicated that was the end of list of registered speakers and thanked everyone for
being respectful, understanding that the issue could be very emotional. People raised points that
were not covered. She indicated that nothing has been lost in the meetings; however, the role of the
Planning Advisory Committee is limited. Some Council members were in attendance and have
taken note, particularly of the concern regarding poor, or lack of, communication.
Roy Conrad asked if Council could reconsider the setbacks in the option and how many towers were
on the border of 1.2 km.
Mr. Brennan showed on a map that turbines 1, 2, 6, 23, and 24 were closest to the 1.2 km range.
Roy Conrad asked if it were possible to move any of the turbines.
Mr. Brennan noted that the turbines, as two proposals (78 and 24 MW) were located to be the most
successful.
2013-026 MOVED by Carol Nauss, SECONDED by Roy Conrad that Option 1, as outlined in
the Report dated January 17, 2013 South Canoe Lake Wind Energy Project, be
forward to Council for consideration to approve the Development Agreements
as presented, subject to the determination of setback distance and changes
considered appropriate taking into consideration comments made by the
public tonight, and subject to all necessary leases being in place.
DISCUSSION
The Chairperson indicated that infrasound was one example of information to be
considered.
MOTION CARRIED.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The date of the next meeting will be February 25, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
2013-0027 MOVED by Councillor Church-Cornelius the meeting adjourn. CARRIED. (8:10 p.m.)
______________________________________ _____________________________________
Mary Ellen Clancey Pamela Myra
Chairperson Municipal Clerk
Page 1 of 19
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
R E P O R T
DATE: January 17, 2013
TO: Municipal Planning Advisory Committee
FROM: Tara Maguire, Director of Community Development
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: South Canoe Lake Wind Energy Project
BACKGROUND
By letter dated October 15, 2012, Minas Basin Pulp and Power Co. Ltd., Nova Scotia Power Inc. and
Oxford Frozen Foods Ltd. requested that Council consider entering into a Development Agreement
to allow the development of a 102 MW wind energy facility. The project is broken into 2 smaller
projects, a 78 MW project which is being led by Oxford Frozen Foods and a second 24 MW project
led by Minas Basin Pulp and Power.
This report compares the development proposal against the policies of the Municipal Planning
Strategy and the Land Use By-law.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project area is located in New Russell, located just off the New Russell Road (a.k.a. Windsor
Road) to the East of New Ross (Figure 1). The project is on multiple properties with an overall
project size of approximately 3,044 ha. Property ownership and the parcels included in the project
will be discussed later in this report.
Three operating partners are involved in the project. Minas Basin Pulp and Power Co. Ltd. is an
independent power producer with a portfolio of power projects that use a variety of technologies
including wind and tidal energy. Nova Scotia Power Incorporated has been the main provider of
electricity for Nova Scotians for over 80 years and provides more than 95% of the electrical
generation, transmission and distribution in the Province. Oxford Frozen Foods is part of the Bragg
Group of Companies.
Project History
This project started in 2004 when a meteorological tower was installed at the South Canoe site to
collect data about the wind potential of the site. In 2006 a team of partners was formed that
responded to two separate RFPs for a wind project, however, they were not successful. In 2011, a
Page 2 of 19
new partnership arrangement was formed between the current project operators. In early 2012
the Renewable Electricity Administrator released a request for proposals (RFP) as part of a
competitive bidding process for renewable energy projects. In February 2012 the partners held two
public open houses, one in Chester, and one in Upper Vaughan. In June 2012, their response to the
RFP was submitted and this time they were the successful applicant. They received approval for
two projects, one headed by Minas Basin and one headed by Oxford Frozen Foods. Nova Scotia
Power is a minority partner in both projects. A power purchase agreement was signed in August.
Environmental Assessment
In May 2012, prior to submitting the response to the RFP, the partners submitted registration
documents for an Environmental Assessment (EA) as required under the Nova Scotia
Environmental Assessment Regulations. When the EA was submitted the exact number of turbines
had not been determined because a decision had not been made regarding the turbine manufacture,
the final layout of the turbines, and the size of the turbines. The selection of turbine supplier was
not possible until the contract for project had been awarded and the power purchase agreement
was negotiated.
As well, the EA was submitted based on a project that could range from 34-50 wind turbines with a
generating capacity of approximately 100 MW. The Environmental Assessment was based upon the
conceptual design, environmental baseline information, impact predictions, and mitigation
presented in the Registration Document using the 50 turbine scenario. This allows the models and
studies to provide a “worst case scenario” regarding potential impacts.
On July 13, 2012 the Minister of Environment approved the project subject to conditions. The
conditions included a number of additional studies, monitoring programs, plans and approvals.
Some of the conditions cannot be met until a final turbine layout is determined; however, the final
turbine layout is contingent on other studies or approvals.
Property Ownership
In the Environmental Assessment, 9 properties were identified as being involved in the project.
Two different property owners, Timberland Holdings (a subsidiary of Minas Basin Pulp and Power)
and Atlantic Star Forestry (Wagner Forest), own the 9 parcels of land. When the application for a
development agreement was submitted to Council in October, the project encompassed the 9 PIDs.
However, as mentioned above, studies continue to be undertaken on the project. Recently, a
concern has been raised by the Department of Natural Resources with regard to the impact of the
development on mainland moose which may revise the turbine locations.
In order to move the turbines and to maximize the wind regime, the partners have determined that
it may be necessary to amend the project boundary to include 5 additional properties. The
additional properties are owned by 2 different private property owners and the Crown. If the 5
properties are to be included in the project, the developers would be required to undergo an
amendment of the Environmental Assessment. However, in order to accommodate this potential
change, the development agreement has been structured to include the properties. Structuring the
development agreement in this manner enables PAC and Council to consider all of the potential
Page 3 of 19
lands up front, rather than having an amendment to increase the area covered by the Development
Agreement.
Figure 2 shows the site boundaries and ownership information. All three operators have entered
long term leases with the 2 original property owners (Timberland and Atlantic Star Forestry) to
develop and operate a wind energy project. Since it has only recently become apparent that 5
additional properties may need to be included as part of the project, the operators have initiated
discussions with the 3 property owners. Before Council could give approval to enter into a
development agreement, the operators would need written permission from the property owners,
who would be required to be a party to the agreement, and be subject to the same terms and
conditions as Atlantic Star Forestry and Timberland Holdings.
Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
Currently, the site is vacant consisting of mixed forest with some of it logged. Neighbouring land
uses are primarily forestry and Christmas tree farming, and both cottages and permanent
residences. Currently, some of the project area and surrounding land is not currently being
harvested due to the lumber market conditions.
Turbine Description
The 102 MW project will include 34 turbines, each rated at a 3MW capacity, with a 92 m (301 ft.)
tall tower, 57m (187 ft.) blades (149 m total height) and 116 m (380 ft.) rotor diameter. The
project is expected to produce enough power to serve approximately 32,000 homes. The turbines
will be manufactured by Acciona, a Spanish holding company that has been operating for over 150
years.
The turbine tower diameter at the base is approx 4.5m and the tower diameter narrows as it goes
upwards. The concrete foundation surrounding the steel tower base, as seen at the ground surface,
is approx 6.5m in diameter. The underground foundation (called a “spreadfooting” base) is about
20m in diameter, and about 2.2m deep. In order to accommodate laydown of turbine components
during the construction phase, there will be an area of approximately 50 m x 50 m cleared around
each turbine.
MUNCIPAL LAND USE BY-LAW AND MUNCIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS
In considering an application for a development agreement, Council must determine whether the
proposed development agreement reasonably carries out the intent of the Municipal Planning
Strategy and does not conflict with the Land Use By-law. The role of PAC is to make a
recommendation to Council, but the final decision rests with Council.
Land Use By-law
As shown on Figure 3, the project is located in the General Basic Zone. The regulations for the
General Basic Zone are under Section 6B.1 of the Land Use By-law. The General Basic Zone permits
a wide range of uses without requiring a development permit. Most residential developments do
not require development permits, and are not subject to regulations such as setbacks, or lot
frontage requirements. The only uses that are subject to regulations and require development
Page 4 of 19
permits are those that are listed under 6B.1. The proposed use is included in Section 6B.1.1 (b)
“Developments permitted only by Development Agreement”. 6B.1.1 (b)(i) permits all commercial
and industrial developments listed in Schedule “C” by Development Agreement, according to the
provisions of Municipal Planning Strategy. Schedule “C” is the list of those items that require an
environmental assessment and are permitted subject to development agreement. Included in
Schedule “C” are electric generating facilities with a production rating of 10 megawatts or more
which are not owned by the Municipality of Chester (Item (xix) of Schedule “C”.
The proposed project has a total production rating of 102 megawatts which means that the project
would only be permitted by Development Agreement.
If Council was to enter into a Development Agreement for the proposed project there is a statutory
appeal period. Assuming that there is no appeal, the Development Officer could issue a
Development Permit, the Building Inspector could issue any required Building Permits (subject to
any Building Code requirements) and the project could begin full operation.
Municipal planning strategy
Policy 6.1.1 establishes Council’s intention to refrain from detailed land use controls though the
Land Use By-law in any part of the District unless it is specifically requested by the residents of the
that part of the District. However, through Policy 6.1.2 Council’s expresses their intention to
regulate land uses where they deem such controls are in the “best interests of the community and
the Municipality.” Prior to 2003, Council did not regulate land use throughout most of the
Municipality. In 2003 they responded to mounting pressure throughout the Municipality to have a
basic level of land use control by establishing the General Basic Zone.
Policies related to the General Basic Zone are contained in Section 7.8 of the Municipal Planning
Strategy. The preamble to the General Basic Zone states, “Most areas in the District of Chester have
not asked Council to review the land use patterns in their area ad provided specific detailed
zoning.” Through the establishment of the “General Basic Zone” Council intends to provide a basic
level of regulation with regard to potentially disruptive industrial developments that are subject to
a Provincial Environmental Assessment. Policy 7.8.1 establishes that Council’s intention is to
regulate certain ‘disruptive land uses’ including those subject to regulation under the Environment
Act. Policy 7.8.2 establishes Council’s intention to allow uses which require an environmental
assessment under the “Environmental Assessment Regulations” to be permitted only subject to a
development agreement subject to Policies 8.0.4 and 8.0.5.
This project is regulated under the “Environmental Assessment Regulations”, therefore the
considering this project under a development agreement is consistent with the Council’s policies
for the General Basic Zone.
Council must be satisfied that the proposed project is consistent with their criteria for Development
Agreements. Policy 8.0.4 outlines the criteria that Council must consider for all development
agreements. Policy 8.0.5 outlines the criteria that Council must consider for all commercial,
industrial or institutional development agreements. Both Policies are relevant in reviewing this
Page 5 of 19
proposal. The following two tables compare the development to each of the criteria in Policy 8.0.4
and 8.0.5.
MPS CRITERIA - POLICY 8.0.4 PROPOSAL
a) the proposal conforms to the intent of
the Municipal Planning Strategy.
The proposal conforms generally to the intent expressed in
Policy 7.8.2, which concerns land uses requiring an
environmental assessment under the “Environmental
Assessment Regulations” and permitted only by Development
Agreement.
b) the proposal conforms to the applicable
requirements of all Municipal By-laws,
except where the application is for a
development agreement when the Land
Use By-law requirements need not be
satisfied.
Staff has not identified any conflict with Municipal by-laws.
c) the proposal is not premature or
inappropriate due to:
i) financial ability of the Municipality
to absorb costs related to the
development;
ii) adequacy of Municipal services;
iii) the adequacy of physical site
conditions for on-site services;
iv) creation or worsening of a
pollution problem including soil
erosion and siltation;
There are no anticipated costs to Municipality.
The Director of Public Works has confirmed that there are
currently no municipal services provided at the site, and no
new services are anticipated. The proposed development does
not require a connection to municipal services.
Any on-site septic system will be required to obtain approval
of Nova Scotia Department of Environment. (NSE). It is not
anticipated that site conditions will be a constraint as the only
anticipated on-site services are those that will service a small
maintenance building. The maintenance building will require
a drinking water well and on-site sewage disposal which will
require the developer to obtain any necessary Provincial
approvals.
The Development Agreements contains a clause that requires
the developers to obtain and comply with any necessary
Federal, Provincial or Municipal permits or approvals.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) approval requires the
applicants to prepare an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)
which must be submitted to NSE for review and approval. The
Page 6 of 19
v) adequacy of storm drainage and
effects of alteration to drainage
patterns including potential for
creation of a flooding problem;
vi) adequacy and proximity of school,
recreation, emergency services,
and other community facilities;
vii) adequacy of street networks and
site access regarding congestion,
traffic hazards and emergency
access;
EPP must address details of the erosion & sedimentation
control plans and a monitoring program for surface waters.
Once the EPP is finalized and accepted by NSE the applicant
must adhere to the EPP and construction may not commence
until the EPP receives final approval from NSE.
Among other requirements, the EA approval also requires:
a pre-blast survey for water wells within 800 m of blast
point;
visual assessments, both quarterly and after severe storm
events, of the site to ensure the effectiveness of erosion
and sedimentation controls, unless otherwise approved by
NSE. Results must be submitted to NSE as part of the EPP;
Approval from NSE for construction of water course
crossings and/or wetland alterations.
The project operation and maintenance is not expected to
affect drainage patterns or create a flooding problem. The
developer’s submission indicates that there are no changes
that are anticipated to pose an issue with drainage patterns or
flooding, however, clause 2.4 of the Development Agreement
addresses drainage. It states: “The DEVELOPER shall ensure
storm and drainage patterns are adequate for the subject
facility so as to avoid flooding”.
The adequacy of school facilities, recreation and community
facilities are not relevant to this application. Fire Protection
and Emergency Services will be provided by the New Ross
Volunteer Fire Department. High-angle rescue services are
provided by fire departments in HRM and Kentville. Hospitals
are located in Bridgewater and Windsor.
All of the roads leading to the development are
owned and maintained by NS Dept. of Transportation and
Infrastructure Renewal (TIR). TIR will require permits for
transportation of oversize components and also require that
all weight restrictions are followed. TIR has indicated that all
components adhere to the oversize and overweight
allowances.
Components will be transported from Port of Halifax and
Trenton, NS. A transportation plan is being prepared and will
be reviewed with TIR regarding transportation of components
from both locations and will address traffic management and
Page 7 of 19
ix) adequacy of on-site water supply
for domestic consumption and for
fire-fighting purposes;
x) inadequate separation from
watercourses or inadequate
separation from the ocean
shoreline;
control, modifications necessary for signage removal, and
guardrails.
Access to New Russell Road already exists, and the developer
intends to use existing access points and internal access roads
where possible. The use of existing access to New Russell
Road this is dependent on the final turbine layout. Any new
entrances will require review and approval of TIR.
New Ross Fire Department has provided comments regarding
their ability to provide fire protection and emergency
services. They have suggested that the developers provide a
dry hydrant on the east and west sides of South Canoe Lake,
provide turning areas at the end of dead end roads and a
minimum road width of 5 meters (16 ft.) plus shoulders. Some
of the recommendations are addressed in the EA and the EPP.
The developers are working with their team on
implementation of the recommendations.
The developer proposes to use existing roads as the starting
point in order to minimize land disturbance. The EA
registration document indicates that the roads will be a
standard width of 5 m, not including shoulders. There are
some areas where the width may exceed 5m to accommodate
traffic and construction needs (i.e. laydown areas). Each
turbine typically needs approximately 650 m of internal
access road.
The facility will require a drinking water well for the
maintenance building. Two dry hydrants are required for fire-
fighting purposes, one on the East side of South Canoe Lake
and one on the West side of South Canoe Lake. Policy 2.4.5 of
the MPS outlines that Council’s intention is to require
developers to demonstrate the local supply of water is
adequate for potable water supply and firefighting water
supply where the consumption is expected to be greater than
20,000 litres per day. This far exceeds the expected
consumption for a Wind Energy Project.
The project is not in proximity to the ocean shoreline.
The Environmental Assessment contains the following
restrictions:
The approval holder must not construct a turbine
within 30 m from a watercourse or a wetland
(measured from the tip of the blade, unless otherwise
Page 8 of 19
xi) proximity to areas of high
archeological potential as
identified on provincial
government mapping
approved by NSE.
The approval holder must obtain an approval from
NSE for the construction of watercourse crossings
and/or wetland alterations, as specified in the
Activities Designation Regulations.
The Environmental Assessment registration document
identified the potential for resources in connection with
historical aboriginal peoples in this area, mostly along
shorelines. European settlement did not occur in any
substantial way until the mid-to late nineteenth century, and
this area saw little such occupation. The document
recommended that an “archaeological reconnaissance of the
proposed impact areas (i.e. turbine sites, access roads,
substations and other related infrastructure) be conducted
prior to ground disturbance to mitigate harmful effects on
cultural and heritage resources not identified in the initial
archaeological resource impact assessment. In the event that
archaeological resources are discovered during project
construction, activities would be halted and qualified staff
would be engaged to re-assess the area. “
d) the development site is suitable
regarding grades, soils, geological
conditions, location of watercourses,
flooding, marshes, bogs, swamps, and
susceptibility to natural or man-made
hazards.
The Environmental Assessment addressed geological
conditions of the site. The draft EPP identifies three potential
issues related to geology, soils and grades:
Soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses;
Soil contamination; and
Acid Rock drainage.
The EPP outlines measures that will need to be implemented
to mitigate these potential impacts including erosion and
sediment control measures for all watercourse crossings,
blasting plans for any blasting that is necessary, and disposal
of any acid-bearing rocks in accordance with the Nova Scotia
Sulphide Bearing Materials Disposal Regulations.
Turbines must be located at least 30m from wetlands, and all
provincial guidelines for wetland alterations must be
followed.
e) all other matters of planning concern
have been addressed.
The Environmental Assessment registration document
requires a noise limit of no more than 40 dBA (decibels) to
any receptor, and a maximum of 30 hours per year and 30
minutes per day of shadow flicker. The Development
Agreements (Section 3.1 (b)) require adherence to the
standards imposed by Nova Scotia Environment for noise and
Page 9 of 19
shadow flicker. All modeling completed for the EA process
indicated that the project complied with the Provincial
requirements and was based on a 50 turbine scenario. The
modeling will be updated to reflect the 34 turbine
arrangement once a turbine layout is finalized.
MPS CRITERIA - POLICY 8.0.5 PROPOSAL
a) the development shall not create
undue traffic hazards, traffic
congestion, or pedestrian hazards;
The Environmental Assessment registration document states,
“During the construction phase, trucks and other vehicles will
be frequently visiting the site resulting in increased vehicular
sound. To mitigate this effect, vehicles will only be visiting and
working on site during normal daytime hours of operation and
will avoid high-traffic times of day to reduce local congestion”
b) the development shall not generate
emissions such as noise, dust,
radiation, odors, liquids or light to the
air, water, or ground so as to create a
recognized health or safety hazard, and
that the impact of such emissions on
the development potential and value of
properties in the vicinity has been
minimized;
Developers have started consultation with Transport Canada
on the navigational lighting plan. Not all turbines will need to
be equipped with navigational lighting. The developer intends
to use red lights which are considered less visually intrusive to
the public than clear lights. Transport Canada will be provided
with a final turbine layout and they will assist in the
development and approval of a final lighting plan.
A variety of potentially hazardous materials may be used or
stored on site during construction activities. Some hazardous
materials that may be routinely used during construction
include:
Fuels, oils, lubricants
Hydraulic fluids
Paint
Gas cylinders
Solvents
Acids
Caustics
The most hazardous materials will likely be petroleum, oil and
lubricants associated with the use of heavy machinery and
vehicles. The primary concern regarding the use of these
substances is release to the environment through spills and
subsequent impacts to soil, water quality and human health
and safety. The Development Agreements require all WHIMIS
regulations to be followed.
The Bulk storage of any hazardous material (i.e. fuel product)
shall be at least 100 m (328 ft) away from a watercourse or
Page 10 of 19
wetland. Fuel storage areas shall be clearly marked and be
used properly following industry safety standards.
c) subject to the physical characteristics
of the site, the development shall
achieve optimum separation from
adjacent properties which are not in
commercial or industrial use, and
screening in the form of fences,
vegetation, or berms as appropriate
shall be constructed or installed
wherever possible in order to minimize
impact on the abutting uses;
The Municipality does not have an established setback
requirement for Wind Turbines. There are many different
setbacks throughout the Province ranging from1.5 times the
turbine height to over 1000 m.
The Development Agreement requires the turbines to be at
least 1.2 km (3937 ft.) from any dwelling that existed as of the
date of the application for development agreement. A
sufficient distance from any adjacent third-party property
boundary is discussed under “Setbacks” in this staff report.
The exception to this consideration is PID 60131216 which is
owned by the CBC.
d) all structures shall be built, repaired,
and maintained with durable, weather-
resistant building material such that
the appearance complements the
natural surroundings and existing built
environment;
The Development Agreements include terms requiring the
building and other structures to be in good repair, tidy and in a
useable state.
e) no development agreement shall be
approved until all necessary permits
required by Federal, Provincial, and
Municipal government agencies have
been issued or Council is satisfied that
the required permits will be issued;
This is included as a provision in the Development
Agreements.
f) no development shall increase traffic
volume so as to have an undue
negative effect on properties that are
served by a residential street;
Increased traffic volumes are anticipated during the
construction phase. The Environmental Assessment
registration document states, “During the construction phase,
trucks and other vehicles will be frequently visiting the site
resulting in increased vehicular sound. To mitigate this effect,
vehicles will only be visiting and working on site during
normal daytime hours of operation and will avoid high-traffic
times of day to reduce local congestion”
g) it shall be clearly demonstrated by the
applicant that the development can be
serviced with central or on-site sewer
and water and that the disposal of
sewage and other effluents as well as
the demand on the water source will
not have a negative impact on the
quality and quantity of the water
The developer will be required to follow all Provincial
guidelines, regulations and approval processes.
Page 11 of 19
resources of the area;
h) driveways, parking areas, and any
areas used for the open storage of
equipment or stock shall be surfaced
with stable materials to prevent dust
from blowing onto adjacent properties,
and to prevent erosion.
The Development Agreements requires all driveways, parking
areas and areas used for the open storage of goods be surfaced
with stable materials to prevent dust from blowing on to
adjacent properties and to prevent erosion.
DISCUSSION
As previously mentioned, the proposed development site is in the General Basic Zone which only
regulates potentially disruptive land uses. The issues concerning a Wind Energy project are
centered around the location of the turbines. In the General Basic Zone, forestry operations,
clearing of land, storage buildings, and the construction of access roads would not typically be
subject to regulation under the Land Use By-law. However, given that the proposal consists of 34
wind turbines, the Development Agreements take the potentially disruptive portions of the project
into consideration. In addition, many of the issues were addressed in the Environmental
Assessment process. The Minister of Environment approved the EA subject to a set of conditions
that included additional and/or continued studies and plan, as well as obtaining necessary
approvals, permits, and authorizations required by other government agencies, including at those
at the Federal and Municipal level.
In his approval letter dated July 13, 2012, Minister Sterling Belliveau indicated that he was
“…satisfied that any adverse effects or significant environmental effects of the undertaking can be
adequately mitigated through compliance with the attached terms and conditions”. The
Environmental Assessment approval is limited to the illustration called “Figure 2.2” from the
Environmental Assessment Registration Document, “Final Turbine Layout”, included as Figure 3.
The map includes 50 turbine locations; however, only 34 of the turbine locations are being used
since the decision was made to go with fewer turbines with a higher output. Changing the number
of turbines does not require an amendment to the EA, however if the operators need to move any of
the turbines the changes to the locations would require an amendment of the Environmental
Assessment Approval. Figure 4 shows the 34-turbine, 102 megawatt final turbine layout for the
project. As mentioned, due to the reviews and approvals that are required as a condition of the EA
approval, it may in fact be necessary to move some of the turbines. Our Development Agreements
take these potential changes into account so that a further amendment of the DAs would not be
necessary.
There are several portions of the project that are still subject to change depending on the final
turbine location. Staff and legal counsel have agreed that there are several items that should be
included as non-substantial changes to the Development Agreements. These non-substantial
changes may be changed or altered without amendment to the Development Agreements but would
require approval and written consent of the Council once it was determined that the changes due
not substantially alter the intended effect of aspects of these Development Agreements. The items
included as non-substantial changes (for each Development Agreement) are as follows:
Page 12 of 19
the project boundary may be reduced provided that the criteria for the location of wind
turbines as identified in Section 6 (c) of this Agreement are met;
the precise location of wind turbines may be adjusted provided that the criteria for the
location of wind turbines as identified in Section 6 (c) of the Agreement are met. This means
that no turbine can be moved any closer than 1,200 m of a dwelling that existed on the date
of the DA application and cannot be within the established distance from a third-party
property boundary (the distance of Council’s choosing – discussed below under “Setbacks”)
with the exception of PID 60131216 which is owned by the CBC;
removal of parties of the First Part of this Agreement if determined that their property is
not within the lands described in Schedule “A” attached hereto of the Development
Agreement;
the precise location of structures and storage areas may be adjusted provided that no
storage building is located closer than 165 m from an adjacent property boundary that is
not in a commercial or industrial use.
the exact location of access roads, provided they are at least 5 m in width and are
constructed in such a fashion to permit access for adequate fire protection and emergency
services.
any use or activity permitted as-of-right by the General Basic Zone.
Setbacks
In determining the layout of the turbines, the developers used several criteria to buffer the turbines
from the constraints that they identified. One of their main goals in siting the turbines was to
maximize the wind regime based on site conditions while minimizing any adverse impacts. As such
they developed the following list of setback distances in laying out turbines.
Setback Distance
Lot Lines 165 m
Public Road 200 m
Rare Species 30m
Wetland, water bodies, and
watercourses 30 m
Provincial Park 60 m
Wind Speed < 6 m/s Location Dependent
Slope > 15 degrees Location Dependent
Occupied dwellings 1200 m
The Municipality does not have an established setback for wind turbines. There is no provincial
recommendation, nor are wind turbines treated consistently at the Municipal level. In looking to
other provinces, Ontario has established a provincial standard that must be met by all wind energy
developments. In determining the required setbacks for this project, Council may consider three
broad approaches:
A setback equidistant to the combined height of the tower and blade – in this case 150
metres, providing basic buffering;
Page 13 of 19
The setback used as part of the Environmental Assessment process, that is, a distance
covering the tower and blade height, plus a reasonable augmentation, say, 10% as an added
buffer. This is the “Lot lines” setback of 165 metres presented in the table above; and
A larger setback of Council’s choosing, for example a setback equal to 1.5 times the
tower/blade height, affording greater buffering.
In considering the required setback, which must be determined in order to finalize the
Development Agreements, Council must consider the distance needed to protect any third-party
property from the impact of a tower collapse or fall, as well as any potential health impacts created
by noise and shadow flicker, as discussed below.
Noise and Shadow Flicker
As part of the EA, the applicants developed a sound and shadow flicker models based on the worst
case 50 turbine scenario. The models fell within the Province's 40dBA sound level regulations as
well as the 30 hours/year of shadow flicker industry standard. In a staff discussion with NSE
regarding their guidelines, it was noted that there are 2 requirements that need to be met in order
to comply with the guidelines: 30 hours/year of showdown flicker in addition to a limit of 30
minutes per day. Once the final turbine layout is determined, the models will re-run using the 34
turbine layout. Although the developer anticipates that impacts should decrease, they will still be
required to meet the regulations.
The sound modeling was conducted to predict sound levels using the 50 turbine layout, and
represents a worst case scenario from a sound perspective. Details on the sound model are
available in the Environmental Assessment Registration document. Nova Scotia does not have a
guideline for noise that is specific to wind turbines. In a discussion with a Nova Scotia Environment
official they indicated that the guideline used to in the EA was 40 decibels (dBA) and it is that
standard that must be met to comply with the terms of the Environmental Assessment Approval.
This level is a guideline that is also used in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment publication
“Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms”. The applicant has indicated that there was one property that
was a receptor with predicted sound levels of 41.0 dBA. The property owner provided a letter in
which he acknowledged the levels at his property. The letter was included as an appendix of the
Environmental Assessment and therefore it was not considered as a receptor.
In order to mitigate the effects of noise and shadow flicker, the most common tool is a setback
distance. The Development Agreements, as well as the approval for the EA, require that no turbine
be located within 1,200m of a dwelling. The Development Agreements clarify that this means no
dwelling which existed as of the date of the application for a development agreement. An additional
setback from any third party property line (excluding the CBC property) to further mitigate the
effects of noise and show flicker, must be determined by Council. The CBC property, it was felt, was
intended for communication purposes and would not be at significant risk. If any portion of the
Development Agreements are amended affecting the size of the project area, or the location of the
turbines, these setbacks must be maintained and adhered to. Any request to reduce the setbacks
would require a substantial amendment to the Development Agreements.
Page 14 of 19
Decommissioning
According to Minas Basin, the South Canoe wind project currently has a projected life span
exceeding 20 years. Currently, there is a 21-year power purchase agreement in place, with the
possibility of extending the operations once the purchase agreements expire. The applicants have
indicated that decommissioning will commence shortly after the retirement of the turbine units. A
decommissioning plan will be completed and submitted to Nova Scotia Environment “…in an
appropriate time frame to ensure removal of all structures within the EA approval terms and
conditions”. Both the Environmental Assessment approval and the land leases require that the
operators decommission the site. Decommissioning has also been included in the Development
Agreements. Both the Developer and the Property Owners are responsible for ensuring that
decommissioning occurs. Council has the ability to require decommissioning prior to discharging
the Development Agreements.
Generally, decommissioning will follow the same steps as construction but in reverse:
Wind turbines will be dismantled and removed from the site;
Towers will be removed and top soil will be reinstated to ensure stabilization of the land;
The collection system conductor and poles will be removed, recycled, where possible, and
disposed of otherwise to an approved facility; and
Any structure that does not meet the requirements of the land use by law in place at the
time of decommissioning will be removed.
CONCLUSION
This report has reviewed the application against the relevant policies and requirements of the
Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law. Planning staff feels the proposed Development
Agreements reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS and does not conflict with the LUB. Staff
therefore recommends that the application be approved.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix 1 – Extracts from the Municipal Planning Strategy
Appendix 2 – Extracts from the Land Use By-Law
Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Revised Project Boundary
Figure 3 – 50 Turbine Layout - (Figure 2.2 of EA)
Figure 4 – Current Final Turbine Layout
OPTIONS
1. PAC could accept the staff recommendation and recommend that Council approve the draft
Development Agreements as presented, subject to the determination of setback distance
and changes considered appropriate (Recommended option).
2. PAC could recommend that Council refuse the Development Agreements.
Page 15 of 19
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that PAC recommend option 1, but that a final approval of the Development
Agreements by Council be subject to all necessary leases being in place.
Tara Maguire
Director, Community Development
Page 16 of 19
Appendix 1
EXTRACTS FROM THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY
7.8.2 Within the General Basic Zone established by Policy 7.8.1, those land use which require an environmental
assessment under the AEnvironmental Assessment Regulations@ and those certain land uses contained in a
Schedule to the Land Use By-law based on the Provincial AActivities Designation Regulations@ are
permitted only by Development Agreement in accordance with Policies 7.8.5, 8.0.4 and 8.0.5.
8.0.4 That when considering amendments to the Land Use By-law and in considering development agreements,
in addition to all other criteria as set out in the various policies of this Planning Strategy, Council shall be
satisfied that:
a) the proposal conforms to the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
b) the proposal conforms to the applicable requirements of all Municipal By-laws, except where the
application is for a development agreement when the Land Use By-law requirements need not be
satisfied.
c) the proposal is not premature or inappropriate due to:
i) financial ability of the Municipality to absorb costs related to the development;
ii) adequacy of Municipal services;
iii) the adequacy of physical site conditions for on-site services;
iv) creation or worsening of a pollution problem including soil erosion and siltation;
v) adequacy of storm drainage and effects of alteration to drainage patterns including
potential for creation of a flooding problem;
vi) adequacy and proximity of school, recreation, emergency services, and other community
facilities;
vii) adequacy of street networks, on-site traffic circulation and site access regarding
congestion, traffic hazards and emergency access, including fire vehicles;
ix) adequacy of on-site water supply for domestic consumption and for fire-fighting
purposes;
x) inadequate separation from watercourses or inadequate separation from the ocean
shoreline;
xi proximity to areas of high archeological potential as identified on provincial government
mapping
Page 17 of 19
d) the development site is suitable regarding grades, soils, geological conditions, location of
watercourses, flooding, marshes, bogs, swamps, and susceptibility to natural or man-made
hazards.
e) all other matters of planning concern have been addressed.
8.0.5 Commercial, industrial or institutional developments may be permitted by development agreement, where
provided for by specific policies elsewhere in this Municipal Planning Strategy, in accordance with the
Planning Act and provided Council is satisfied that:
a) the development shall not create undue traffic hazards, traffic congestion, or pedestrian hazards;
b) the development shall not generate emissions such as noise, dust, radiation, odours, liquids or light
to the air, water, or ground so as to create a recognized health or safety hazard, and that the impact
of such emissions on the development potential and value of properties in the vicinity has been
minimized;
c) subject to the physical characteristics of the site, the development shall achieve optimum
separation from adjacent properties which are not in commercial or industrial use, and screening in
the form of fences, vegetation, or berms as appropriate shall be constructed or installed wherever
possible in order to minimize impact on the abutting uses;
d) all structures shall be built, repaired, and maintained with durable, weather-resistant building
material such that the appearance complements the natural surroundings and existing built
environment;
e) no development agreement shall be approved until all necessary permits required by Federal,
Provincial, and Municipal government agencies have been issued or Council is satisfied that the
required permits will be issued;
f) no development shall increase traffic volume so as to have an undue negative effect on properties
that are served by a residential street;
g) it shall be clearly demonstrated by the applicant that the development can be serviced with central
or on-site sewer and water and that the disposal of sewage and other effluents as well as the
demand on the water source will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of the
water resources of the area;
h) driveways, parking areas, and any areas used for the open storage of equipment or stock shall be
surfaced with stable materials to prevent dust from blowing onto adjacent properties, and to
prevent erosion.
Page 18 of 19
Appendix 2
EXTRACTS FROM THE LAND USE BY-LAW
PART 6B GENERAL ZONES
6B.1 GENERAL BASIC ZONE
6B.1.1 Permitted Developments
a) Developments for which no development permit is required
i) All developments other than those listed in Clauses (b) and (c) below.
b) Developments permitted only by Development Agreement
(i) All commercial and industrial developments listed in Schedule AC@ according to the
provisions of Municipal Planning Strategy Policy 7.8.2.
(ii) All commercial and industrial developments listed in Schedule AD@ according to the
provisions of Municipal Planning Strategy Policy 7.8.2.
(iii) Expansion of existing buildings, new commercial developments, and new residential
developments in excess of 12 dwelling units per hectare (5 per acre) but not to exceed 35
dwelling units per hectare (14 per acre) on the properties at 36 Treasure Drive, Western
Shore according to the provisions of Municipal Planning Strategy Policy 7.8.4.
(iv) Residential developments in excess of 12 dwelling units per structure or 12 dwelling
units on any lot of land, with a density not exceeding 12 units per hectare (5 per acre).
c) Developments permitted by site plan
In accordance with Municipal Planning Strategy policy 7.8.3, but subject to Municipal Planning
Strategy Policy 7.8.6, the following residential developments are permitted only through the site
plan process in accordance with Section 4.4.10 above:
i) Dwellings containing more than four dwelling units;
ii) The development of more than four dwelling units on any lot of land.
Page 19 of 19
SCHEDULE “C”, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LIST
i) Facilities involved in the production, wholesale storage or wholesale distribution of dangerous goods
ii) Facilities for the manufacture, processing or reprocessing of dangerous goods, including radioactive
materials
iii) Storage facilities with total capacity of over 5000 cubic metres intended to hold liquid or gaseous
substances, excluding water.
iv) Facilities for the pressure treatment of wood products with chemical products
v) Facilities producing fish meal
vi) Rendering plants
vii) Facilities processing metallic or non-metallic minerals, coal, peat moss, gypsum, limestone, bituminous
shale, oil shale, petroleum or natural gas.
viii) A transformer station having an energy capacity greater than 230 kilovolts
ix) Facilities for the handling of waste dangerous goods
x) Heavy water plant
xi) Pulp mill
xii) Paper mill
xiii) Petrochemical plant
xiv) Cement plant
xv) Oil refinery
xvi) Ferrous or non-ferrous metal smelter
xvii) Battery manufacture
xviii) Ferro-alloy plant
xix) Electric generating facilities with a production rating of 10 megawatts or more which are not owned by the
Municipality of Chester.
xx) Solid waste incinerators
Hw
y
1
2
H
w
y
1
4
Forties Rd
New R
u
s
s
e
l
l
R
d
Hwy 103
Hwy 3
Hwy 3
Hw
y
3
2
9
MUNI
C
I
P
A
L
I
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
DIST
R
I
C
T
O
F
L
U
N
E
N
B
U
R
G
MUNI
C
I
P
A
L
I
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
OF W
E
S
T
H
A
N
T
S
HALI
F
A
X
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
MUNI
C
I
P
A
L
I
T
Y
MUN
I
C
I
P
A
L
I
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
COU
N
T
Y
O
F
K
I
N
G
S
FORTIES
LEVILLE
CHESTER
HUBBARDS
SHERWOOD
PARKDALE
NEW ROSS
FRAXVILLE
HARRISTON
MILL ROAD
FOX POINT
MILL COVE
BLANDFORD
DEEP COVE
GOLD RIVER
EAST RIVER
ALDERSVILLE
LAKE RAMSAY
NEW RUSSELL
CANAAN - CT
BIRCHY HEAD
PENNAL IR 19
WINDSOR ROAD
EAST CHESTER
FRANEY CORNER SEFFERNSVILLE
MARTINS POINT
WESTERN SHORE
CHESTER BASIN
CHESTER GRANT
NEW ROSS IR 20
MARRIOTTS COVE
BEECH HILL - CT
EAST RIVER POINT
GOLD RIVER IR 21
SIMMS SETTLEMENT
.2 0 21 Kilometers
Location Map
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""
"""""
""
"
"
"""""
""""""
""
""
"""""""
""
"""""""
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"""""""
""""""""""
"" ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"""""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
B
U
R
N
T
B
RID
G
E
B
R
O
O
K
T
O
D
D
RIV
E
R
W
H
I
T
N
E
Y
R
I
V
E
R SHERWOOD
C
A
R
D
L
A
K
E
ACE HILLISLAND
DA M B AY
LON G B A Y
B A GL A K E
SHERWOOD
HAL
I
F
A
X
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LUN
E
N
B
U
R
G
C
O
U
N
T
Y
(appr
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
HAN
T
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LUN
E
N
B
U
R
G
C
O
U
N
T
Y
(app
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
INDIANLA
K
E
ROCKY
BROOK
T
O
A
D
R
I
V
E
R
C O O N E YL A K E
S O U T H CANOE L A K E
MU
D
L
A
K
E
B
R
O
OK
M
UDLA K E
W HITNEY
R
I
V
E
R
B
I
G
O
T
T
E
R
L
AKE
C
A
R
D
L
A
K
E
LON GB AY J O E L O N GL A K E
B A GL A K E
A V
O N
R I V E R
GI LB E R T SST IL LWAT E R
ST IL LWAT E R
THE
Z W I C K E R L A K E
L I T T L E O T T E R
L A K E
C
HRISTYLAKE
NOVA SCOTIALAKELA K ELE W I S
SO U THC A N O E L A K E
L
A
K
E
L E W I S
6039908660131232
6039891460398906
60399029
60398872
60398880
60393824
60398898
60399037
60129517
60126315
60126356
60398716
Highw
a
y
1
4
New Ru
s
s
e
l
l
R
d
Cliff Rd
Sherwood Rd
Red S
h
i
r
t
R
d
Kaizer Mead
o
w
R
d
P
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
s
R
d
H
i
l
b
e
r
A
v
e
Lake
L
e
w
i
s
L
a
n
e
75
6
92
50
17
19
6484
15
9371
38 1721476797
256
249
219279
233
484482
522520
454450
493
279
343
165
555
280
175
291
180
138
439
172
503
320
128
146
463111
307
232 180
125361265165329241500448318470354
451
175377155145139213245255
2804
2469
17811813 18391841 1917
2453
2696 28372803
3895
2019
1589
1620
Legend
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS
TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS
PROJECT BOUNDARY
CHESTER MUNICIPALITY BOUNDARY
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 20.2 Kilometers Ü
Lands ofTIMBERLAND HOLDINGS
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
2827
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
¯³14
N e w R u s s e l l R d
W i l e S et t l e m e n t R dNew R o s s R d
Truro
Digby Halifax
Kentville
UV104
UV106UV106
UV103
UV101
UV102
UV118
No guarantee is given as to the accuracy or currency of any of thedata. The cadastral information portrayed has no legal value andshould only be used as a guide.
Date: March, 2012
Scale: 1:40,000Projection: UTM Zone20 NAD83Sources: NSPI, DNR, GeoBase, NSTDB 1:10,000, Strum
0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Kilometers
¹
South Canoe Wind Project
Final Turbine Layout
Area Shown
³
Project Components
Project Boundary
!Turbine Location
Strum Layers
!Rare Plant
Access Roads
New (25.7km)
On Existing (11.8km)
Drainage
Watercourse
Wetland
Constraints
Internal Lot Line-165m
Dwelling -1.2km
Other Building -200m
Unidentified Building -1.2km
Rare Plant - 30m
Public Rd. -200m
Prov. Park - 60m
Wind Speed <= 6.0m/s
EMI - 115-1000m
Slope > 15%
Provincial LayersDwellingOther BuildingUnidentified Building
Other Road
Local Roads
Collector
Arterial
Public Road
Watercourse
Waterbody
Wetland
Significant Habitat
Card Lake P. Park
!
!
Campground
Cemetery
Dump
Golf Course
!
!
Park (picnic)
Pit/Quarry
Halifax C
Lunenburg County
Hants County
1. Building status defined by various sources (GLGH)2. Turbine Location point symbol ~ 60m in diameter
Sheet:
2.2
Notes:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
24
22
32
31PID: 60399086
PID: 60398914
PID: 60398906
PID: 60399029
PID: 60398872
PID: 60398880
PID: 60398898
PID: 60399037
PID: 60398716
27
28
26
25
29
23
33
3016
15
21
20
19
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
34
181712
14
13
11
10
¯³14
N e w R u s s e l l R d
W i l e S et t l e m e n t R dNew R o s s R d
Mud Lake
Bag Lake
Dam LakeDam Lake
Card Lake
Otter Lake
Muddy Lake
Green LakeLewis Lake
Cooney Lake
Scotia Lake
Caribou Bog
Little Lake
Lewis, Lake
Zwicker Lake
Joe Long Lake
Roaring Brook
Card Lake Hill
Stillwater, The
South Canoe Lake
Upper Canoe Lake
Nova Scotia Lake
Little Otter Lake
Gilberts StillwaterLittle Joe Long Lake
64°14'0"W
64°14'0"W
64°16'0"W
64°16'0"W
64°18'0"W
64°18'0"W
64°20'0"W
64°20'0"W
64°22'0"W
64°22'0"W
44
°
4
8
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
8
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
6
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
6
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
4
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
4
'
0
"
N
Truro
Digby Halifax
Kentville
UV104
UV106UV106
UV103
UV101
UV102
UV118
No guarantee is given as to the accuracy or currency of any of the data. The cadastral information portrayed has no legal value and should only be used as a guide.
Date: June, 2012
Projection: UTM Zone20 NAD83Sources: DNR, GeoBase, NSTDB 1:10,000, Acciona
0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Kilometers
¹
South Canoe Wind Project
102MW Layout
Area Shown
³
Lunenburg County
Hants County
1:40,000
!NSPI
!Minas
!OxfordProperty Owner
Annapolis Group Inc.
Atlantic Star Forestry Ltd.
6039908660131232
60398914
60398906
60399029
60398872
60398880
60393824
60398898
60399037
60129517
60126315 60126356
603987169
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
2423
22
21
20
19
1817
16
15
14
13
1211
10
Turbine Location
Project Area/Development Agreement AreaDevelopment Agreement Properties
Atlantic Star Forestry Ltd
Clifford Long & Sons Limited
Crown Land
Russell Barry M
Timberland Holdings (2010) Lim
1 0 10.5 Kilometers
Revised Project Boundaries
Dr
a
f
t
W200-755
SRL/bab
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT made in triplicate this day of
, 2013
BETWEEN:
TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS (2010) LIMITED a body corporate with Head
Office at Hantsport, in the County of Hants and Province of Nova Scotia;
ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY LIMITED (Managed by Wagner Forest NS
Limited), a body corporate with Head Office in Truro, in the County of
Colchester and Province of Nova Scotia;
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN In Right of the Province of Nova Scotia;
CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED a body corporate with Head Office
in Wolfville, in the County of Kings and Province of Nova Scotia;
BARRY RUSSELL, New Ross, in the County of Lunenburg and Province of
Nova Scotia
(hereinafter called “PROPERTY OWNERS”)
OF THE FIRST PART
- AND -
MINAS BASIN PULP AND POWER COMPANY LIMITED, a body
corporate with Head Office in Hantsport, in the County of Hants and the Province
of Nova Scotia;
(hereinafter called the “DEVELOPER”)
OF THE SECOND PART
- AND -
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER, one of the
Municipalities under the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia;
(hereinafter called the “MUNICIPALITY”)
OF THE THIRD PART
WHEREAS the PROPERTY OWNERS have entered into certain Leases for a portion of
the lands of the PROPERTY OWNERS located South of the New Russell Road at or near South
Canoe Lake, in the County of Lunenburg and Province of Nova Scotia and which is described in
Schedule “A” attached hereto for the purpose of building and operating a Wind Energy Facility
comprising wind turbines, access roads, gates, fencing, service buildings and transmission
equipment;
AND WHEREAS a Wind Energy Facility is defined as a facility containing all
equipment and improvements necessary or desirable for the conversion and delivery of wind
energy into electricity, including, but not limited to:
a) one (1) or more wind turbine generators, their foundations, towers and electrical
controllers;
Dr
a
f
t
Page 2 of 8
b) the collector system including transmission, distribution and power lines,
interconnection customer’s interconnection equipment, meters, transformers,
protection equipment, substation and related equipment;
c) civil works including areas needed for construction, security, access roads,
fencing and gates, utilities including communications lines, water lines and drain
lines; and
d) a sign or signs displaying owner or lessee names and other information;
(hereinafter called the “Proposed Development”)
AND WHEREAS the Environmental Assessment Approval comprises the
Environmental Assessment Registration Document, the Minister’s Decision, and the
accompanying Terms and Conditions dated July 13, 2012;
AND WHEREAS the DEVELOPER has applied to the MUNICIPALITY for a permit to
use the lands leased from the PROPERTY OWNERS and described in Schedule “A” attached
hereto, and depicted on Schedule ‘B’ attached hereto, to construct and operate a Wind Energy
Facility (the Proposed Development);
AND WHEREAS the lands described in Schedule “A” are situated in an area which is
both designated General Land Use on the Future Land Use Map of the Municipal Planning
Strategy, and zoned General Basic on the Zoning Map of the Land Use Bylaw;
AND WHEREAS Policy 7.8.2 of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Clause 6(B).1.1
b) (i) of the Land Use Bylaw enabled the Proposed Development by Development Agreement;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the MUNICIPALITY has considered Policies 8.04 and
8.05 of the Municipal Planning Strategy, and has satisfied itself that the Proposed Development
is in conformity with those Policies;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the MUNICIPALITY, by Resolution passed at a
meeting on the day of , 2013, approved the execution of this Development
Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of
the foregoing recitals, and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION
1.1. The MUNICIPALITY hereby agrees that a Development Permit shall issue to the
DEVELOPER for the Proposed Development subject to the terms and conditions of this
Development Agreement.
1.2. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall exempt the DEVELOPER from
complying with Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws, bylaws and regulations in force
within the MUNICIPALITY, including the Building By-law, or from obtaining any
Federal, Provincial or Municipal license, permission, permit, authority or approval
required thereunder including any permission required under the Fire Protection Act and
the Environment Act.
2. USE OF LAND
2.1. The DEVELOPER hereby undertakes to ensure that, subject to paragraphs #8 and #11 of
this Development Agreement, the use of the lands described in the Schedule “A” shall be
limited to the Proposed Development which has been defined as a Wind Energy Facility
Dr
a
f
t
Page 3 of 8
not to exceed a nameplate capacity of one hundred and two (102) megawatts, together
with all structural components associated with said facility, and timber harvesting;
2.2. The DEVELOPER undertakes to ensure that any illumination that is not required by
Transport Canada shall not project any glare or direct illumination onto adjacent
properties other than those of the PROPERTY OWNERS.
2.3. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that all watercourses, wetlands and habitats are protected
against any negative impacts that may take place during construction of the Proposed
Development or during its operation and as outlined in the Environment Assessment
Approval;
2.4. The DEVELOPER shall ensure storm and drainage patterns are adequate for the subject
facility so as to avoid flooding;
2.5. Any access road is at least 5 m in width and is constructed in such a fashion as to permit
access for adequate fire protection and emergency services. The road design and layout
shall include consultation with the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief.
2.6. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the construction of structures accessory to the
use in clause 2.1, including, but not limited to, substation building, storage sheds and
utility buildings, provided the structures are located no closer than 165 metres from any
adjacent property boundary other than that of a PROPERTY OWNER.
3. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
3.1. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that the Proposed Development is built and operated as
follows:
a) that it does not create undo traffic hazards, traffic congestion or pedestrian hazards;
b) that it does not generate emissions such as noise, dust, radiation, odours, liquids or
light to the air, water, or ground so as to create a recognized health or safety hazard
and that the impact of any emissions on the Development potential and value of
properties in the vicinity of the Proposed Development has been minimized; and in
particular that:
i. the sound level generated by the operation of the wind turbines does not
exceed the forty (40) dbA maximum relative to qualified receptors as
prescribed by the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment in the
Environmental Assessment Approval; and
ii. the period of shadow flicker does not exceed thirty (30) hours per year relative
to qualified receptors as prescribed by the Nova Scotia Department of the
Environment in the Environmental Assessment Approval.
c) the Proposed Development shall be constructed and operated so as to achieve
optimal separation from adjacent properties which are not in commercial or
industrial use or owned by the PROPERTY OWNERS and in particular:
i. the DEVELOPER has agreed that no wind turbine shall be constructed within
1,200 metres of any existing residences as of 15 October 2012; and
ii. no wind turbine shall be constructed within ___________of any adjacent third
party boundary saving and excepting the property defined as PID #60131216.
d) all structures constituting part of the Proposed Development shall be built, repaired
and maintained so as to be in good repair and workmanlike condition in accordance
with good utility practice.
Dr
a
f
t
Page 4 of 8
3.2. The DEVELOPER shall obtain and maintain at all times, while the Wind Energy
Facility is being built and operated, all necessary permits and approvals required by
Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments;
3.3. The DEVELOPER shall minimize traffic to and from the Proposed Development that
may have an undue negative effect on properties that are served by a Residential Street;
3.4. Any timber harvesting shall follow all applicable regulations and guidelines in effect at
the time of Harvesting;
3.5. If onsite sewage disposal systems or a water supply system are required for the Proposed
Development, then those shall be operated so as not to have a negative impact on the
quality or quantity of the water resources in the area.
3.6. Any access roads, driveways, parking areas and any areas used for open storage of
equipment or stock shall be surfaced with stable material to prevent dust from blowing
on to adjacent properties and to prevent erosion.
4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.1. Any hazardous materials on site shall be stored, handled and labelled according to
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) Regulations, as well as
any other applicable federal or provincial regulation or legislation, so as to prevent the
accidental release or otherwise of any of these substances to the air, ground or water;
4.2. Bulk storage of any hazardous material such as, but not limited to, fuel products, shall be
located at least one hundred (100) metres from any watercourse or wetland as identified
in the Environmental Assessment Approval;
5. FIRE PROTECTION
5.1. The Owner shall install a minimum of two dry hydrants on the property in accordance
with the following:
a) one dry hydrant shall be located on the East side of South Canoe Lake;
b) one dry hydrant shall be located on the West side of South Canoe Lake;
c) the precise locations of dry hydrants shall be determined after consultation between
the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief, Nova Scotia Department of
Environment and the DEVELOPER;
d) material and construction specifications for dry hydrants shall be determined after
consultation between the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief and the
DEVELOPER;
e) all necessary approvals from Nova Scotia Department of Environment shall be
obtained; and
f) an adequate driveway access, parking area for fire vehicle use and signage shall be
provided for each dry hydrant as specified by the New Ross Volunteer Fire
Department Fire Chief.
5.2. Dry hydrants shall be installed prior to commencement of construction of the Proposed
Development.
5.3. Changes in the schedule for installation of dry hydrants as specified in clause 4.2 may be
approved by the Development Officer where written consent is received from the New
Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief.
6. DECOMMISSIONING
Dr
a
f
t
Page 5 of 8
6.1 In the event that any provisions of Section 9.2 (c) and (e) of this Agreement occur
which could lead to discharge of this Agreement, the MUNICIPALITY may require the
PROPERTY OWNERS or the DEVELOPER to decommission the Proposed
Development in accordance with Section 6.2 of this Agreement.
6.2 The DEVELOPER shall, upon decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility ensure the
following in compliance with Nova Scotia Department of Environment regulations:
a) dismantle and remove all wind turbines;
b) remove all turbine towers, and reinstate topsoil to ensure stabilization of the land;
c) remove the collector system conductor and poles; and
d) remove any structures that do not comply with the Land Use By-law of the
MUNICIPALITY at the time of decommissioning.
7. CHANGES AND ALTERATION
7.1. All matters in this Development Agreement not specified in Section 8, Non-substantial
Matters, are substantial and shall not be changed or altered except by amendment of this
Development Agreement according to the Municipal Government Act.
8. NON-SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS
8.1. The following non-substantial matters may be changed or altered without amendment to
this Development Agreement but with the written consent of the Council of the
MUNICIPALITY, provided that the Council of the MUNICIPALITY determines that
the changes due not substantially alter the intended effect of aspects of this Development
Agreement.
a) the project boundary may be reduced provided that the criteria for the location of
wind turbines as identified in Section 3.1 (c) of this Agreement are met;
b) the precise location of wind turbines as shown on Schedule ‘C’ attached hereto may
be adjusted provided that the criteria for the location of wind turbines as identified
in Section 3.1 (c) of this Agreement are met.
c) the precise location of substation, transmission line, collector system, structures and
storage areas may be adjusted provided that no such building is located closer than
165 metres from any boundary of a property not owned by a PROPERTY OWNER.
d) the exact location of access roads, provided they are at least 5 m in width and are
constructed in such a fashion to permit access for adequate fire protection and
emergency services.
e) any use or activity permitted as-of-right by the General Basic Zone.
f) removal of parties of the First Part of this Agreement if determined that their
property is not within the lands described in Schedule “A” attached hereto.
9. TERMINATION AND DISCHARGE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
9.1. This Development Agreement shall be in effect until discharged by Resolution of the
Council of the MUNICIPALITY in accordance with the Municipal Government Act
where upon the Land Use Bylaw shall apply to the lands described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto.
9.2. The Council of the MUNICIPALITY may discharge this Development Agreement if :
a) the Proposed Development has not been commenced within eighteen (18) months
from the date of this Development Agreement;
Dr
a
f
t
Page 6 of 8
b) the DEVELOPER breaches any term of this Development Agreement and fails to
rectify it after having been given written notice;
c) the DEVELOPER breaches any terms of its lease with any of the PROPERTY
OWNERS, which, if not rectified, would lead to the termination of said lease, or
upon the termination of said lease for any other reason;
d) the Proposed Development described herein is discontinued for a period of not less
than twelve (12) months;
e) should any fact provided to the MUNICIPALITY by the DEVELOPER or its
Agents constitute a material misrepresentation of the fact upon which this
Development Agreement is based.
10. APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE BY-LAW
10.1. THAT without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any aspect of any development
on the lands described in Schedule “A” attached hereto, not otherwise specified in this
Development Agreement, are subject to the requirements to the Land Use By-law.
11. EFFECT
11.1. THAT in accordance with Section 229 of the MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT, this
Development Agreement shall continue to apply to the land described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto until discharged by the Council of the MUNICIPALITY;
11.2. THAT this Development Agreement shall ensure to the benefit and be binding upon the
MUNICIPALITY its successors and assigns and shall ensure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the DEVELOPER and the PROPERTY OWNERS, their successors and
assigns as the Property Owner and Lessee of the lands described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto until discharged by Council of the MUNICIPALITY.
12. OWNERSHIP
THAT the DEVELOPER and each of the PROPERTY OWNERS are the sole owners of their
respective properties which are included within the lands described in Schedule “A” attached
hereto.
Lands conveyed to TIMBERLAND from Annapolis Group Incorporated dated June 26, 2012
and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on June 27, 2012 under document
100992123.
Lands conveyed to ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY from Neenah Paper Company of Canada
dated June 27, 2006 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on July 17,
2006 under document 85630144.
Lands conveyed to BARRY RUSSELL from Dewayne and Kathy McDow dated November 02,
1978 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on November 09, 1978 under
document 1189, Book 68, Page 977.
Lands conveyed to HER MAJESTRY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF
NOVA SCOTIA from Renova Scotia Bioenergy Incorporated dated December 21, 2012 and
recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on December 21, 2012 under document
102203289.
Lands conveyed to CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED from David Orr dated November
30, 1999 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on December 07, 1999
under document 6797, Book 738, Page 215.
The DEVELOPER further certifies it has full authority to construct and operate the Proposed
Development pursuant to the leases with each of the PROPERTY OWNERS. Each of the
Dr
a
f
t
Page 7 of 8
PROPERTY OWNERS and the DEVELOPER joins in this Development Agreement solely for
the purpose of indicating its consent to the MUNICIPALITY to issue a Development Permit to
the DEVELOPER for the Proposed Development in accordance with this Development
Agreement and pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Development Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hand and affixed their seal the day
and year first above written.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
in the presence of
) TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS (2010)
) LIMITED,
)
)Per:
)
)
)
)
)
) ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY
) LIMITED
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
)
) OXFORD FROZEN FOODS
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) BARRY RUSSELL
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
Dr
a
f
t
Page 8 of 8
)
)
)
) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF THE PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
) CHESTER
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
Dr
a
f
t
W200-755
SRL/bab
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT made in triplicate this day of
, 2013
BETWEEN:
TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS (2010) LIMITED a body corporate with Head
Office at Hantsport, in the County of Hants and Province of Nova Scotia;
ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY LIMITED (Managed by Wagner Forest NS
Limited), a body corporate with Head Office in Truro, in the County of
Colchester and Province of Nova Scotia;
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN In Right of the Province of Nova Scotia;
CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED a body corporate with Head Office
in Wolfville, in the County of Kings and Province of Nova Scotia;
BARRY RUSSELL, New Ross, in the County of Lunenburg and Province of
Nova Scotia
(hereinafter called “PROPERTY OWNERS”)
OF THE FIRST PART
- AND -
NOVA SCOTIA POWER INCORPORATED, a body corporate with Head
Office in Halifax, in the County of Halifax and the Province of Nova Scotia;
(hereinafter called the “DEVELOPER”)
OF THE SECOND PART
- AND -
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER, one of the
Municipalities under the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia;
(hereinafter called the “MUNICIPALITY”)
OF THE THIRD PART
WHEREAS the PROPERTY OWNERS have entered into certain Leases for a portion of
the lands of the PROPERTY OWNERS located South of the New Russell Road at or near South
Canoe Lake, in the County of Lunenburg and Province of Nova Scotia and which is described in
Schedule “A” attached hereto for the purpose of building and operating a Wind Energy Facility
comprising wind turbines, access roads, gates, fencing, service buildings and transmission
equipment;
AND WHEREAS a Wind Energy Facility is defined as a facility containing all
equipment and improvements necessary or desirable for the conversion and delivery of wind
energy into electricity, including, but not limited to:
a) one (1) or more wind turbine generators, their foundations, towers and electrical
controllers;
Dr
a
f
t
Page 2 of 8
b) the collector system including transmission, distribution and power lines,
interconnection customer’s interconnection equipment, meters, transformers,
protection equipment, substation and related equipment;
c) civil works including areas needed for construction, security, access roads,
fencing and gates, utilities including communications lines, water lines and drain
lines; and
d) a sign or signs displaying owner or lessee names and other information;
(hereinafter called the “Proposed Development”)
AND WHEREAS the Environmental Assessment Approval comprises the
Environmental Assessment Registration Document, the Minister’s Decision, and the
accompanying Terms and Conditions dated July 13, 2012;
AND WHEREAS the DEVELOPER has applied to the MUNICIPALITY for a permit to
use the lands leased from the PROPERTY OWNERS and described in Schedule “A” attached
hereto, and depicted on Schedule ‘B’ attached hereto, to construct and operate a Wind Energy
Facility (the Proposed Development);
AND WHEREAS the lands described in Schedule “A” are situated in an area which is
both designated General Land Use on the Future Land Use Map of the Municipal Planning
Strategy, and zoned General Basic on the Zoning Map of the Land Use Bylaw;
AND WHEREAS Policy 7.8.2 of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Clause 6(B).1.1
b) (i) of the Land Use Bylaw enabled the Proposed Development by Development Agreement;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the MUNICIPALITY has considered Policies 8.04 and
8.05 of the Municipal Planning Strategy, and has satisfied itself that the Proposed Development
is in conformity with those Policies;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the MUNICIPALITY, by Resolution passed at a
meeting on the day of , 2013, approved the execution of this Development
Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of
the foregoing recitals, and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION
1.1. The MUNICIPALITY hereby agrees that a Development Permit shall issue to the
DEVELOPER for the Proposed Development subject to the terms and conditions of this
Development Agreement.
1.2. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall exempt the DEVELOPER from
complying with Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws, bylaws and regulations in force
within the MUNICIPALITY, including the Building By-law, or from obtaining any
Federal, Provincial or Municipal license, permission, permit, authority or approval
required thereunder including any permission required under the Fire Protection Act and
the Environment Act.
2. USE OF LAND
2.1. The DEVELOPER hereby undertakes to ensure that, subject to paragraphs #8 and #11 of
this Development Agreement, the use of the lands described in the Schedule “A” shall be
limited to the Proposed Development which has been defined as a Wind Energy Facility
Dr
a
f
t
Page 3 of 8
not to exceed a nameplate capacity of one hundred and two (102) megawatts, together
with all structural components associated with said facility, and timber harvesting;
2.2. The DEVELOPER undertakes to ensure that any illumination that is not required by
Transport Canada shall not project any glare or direct illumination onto adjacent
properties other than those of the PROPERTY OWNERS.
2.3. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that all watercourses, wetlands and habitats are protected
against any negative impacts that may take place during construction of the Proposed
Development or during its operation and as outlined in the Environment Assessment
Approval;
2.4. The DEVELOPER shall ensure storm and drainage patterns are adequate for the subject
facility so as to avoid flooding;
2.5. Any access road is at least 5 m in width and is constructed in such a fashion as to permit
access for adequate fire protection and emergency services. The road design and layout
shall include consultation with the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief.
2.6. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the construction of structures accessory to the
use in clause 2.1, including, but not limited to, substation building, storage sheds and
utility buildings, provided the structures are located no closer than 165 metres from any
adjacent property boundary other than that of a PROPERTY OWNER.
3. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
3.1. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that the Proposed Development is built and operated as
follows:
a) that it does not create undo traffic hazards, traffic congestion or pedestrian hazards;
b) that it does not generate emissions such as noise, dust, radiation, odours, liquids or
light to the air, water, or ground so as to create a recognized health or safety hazard
and that the impact of any emissions on the Development potential and value of
properties in the vicinity of the Proposed Development has been minimized; and in
particular that:
i. the sound level generated by the operation of the wind turbines does not
exceed the forty (40) dbA maximum relative to qualified receptors as
prescribed by the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment in the
Environmental Assessment Approval; and
ii. the period of shadow flicker does not exceed thirty (30) hours per year relative
to qualified receptors as prescribed by the Nova Scotia Department of the
Environment in the Environmental Assessment Approval.
c) the Proposed Development shall be constructed and operated so as to achieve
optimal separation from adjacent properties which are not in commercial or
industrial use or owned by the PROPERTY OWNERS and in particular:
i. the DEVELOPER has agreed that no wind turbine shall be constructed within
1,200 metres of any existing residences as of 15 October 2012; and
ii. no wind turbine shall be constructed within ___________of any adjacent third
party boundary saving and excepting the property defined as PID #60131216.
d) all structures constituting part of the Proposed Development shall be built, repaired
and maintained so as to be in good repair and workmanlike condition in accordance
with good utility practice.
Dr
a
f
t
Page 4 of 8
3.2. The DEVELOPER shall obtain and maintain at all times, while the Wind Energy
Facility is being built and operated, all necessary permits and approvals required by
Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments;
3.3. The DEVELOPER shall minimize traffic to and from the Proposed Development that
may have an undue negative effect on properties that are served by a Residential Street;
3.4. Any timber harvesting shall follow all applicable regulations and guidelines in effect at
the time of Harvesting;
3.5. If onsite sewage disposal systems or a water supply system are required for the Proposed
Development, then those shall be operated so as not to have a negative impact on the
quality or quantity of the water resources in the area.
3.6. Any access roads, driveways, parking areas and any areas used for open storage of
equipment or stock shall be surfaced with stable material to prevent dust from blowing
on to adjacent properties and to prevent erosion.
4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.1. Any hazardous materials on site shall be stored, handled and labelled according to
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) Regulations, as well as
any other applicable federal or provincial regulation or legislation, so as to prevent the
accidental release or otherwise of any of these substances to the air, ground or water;
4.2. Bulk storage of any hazardous material such as, but not limited to, fuel products, shall be
located at least one hundred (100) metres from any watercourse or wetland as identified
in the Environmental Assessment Approval;
5. FIRE PROTECTION
5.1. The Owner shall install a minimum of two dry hydrants on the property in accordance
with the following:
a) one dry hydrant shall be located on the East side of South Canoe Lake;
b) one dry hydrant shall be located on the West side of South Canoe Lake;
c) the precise locations of dry hydrants shall be determined after consultation between
the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief, Nova Scotia Department of
Environment and the DEVELOPER;
d) material and construction specifications for dry hydrants shall be determined after
consultation between the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief and the
DEVELOPER;
e) all necessary approvals from Nova Scotia Department of Environment shall be
obtained; and
f) an adequate driveway access, parking area for fire vehicle use and signage shall be
provided for each dry hydrant as specified by the New Ross Volunteer Fire
Department Fire Chief.
5.2. Dry hydrants shall be installed prior to commencement of construction of the Proposed
Development.
5.3. Changes in the schedule for installation of dry hydrants as specified in clause 4.2 may be
approved by the Development Officer where written consent is received from the New
Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief.
6. DECOMMISSIONING
Dr
a
f
t
Page 5 of 8
6.1 In the event that any provisions of Section 9.2 (c) and (e) of this Agreement occur
which could lead to discharge of this Agreement, the MUNICIPALITY may require the
PROPERTY OWNERS or the DEVELOPER to decommission the Proposed
Development in accordance with Section 6.2 of this Agreement.
6.2 The DEVELOPER shall, upon decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility ensure the
following in compliance with Nova Scotia Department of Environment regulations:
a) dismantle and remove all wind turbines;
b) remove all turbine towers, and reinstate topsoil to ensure stabilization of the land;
c) remove the collector system conductor and poles; and
d) remove any structures that do not comply with the Land Use By-law of the
MUNICIPALITY at the time of decommissioning.
7. CHANGES AND ALTERATION
7.1. All matters in this Development Agreement not specified in Section 8, Non-substantial
Matters, are substantial and shall not be changed or altered except by amendment of this
Development Agreement according to the Municipal Government Act.
8. NON-SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS
8.1. The following non-substantial matters may be changed or altered without amendment to
this Development Agreement but with the written consent of the Council of the
MUNICIPALITY, provided that the Council of the MUNICIPALITY determines that
the changes due not substantially alter the intended effect of aspects of this Development
Agreement.
a) the project boundary may be reduced provided that the criteria for the location of
wind turbines as identified in Section 3.1 (c) of this Agreement are met;
b) the precise location of wind turbines as shown on Schedule ‘C’ attached hereto may
be adjusted provided that the criteria for the location of wind turbines as identified
in Section 3.1 (c) of this Agreement are met.
c) the precise location of substation, transmission line, collector system, structures and
storage areas may be adjusted provided that no such building is located closer than
165 metres from any boundary of a property not owned by a PROPERTY OWNER.
d) the exact location of access roads, provided they are at least 5 m in width and are
constructed in such a fashion to permit access for adequate fire protection and
emergency services.
e) any use or activity permitted as-of-right by the General Basic Zone.
f) removal of parties of the First Part of this Agreement if determined that their
property is not within the lands described in Schedule “A” attached hereto.
9. TERMINATION AND DISCHARGE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
9.1. This Development Agreement shall be in effect until discharged by Resolution of the
Council of the MUNICIPALITY in accordance with the Municipal Government Act
where upon the Land Use Bylaw shall apply to the lands described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto.
9.2. The Council of the MUNICIPALITY may discharge this Development Agreement if :
a) the Proposed Development has not been commenced within eighteen (18) months
from the date of this Development Agreement;
Dr
a
f
t
Page 6 of 8
b) the DEVELOPER breaches any term of this Development Agreement and fails to
rectify it after having been given written notice;
c) the DEVELOPER breaches any terms of its lease with any of the PROPERTY
OWNERS, which, if not rectified, would lead to the termination of said lease, or
upon the termination of said lease for any other reason;
d) the Proposed Development described herein is discontinued for a period of not less
than twelve (12) months;
e) should any fact provided to the MUNICIPALITY by the DEVELOPER or its
Agents constitute a material misrepresentation of the fact upon which this
Development Agreement is based.
10. APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE BY-LAW
10.1. THAT without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any aspect of any development
on the lands described in Schedule “A” attached hereto, not otherwise specified in this
Development Agreement, are subject to the requirements to the Land Use By-law.
11. EFFECT
11.1. THAT in accordance with Section 229 of the MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT, this
Development Agreement shall continue to apply to the land described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto until discharged by the Council of the MUNICIPALITY;
11.2. THAT this Development Agreement shall ensure to the benefit and be binding upon the
MUNICIPALITY its successors and assigns and shall ensure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the DEVELOPER and the PROPERTY OWNERS, their successors and
assigns as the Property Owner and Lessee of the lands described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto until discharged by Council of the MUNICIPALITY.
12. OWNERSHIP
THAT the DEVELOPER and each of the PROPERTY OWNERS are the sole owners of their
respective properties which are included within the lands described in Schedule “A” attached
hereto.
Lands conveyed to TIMBERLAND from Annapolis Group Incorporated dated June 26, 2012
and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on June 27, 2012 under document
100992123.
Lands conveyed to ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY from Neenah Paper Company of Canada
dated June 27, 2006 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on July 17,
2006 under document 85630144.
Lands conveyed to BARRY RUSSELL from Dewayne and Kathy McDow dated November 02,
1978 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on November 09, 1978 under
document 1189, Book 68, Page 977.
Lands conveyed to HER MAJESTRY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF
NOVA SCOTIA from Renova Scotia Bioenergy Incorporated dated December 21, 2012 and
recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on December 21, 2012 under document
102203289.
Lands conveyed to CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED from David Orr dated November
30, 1999 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on December 07, 1999
under document 6797, Book 738, Page 215.
The DEVELOPER further certifies it has full authority to construct and operate the Proposed
Development pursuant to the leases with each of the PROPERTY OWNERS. Each of the
Dr
a
f
t
Page 7 of 8
PROPERTY OWNERS and the DEVELOPER joins in this Development Agreement solely for
the purpose of indicating its consent to the MUNICIPALITY to issue a Development Permit to
the DEVELOPER for the Proposed Development in accordance with this Development
Agreement and pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Development Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hand and affixed their seal the day
and year first above written.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
in the presence of
) TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS (2010)
) LIMITED,
)
)Per:
)
)
)
)
)
) ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY
) LIMITED
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
)
) OXFORD FROZEN FOODS
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) BARRY RUSSELL
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
Dr
a
f
t
Page 8 of 8
)
)
)
) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF THE PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
) CHESTER
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
Dr
a
f
t
W200-755
SRL/bab
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT made in triplicate this day of
, 2013
BETWEEN:
TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS (2010) LIMITED a body corporate with Head
Office at Hantsport, in the County of Hants and Province of Nova Scotia;
ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY LIMITED (Managed by Wagner Forest NS
Limited), a body corporate with Head Office in Truro, in the County of
Colchester and Province of Nova Scotia;
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN In Right of the Province of Nova Scotia;
CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED a body corporate with Head Office
in Wolfville, in the County of Kings and Province of Nova Scotia;
BARRY RUSSELL, New Ross, in the County of Lunenburg and Province of
Nova Scotia
(hereinafter called “PROPERTY OWNERS”)
OF THE FIRST PART
- AND -
OXFORD FROZEN FOODS LIMITED, a body corporate with Head Office at
Oxford, in the County of Cumberland and Province of Nova Scotia;
(hereinafter called the “DEVELOPER”)
OF THE SECOND PART
- AND -
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER, one of the
Municipalities under the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia;
(hereinafter called the “MUNICIPALITY”)
OF THE THIRD PART
WHEREAS the PROPERTY OWNERS have entered into certain Leases for a portion of
the lands of the PROPERTY OWNERS located South of the New Russell Road at or near South
Canoe Lake, in the County of Lunenburg and Province of Nova Scotia and which is described in
Schedule “A” attached hereto for the purpose of building and operating a Wind Energy Facility
comprising wind turbines, access roads, gates, fencing, service buildings and transmission
equipment;
AND WHEREAS a Wind Energy Facility is defined as a facility containing all
equipment and improvements necessary or desirable for the conversion and delivery of wind
energy into electricity, including, but not limited to:
a) one (1) or more wind turbine generators, their foundations, towers and electrical
controllers;
b) the collector system including transmission, distribution and power lines,
interconnection customer’s interconnection equipment, meters, transformers,
protection equipment, substation and related equipment;
Dr
a
f
t
Page 2 of 8
c) civil works including areas needed for construction, security, access roads,
fencing and gates, utilities including communications lines, water lines and drain
lines; and
d) a sign or signs displaying owner or lessee names and other information;
(hereinafter called the “Proposed Development”)
AND WHEREAS the Environmental Assessment Approval comprises the
Environmental Assessment Registration Document, the Minister’s Decision, and the
accompanying Terms and Conditions dated July 13, 2012;
AND WHEREAS the DEVELOPER has applied to the MUNICIPALITY for a permit to
use the lands leased from the PROPERTY OWNERS and described in Schedule “A” attached
hereto, and depicted on Schedule ‘B’ attached hereto, to construct and operate a Wind Energy
Facility (the Proposed Development);
AND WHEREAS the lands described in Schedule “A” are situated in an area which is
both designated General Land Use on the Future Land Use Map of the Municipal Planning
Strategy, and zoned General Basic on the Zoning Map of the Land Use Bylaw;
AND WHEREAS Policy 7.8.2 of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Clause 6(B).1.1
b) (i) of the Land Use Bylaw enabled the Proposed Development by Development Agreement;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the MUNICIPALITY has considered Policies 8.04 and
8.05 of the Municipal Planning Strategy, and has satisfied itself that the Proposed Development
is in conformity with those Policies;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the MUNICIPALITY, by Resolution passed at a
meeting on the day of , 2013, approved the execution of this Development
Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of
the foregoing recitals, and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION
1.1. The MUNICIPALITY hereby agrees that a Development Permit shall issue to the
DEVELOPER for the Proposed Development subject to the terms and conditions of this
Development Agreement.
1.2. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall exempt the DEVELOPER from
complying with Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws, bylaws and regulations in force
within the MUNICIPALITY, including the Building By-law, or from obtaining any
Federal, Provincial or Municipal license, permission, permit, authority or approval
required thereunder including any permission required under the Fire Protection Act and
the Environment Act.
2. USE OF LAND
2.1. The DEVELOPER hereby undertakes to ensure that, subject to paragraphs #8 and #11 of
this Development Agreement, the use of the lands described in the Schedule “A” shall be
limited to the Proposed Development which has been defined as a Wind Energy Facility
not to exceed a nameplate capacity of one hundred and two (102) megawatts, together
with all structural components associated with said facility, and timber harvesting;
2.2. The DEVELOPER undertakes to ensure that any illumination that is not required by
Transport Canada shall not project any glare or direct illumination onto adjacent
properties other than those of the PROPERTY OWNERS.
Dr
a
f
t
Page 3 of 8
2.3. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that all watercourses, wetlands and habitats are protected
against any negative impacts that may take place during construction of the Proposed
Development or during its operation and as outlined in the Environment Assessment
Approval;
2.4. The DEVELOPER shall ensure storm and drainage patterns are adequate for the subject
facility so as to avoid flooding;
2.5. Any access road is at least 5 m in width and is constructed in such a fashion as to permit
access for adequate fire protection and emergency services. The road design and layout
shall include consultation with the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief.
2.6. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the construction of structures accessory to the
use in clause 2.1, including, but not limited to, substation building, storage sheds and
utility buildings, provided the structures are located no closer than 165 metres from any
adjacent property boundary other than that of a PROPERTY OWNER.
3. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
3.1. The DEVELOPER shall ensure that the Proposed Development is built and operated as
follows:
a) that it does not create undo traffic hazards, traffic congestion or pedestrian hazards;
b) that it does not generate emissions such as noise, dust, radiation, odours, liquids or
light to the air, water, or ground so as to create a recognized health or safety hazard
and that the impact of any emissions on the Development potential and value of
properties in the vicinity of the Proposed Development has been minimized; and in
particular that:
i. the sound level generated by the operation of the wind turbines does not
exceed the forty (40) dbA maximum relative to qualified receptors as
prescribed by the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment in the
Environmental Assessment Approval; and
ii. the period of shadow flicker does not exceed thirty (30) hours per year relative
to qualified receptors as prescribed by the Nova Scotia Department of the
Environment in the Environmental Assessment Approval.
c) the Proposed Development shall be constructed and operated so as to achieve
optimal separation from adjacent properties which are not in commercial or
industrial use or owned by the PROPERTY OWNERS and in particular:
i. the DEVELOPER has agreed that no wind turbine shall be constructed within
1,200 metres of any existing residences as of 15 October 2012; and
ii. no wind turbine shall be constructed within ___________of any adjacent third
party boundary saving and excepting the property defined as PID #60131216.
d) all structures constituting part of the Proposed Development shall be built, repaired
and maintained so as to be in good repair and workmanlike condition in accordance
with good utility practice.
3.2. The DEVELOPER shall obtain and maintain at all times, while the Wind Energy
Facility is being built and operated, all necessary permits and approvals required by
Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments;
3.3. The DEVELOPER shall minimize traffic to and from the Proposed Development that
may have an undue negative effect on properties that are served by a Residential Street;
3.4. Any timber harvesting shall follow all applicable regulations and guidelines in effect at
the time of Harvesting;
Dr
a
f
t
Page 4 of 8
3.5. If onsite sewage disposal systems or a water supply system are required for the Proposed
Development, then those shall be operated so as not to have a negative impact on the
quality or quantity of the water resources in the area.
3.6. Any access roads, driveways, parking areas and any areas used for open storage of
equipment or stock shall be surfaced with stable material to prevent dust from blowing
on to adjacent properties and to prevent erosion.
4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.1. Any hazardous materials on site shall be stored, handled and labelled according to
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) Regulations, as well as
any other applicable federal or provincial regulation or legislation, so as to prevent the
accidental release or otherwise of any of these substances to the air, ground or water;
4.2. Bulk storage of any hazardous material such as, but not limited to, fuel products, shall be
located at least one hundred (100) metres from any watercourse or wetland as identified
in the Environmental Assessment Approval;
5. FIRE PROTECTION
5.1. The Owner shall install a minimum of two dry hydrants on the property in accordance
with the following:
a) one dry hydrant shall be located on the East side of South Canoe Lake;
b) one dry hydrant shall be located on the West side of South Canoe Lake;
c) the precise locations of dry hydrants shall be determined after consultation between
the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief, Nova Scotia Department of
Environment and the DEVELOPER;
d) material and construction specifications for dry hydrants shall be determined after
consultation between the New Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief and the
DEVELOPER;
e) all necessary approvals from Nova Scotia Department of Environment shall be
obtained; and
f) an adequate driveway access, parking area for fire vehicle use and signage shall be
provided for each dry hydrant as specified by the New Ross Volunteer Fire
Department Fire Chief.
5.2. Dry hydrants shall be installed prior to commencement of construction of the Proposed
Development.
5.3. Changes in the schedule for installation of dry hydrants as specified in clause 4.2 may be
approved by the Development Officer where written consent is received from the New
Ross Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief.
6. DECOMMISSIONING
6.1 In the event that any provisions of Section 9.2 (c) and (e) of this Agreement occur
which could lead to discharge of this Agreement, the MUNICIPALITY may require the
PROPERTY OWNERS or the DEVELOPER to decommission the Proposed
Development in accordance with Section 6.2 of this Agreement.
6.2 The DEVELOPER shall, upon decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility ensure the
following in compliance with Nova Scotia Department of Environment regulations:
a) dismantle and remove all wind turbines;
b) remove all turbine towers, and reinstate topsoil to ensure stabilization of the land;
Dr
a
f
t
Page 5 of 8
c) remove the collector system conductor and poles; and
d) remove any structures that do not comply with the Land Use By-law of the
MUNICIPALITY at the time of decommissioning.
7. CHANGES AND ALTERATION
7.1. All matters in this Development Agreement not specified in Section 8, Non-substantial
Matters, are substantial and shall not be changed or altered except by amendment of this
Development Agreement according to the Municipal Government Act.
8. NON-SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS
8.1. The following non-substantial matters may be changed or altered without amendment to
this Development Agreement but with the written consent of the Council of the
MUNICIPALITY, provided that the Council of the MUNICIPALITY determines that
the changes due not substantially alter the intended effect of aspects of this Development
Agreement.
a) the project boundary may be reduced provided that the criteria for the location of
wind turbines as identified in Section 3.1 (c) of this Agreement are met;
b) the precise location of wind turbines as shown on Schedule ‘C’ attached hereto may
be adjusted provided that the criteria for the location of wind turbines as identified
in Section 3.1 (c) of this Agreement are met.
c) the precise location of substation, transmission line, collector system, structures and
storage areas may be adjusted provided that no such building is located closer than
165 metres from any boundary of a property not owned by a PROPERTY OWNER.
d) the exact location of access roads, provided they are at least 5 m in width and are
constructed in such a fashion to permit access for adequate fire protection and
emergency services.
e) any use or activity permitted as-of-right by the General Basic Zone.
f) removal of parties of the First Part of this Agreement if determined that their
property is not within the lands described in Schedule “A” attached hereto.
9. TERMINATION AND DISCHARGE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
9.1. This Development Agreement shall be in effect until discharged by Resolution of the
Council of the MUNICIPALITY in accordance with the Municipal Government Act
where upon the Land Use Bylaw shall apply to the lands described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto.
9.2. The Council of the MUNICIPALITY may discharge this Development Agreement if :
a) the Proposed Development has not been commenced within eighteen (18) months
from the date of this Development Agreement;
b) the DEVELOPER breaches any term of this Development Agreement and fails to
rectify it after having been given written notice;
c) the DEVELOPER breaches any terms of its lease with any of the PROPERTY
OWNERS, which, if not rectified, would lead to the termination of said lease, or
upon the termination of said lease for any other reason;
d) the Proposed Development described herein is discontinued for a period of not less
than twelve (12) months;
e) should any fact provided to the MUNICIPALITY by the DEVELOPER or its
Agents constitute a material misrepresentation of the fact upon which this
Development Agreement is based.
Dr
a
f
t
Page 6 of 8
10. APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE BY-LAW
10.1. THAT without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any aspect of any development
on the lands described in Schedule “A” attached hereto, not otherwise specified in this
Development Agreement, are subject to the requirements to the Land Use By-law.
11. EFFECT
11.1. THAT in accordance with Section 229 of the MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT, this
Development Agreement shall continue to apply to the land described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto until discharged by the Council of the MUNICIPALITY;
11.2. THAT this Development Agreement shall ensure to the benefit and be binding upon the
MUNICIPALITY its successors and assigns and shall ensure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the DEVELOPER and the PROPERTY OWNERS, their successors and
assigns as the Property Owner and Lessee of the lands described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto until discharged by Council of the MUNICIPALITY.
12. OWNERSHIP
THAT the DEVELOPER and each of the PROPERTY OWNERS are the sole owners of their
respective properties which are included within the lands described in Schedule “A” attached
hereto.
Lands conveyed to TIMBERLAND from Annapolis Group Incorporated dated June 26, 2012
and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on June 27, 2012 under document
100992123.
Lands conveyed to ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY from Neenah Paper Company of Canada
dated June 27, 2006 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on July 17,
2006 under document 85630144.
Lands conveyed to BARRY RUSSELL from Dewayne and Kathy McDow dated November 02,
1978 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on November 09, 1978 under
document 1189, Book 68, Page 977.
Lands conveyed to HER MAJESTRY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF
NOVA SCOTIA from Renova Scotia Bioenergy Incorporated dated December 21, 2012 and
recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on December 21, 2012 under document
102203289.
Lands conveyed to CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED from David Orr dated November
30, 1999 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registry Office on December 07, 1999
under document 6797, Book 738, Page 215.
The DEVELOPER further certifies it has full authority to construct and operate the Proposed
Development pursuant to the leases with each of the PROPERTY OWNERS. Each of the
PROPERTY OWNERS and the DEVELOPER joins in this Development Agreement solely for
the purpose of indicating its consent to the MUNICIPALITY to issue a Development Permit to
the DEVELOPER for the Proposed Development in accordance with this Development
Agreement and pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Development Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hand and affixed their seal the day
and year first above written.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
in the presence of
) TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS (2010)
) LIMITED,
)
)Per:
Dr
a
f
t
Page 7 of 8
)
)
)
)
)
) ATLANTIC STAR FORESTRY
) LIMITED
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
)
) OXFORD FROZEN FOODS
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) BARRY RUSSELL
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) CLIFFORD LONG AND SONS LIMITED
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF THE PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
)
Dr
a
f
t
Page 8 of 8
) MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
) CHESTER
)
)Per:
)
)
Witness )
)
)
Dr
a
f
t
Schedule “A”
All that certain parcel of land situate lying and being in Leminster, County of
Lunenburg, Province of Nova Scotia which parcel of land is more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of PID number 60126315;
Thence N 16 45 21 W 271.322 metres to a point;
Thence S 76 01 25 W 647.730 metres to a point;
Thence N 11 20 32 W 484.770 metres to a point;
Thence N 10 21 12 E 385.645 metres to a point;
Thence N 64 52 13 E 524.034 metres to a point;
Thence N 43 28 25 E 420.918 metres to a point;
Thence N 19 43 25 E 481.494 metres to a point;
Thence N 00 00 02 E 419.493 metres to a point;
Thence N 17 57 00 W 272.241 metres to a point;
Thence N 51 12 05 E 708.605 metres to a point;
Thence N 65 34 30 E 702.611 metres to a point;
Thence N 22 18 48 W 522.407 metres to a point;
Thence N 14 22 53 E 224.948 metres to a point;
Thence S 73 49 17 E 471.221 metres to a point;
Thence S 40 54 51 E 55.451 metres to a point;
Thence N 75 45 00 E 726.330 metres to a point;
Thence S 16 26 10 E 582.519 metres to a point;
Thence S 53 26 33 E 1331.997 metres to a point;
Thence S 37 33 27 E 884.510 metres to a point;
Thence N 35 23 54 E 935.598 metres to a point;
Thence N 37 30 15 W 1059.947 metres to a point;
Thence N 46 32 16 E 588.869 metres to a point on the shoreline of South Canoe Lake;
Thence Northeasterly, Northerly and Northwesterly to a point on the western shoreline
of South Canoe Lake, said point being distant N 01 14 56 W 1025.486 metres of the last
mentioned point;
Thence N 25 29 03 E 331.130 metres to a point;
Thence S 74 18 36 E 258.251 metres to a point;
Dr
a
f
t
Thence N 79 26 20 E 1005.967 metres to a point;
Thence S 45 44 16 E 620.777 metres to a point;
Thence S 38 00 38 E 1283.177 metres to a point;
Thence S 28 36 51 W 3389.088 metres to a point;
Thence S 47 23 42 E 519.973 metres to a point;
Thence S 09 25 55 E 2591.151 metres to a point;
Thence N 85 12 29 W 468.164 metres to a point;
Thence N 45 12 52 W 527.424 metres to a point;
Thence S 45 26 56 W 756.585 metres to a point;
Thence N 44 55 46 W 1605.967 metres to a point;
Thence S 44 31 31 W 1430.208 metres to a point;
Thence N 44 18 47 W 1647.566 metres to a point;
Thence N 41 45 37 E 314.584 metres to a point;
Thence N 17 01 14 W 429.467 metres to a point;
Thence S 73 42 09 W 686.885 metres to a point;
Thence N 21 30 37 W 510.461 metres to a point;
Thence S 73 56 54 W 828.468 metres to the point of beginning.
The above described parcel of land contains 3045 hectares more or less. Bearings are
referred to the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid Zone 20.
Dr
a
f
t
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
24
22
32
31PID: 60399086
PID: 60398914
PID: 60398906
PID: 60399029
PID: 60398872
PID: 60398880
PID: 60398898
PID: 60399037
PID: 60398716
27
28
26
25
29
23
33
3016
15
21
20
19
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
34
181712
14
13
11
10
¯³14
N e w R u s s e l l R d
W i l e S et t l e m e n t R dNew R o s s R d
Mud Lake
Bag Lake
Dam LakeDam Lake
Card Lake
Otter Lake
Muddy Lake
Green LakeLewis Lake
Cooney Lake
Scotia Lake
Caribou Bog
Little Lake
Lewis, Lake
Zwicker Lake
Joe Long Lake
Roaring Brook
Card Lake Hill
Stillwater, The
South Canoe Lake
Upper Canoe Lake
Nova Scotia Lake
Little Otter Lake
Gilberts StillwaterLittle Joe Long Lake
64°14'0"W
64°14'0"W
64°16'0"W
64°16'0"W
64°18'0"W
64°18'0"W
64°20'0"W
64°20'0"W
64°22'0"W
64°22'0"W
44
°
4
8
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
8
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
6
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
6
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
4
'
0
"
N
44
°
4
4
'
0
"
N
Truro
Digby Halifax
Kentville
UV104
UV106UV106
UV103
UV101
UV102
UV118
No guarantee is given as to the accuracy or currency of any of the data. The cadastral information portrayed has no legal value and should only be used as a guide.
Date: June, 2012
Projection: UTM Zone20 NAD83Sources: DNR, GeoBase, NSTDB 1:10,000, Acciona
0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Kilometers
¹
South Canoe Wind Project
102MW Layout
Area Shown
³
Lunenburg County
Hants County
1:40,000
!NSPI
!Minas
!OxfordProperty Owner
Annapolis Group Inc.
Atlantic Star Forestry Ltd.
Dr
a
f
t
6039908660131232
60398914
60398906
60399029
60398872
60398880
60393824
60398898
60399037
60129517
60126315 60126356
603987169
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
2423
22
21
20
19
1817
16
15
14
13
1211
10
Turbine Location
Project Area/Development Agreement AreaDevelopment Agreement Properties
Atlantic Star Forestry Ltd
Clifford Long & Sons Limited
Crown Land
Russell Barry M
Timberland Holdings (2010) Lim
1 0 10.5 Kilometers
Revised Project Boundaries
From:Erin Beaudin
To:Pamela Ackerman; Andre Veinotte; Floyd Shatford; Brad Armstrong; Allen Webber; Robert Myra; Tina Connors;Sharon Cornelius
Cc:Tara Maguire
Subject:RE: PAC and South Canoe Wind Project
Date:Monday, December 03, 2012 3:17:25 PM
Good afternoon Ms. Ackerman,
Thank you for your email. Your letter will certainly be shared with the PAC and I encourage you to
attend the PAC meeting in January (date still to be determined) when the committee considers this
matter. Tara has had a discussion with the chair and it is her intention to allow for public comment
and feedback during this meeting.
I just wanted to clarify the email sent by Tara Maguire on November 26, 2012. Any questions related
to the Development Agreement process should be directed to the Community Development
Department. Questions related specifically to the project should be directed to Minas Basin.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Erin
________________________________
ERIN BEAUDIN, MPA, MAES, BAH
Chief Administrative Officer
Municipality of the District of Chester
151 King Street
P.O. Box 369
Chester, Nova Scotia
B0J 1J0
Phone - (902) 275-3554
Cell - (902) 277-1718
Fax - (902) 275-4771
From: Pamela Ackerman [mailto:repack@bellaliant.net] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:20 PMTo: Andre Veinotte; Floyd Shatford; Brad Armstrong; Allen Webber; Robert Myra; Tina Connors; SharonCornelius; Erin BeaudinSubject: Fwd: PAC and South Canoe Wind Project Dear Councillors and CAO,
In a note to Sue Deal, Tara Maguire wrote that "...any concerns about facts or details of the
project should be directed to either Council or Minas Basin."
Since Minas Basin is well aware of my concerns, and my letter (attached) to Ms Clancey,
hasn't garnered any acknowledgment that they will be taken into consideration by the PAC, Iam forwarding my original letter to you, the councillors and the CAO, in the sincere hope
that these concerns will be a part of your deliberations whenever that will be.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pamela Ackerman <repack@bellaliant.net>
Date: November 26, 2012 11:32:39 AM AST
To: meclancey@ns.sympatico.ca
Cc: tconnors@chester.ca
Subject: PAC and South Canoe Wind Project
Dear Ms. Clancey,
My name is Pam Ackerman. My family owns a cottage on Lewis Lake in New Russell, NS.We have been there for 20 years.
I feel frustrated that the time designated for public comments re the South Canoe Wind
Project Proposal is after your committee has reached a conclusion and passed it on to theChester Municipal Council. And, possibly, not until after the Council has made its decision
when public hearings are finally held.
Now, it seems to me, while your committee is deliberating, is the time to consider somemajor concerns we, in the immediate area, have after much time and study of the proposal.
First -- The immense scale of the proposal -- It is too large.-- over 7000 acres and over 100
megawats. So large that it had to be (on paper) divided into two proposals to fit within the Provincial limit of 80 megawats per project.
However you call it, it is one huge industrial complex to be put down in a quiet rural setting.
It is too high -- It is proposed for land thatapparently is too low for optimum winds. Therefore, the turbines have to be over 100 metres,
that's 300+ feet, tall. And, by aviation rules theywill have to have strobe lights on the tops. -- Again, in a quiet rural setting.
Second -- The nearness to peoples' homes -- and the health effects for infrasound.-- The
planned set back of 1.2 kilometers is not nearly enough to protect from the very real physical effects of infrasound (sound too low to
be heard, felt as pressure) It causes insomnia, headaches, blood pressure, balance, and respiratory problems, well documented in
recent studies, and experienced right here in Digby at a distance of 1.4 kilometers. A 3 to 5 kilometer set back is being called for in
recent studies. There have been so many instances of illness that the Federal Government has this year launched a two year
health study into the subject. Who will pay in New Russell if a home
becomes unlivable due to this pressure that creates the sensation of living inside a drum??
I, and my family, are not opposed to wind power as an alternative energy source. However, ithas to make sense. It has to fit in. We have to be able to live with it in our midst in
reasonable comfort without fearing for our health. This proposal is TOO BIG to make senseand TOO NEAR to leave room for a decent and healthy life style for its neighbors.
Please share this with your PAC committee. We depend on you as our representatives not to
approve something that will destroy where we live,-- what we value. Limitations on size andnearness , among other considerations, has to be possible.
One of my grandchildren said this summer that "Early morning loon calls over the misty
stillness of that beautiful lake are an almost spiritual experience."
I ask you to consider that too. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Pam Ackerman
Hi Ms. Tina Connors
Congratulations on becoming the new council member for our area. As a new councilor I know you’re
busy and I appreciate you taking the time to deal with this important issue.
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) in connection
with the South Canoe Wind farm.
I have worked for The HRM School, board for the past 35 years, chaired countless committees, was a
Race Relations Liaison officer for six years and coordinated and developed “Stay in Schools Programs”
across Canada. I am Co-chair of the Clearwater Lot Owners Association (CWLOA)along with Dr. Richard
Krane.
No Committee chair wants to see their agenda derailed or hijacked by special interest groups. Seasonal
residents are not a special interest group.
No effort was made to directly contact any of the 3 cottage associations (Lewis Lake, Letson Lake or
Clearwater Lake)or any of the hundreds of cottage and land owners. I first became aware of the project
after seeing a notice tacked to the bulletin board at the Vaughan Lakeside Variety store on the long
weekend in September. After making some inquiries I was shocked to find the planning for the largest
Wind farm project in NS was well under way. A major hurdle for the project , an environmental
assessment, had been approved and the deadline for public comment had passed.
How this could take place under the nose of hundreds of cottage owners all within walking distance of
this project without their knowledge is an indication of the poor communication of the CLC. Who was
chosen and the role the members of the CLC play is also of concern. The chair for the CLC is also the
developer of the South Canoe Wind Farm and maintains a veto over the committee. Of all the cottage
owners they chose Judy O’Leary whose email address is NS Power, one of the 3 major players in this
project. I can only surmise from her email address that she is employed with NS Power, clearly a conflict
of interest. This would help explain why so much time is spent on promoting the project with an agenda
preoccupied with choosing a logo, erecting billboards and working with school children on a poster
campaign.
The CLC is not fulfilling it mandate or providing the public with the information regarding the impact
such a large scale project will have on their lives. This is called a Wind Farm but farm is a poor choice of
words to describe what is coming. Take the tallest tree in NS, triple its height to 300ft, place it on top of
the highest hill in the area, and cut down all the surrounding forest. Place 3 120ft rotating blades on it
and sprinkle 33 to 50 of these massive structures over thousands of acres of clear cut land. Light the
whole thing up at night so planes will not run into them. This if your farm. There is a reason why so
many communities and townships have passed by-laws restricting or not allowing wind turbines.
I attended the CLC meeting on Oct 22 at the Vaughan fire hall. I asked Sean Brennan, the project
manager very specific questions regarding the turbines: height, location. As an observer at this meeting I
was not permitted to speak during the 2 hour meeting and could only speak if there was time at the
end. Mr. Brennan could not provide any answers to my questions. He did seek me out after the meeting
guaranteed ( his words, not mine) that he would be at the next meeting and have the answers to my
questions. At the next meeting on Nov 26 in Chester, Mr. Brennan did not show up. He did not forward
an explanation as to his absence or forward any information regarding my questions.. at the end of the
meeting when I asked about my questions from the meeting in Oct. I was told by the Chair they would
be added at a later date.
Sitting at the back of the room, not being allowed to engage in the agenda topics and having your
questions deferred to some later date is not fulfilling the mandate of the CLC. My efforts will now turn
to working with fellow Cottage association members and cottage owners. I’m not on a crusade and I
dislike martyrs. The approach will be balanced, with the focus on information (not on self promotion)
and dialogue from all interested parties.
This mega project has the money and the muscle to hire spin doctors and P.R. specialists to move the
process along as quickly as possible.. the CLC is not a toothless tiger. Toothless tigers are harmless. This
committee is doing some serious damage. The clock is ticking and this project is moving along.
Please share my concerns with council, I have confidence council will act accordingly. Feel free to
contact me any time regarding these concerns at this email
address or home # 902-852-4398 cell902-223-8739 or work 902-852-2062 *2 35566.
Sincerely
Daniel Flinn
To: PAC and Municipality of the District of Chester Council members
Re: Proposed South Canoe Large Scale Industrial Wind Turbine Facility
From: Karen E. Flinn 133 Stonebroke Rd, New Russell NS
Date: 21Jan2012
I am an owner of 3 lots and a cottage and have been in the area for 161/2 years.
I am a member of a cottage association, Clearwater Lake Lot Owners Assoc, which includes lot owners
on Red Shirt and Clearwater lakes, New Russell. Our representatives and myself have been in contact
with the project managers and the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) through various forms…emails,
meetings etc. We have sent information out to our lot owners and the project has been given a list of
emails in order to be able to send out information trying to be as cooperative as possible in the interest of
information and education of the members. Here are some of my concerns.
LACK OF INFORMATION…Concerns with the PROCESS
We found out very late about this project in Sept 2012 somewhat by accident. On Sept 4 minutes of a
recent CLC meeting were posted on a store bulletin board in Vaughan. We were never directly contacted
about it by anyone, municipality or project team. It was only after consultation with the CLC that
information was sent. We have never been contacted by the municipality. I feel as a land owner and
taxpayer in the municipality I should have been informed. We were informed by Tara Maguire that it was
her understanding that no individuals were contacted directly but that there were newsletters sent out. Not
living in the area, we did not have access to newsletter or flyers that may have been distributed.
February 11, 2012, a Public Information Session (open house) was held at the Vaughan Fire Hall to
present the proposed project. Another session was held in Chester on the 13th. We are less than 3 kms
from this project’s boundaries and were never notified or given opportunity to attend any sessions or
comment on the environmental review. And because of lack of notification of this project we missed the
environmental review commenting deadline. I can’t help but feel this lack of information, and quiet
progress in the planning of this project was intentional in light of what happened in the Kings Co,
Annapolis Valley, resulting in a bylaw to prohibit wind turbines.
COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE
How the planning of a project of this magnitude could take place under the nose of hundreds of cottage
owners all within walking distance of this project without their knowledge is an indication of the poor
communication of the CLC. Who was chosen and the role the members of the CLC play is also of
concern. The chair for the CLC is also the developer of the South Canoe Wind Farm and maintains a veto
over the committee. A lot time is spent at these meetings with an agenda preoccupied with choosing a
logo, erecting billboards and working with school children on a poster campaign instead of direct
communication with the public.
The CLC is not fulfilling its mandate or providing the public with the information regarding the impact such
a large scale project will have on their lives.
Members of the Clearwater Lake Lot Owners Assoc. attended some CLC meetings.
Although these meetings are open to observers, they are not 'public', in that you would not be allowed to
participate unless you were a member of the CLC itself .Questions from observers were entertained but
often information or answers were not given or deferred to another meeting. It is questionable whether all
information disseminated from this committee is entirely true. A CLC representative commented recently
on CBC that there were no documented health effects of wind turbines. This is clearly not true. There are
many documented cases and concerns from individuals and the medical community. One only has to do
a basic search the internet or read Health Canada or the WHO statements on these issues to realize this
statement is not true.
The formation of the CLC was mandated through the recommendations of the Minister but I do not feel
they have met the true intention/mission of its formation and may be in violation.
NOT IN MY BACKYARD…… “NIMBY”
I was recently told that those in opposition to this project were being called NIMBYs. Instead of name
calling it is my hope that the true reasons for opposition to this project be considered. Chester has a
bylaw against wind turbines in its area…why should this be any different for residents in the rest of the
municipality? Many/ most of us have specifically chosen a rural lifestyle…an industrial site is not
something most of us would choose to live by.
This project is being called a “Wind Farm” but farm is a poor choice of words to describe it. First imagine
a clear cut of thousands of acres of land. Take a large industrial tower, place it on top of the highest hill in
the area. Place 3 120ft rotating blades on it and sprinkle 34 of these massive structures over thousands
of acres of this clear cut land. These structures are about 50 stories high. These will then emit noise and
light/ strobe effects. Light the whole thing up at night so planes will not run into them.
This if your “FARM”.
There is a reason why so many communities and townships have passed by-laws restricting or not
allowing wind turbines. The other, greater concerns have to do with health issues that I will address later.
HEALTH CONCERNS
There are many documented serious health concerns with wind turbines. Most of these stem from the
effects of the noise produced. The noise levels can vary depending on wind speed, wind direction, fog,
topography of land, time of day and other factors. The sound that causes the most problem is
infrasound, low frequency noise that travels much farther than audible noise. This is not detected by the
ear but the brain. We volunteered to have sound monitoring on our property but have since found out that
only audible noise is measured, infrasound is not measured.
The large scale wind turbine installations rarely meet the predictions of their estimated sound levels due
to incorrect assumptions and failure to account for measurement error. This has led to large
underestimates of the separation distances between dwellings and the turbines required to prevent
adverse effects: EXAMPLE at Pubnico levels were predicted to be a maximum of 49dBA, but were found
to be 54dBA when measured (Health Canada, 2009) 9dBA over the Health Canada recommendations.
There is more and more scientific evidence that the presumed safe limits are not safe at all and that
adverse health effects are present at far lower levels. “there are peer-reviewed articles indicating that
wind turbines may have an adverse impact on human health”(Health Canada 2009)
WHO has stated; “the recognition of the noise as a serious health hazard as opposed to a nuisance
is a recent development and the health effects of the hazardous noise exposure are now
considered to be an increasingly important public health problem.”
SETBACK DISTANCES
Many in the medical community are suggesting an increase in the setback distances…the distance
allowed between wind turbines and residents in an effort to reduce the health problems caused by noise.
The latest current recommendation by those in the medical community is 3-5kms.
This project has chosen to double the recommended setbacks based on what is currently used in other
areas which is still greatly under 3-5kms. I do not understand, with the great area of land that is available
to this project, why it can’t at least increase the setbacks substantially.
DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY VALUES
This is a concern to many permanent residents, property owners, and seasonal residents. I have invested
in this area and am concerned about the loss of property value. The CLC claims this is not so but there is
much evidence it is true and has happened in many other areas of Canada. Will our property taxes be
decreased accordingly??
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This is indeed a lengthy, thorough document of which I have read. There are indicated to be specific
concerns regarding specific species of flora and fauna as well as recommendations in place to protect
these as well as waterways etc. What specific watchdog is to be set up to monitor these specific
recommendations from the environment Minister when he issued its approval??
There is much public documentation about the increase in the number of bird kills from wind turbines.
Is there someone to monitor this?
My concern is that humans occupy the environment as well. No “before” or “after” questions of human
health are ever considered. If there are any resulting changes in health after wind turbines are placed in
close proximity the only recourse and individual has is to sue the companies individually. Would the
municipality also be liable, having reviewed all the information presented and approving the project?
RECENT WIND TURBINES ISSUES IN THE NEWS
There was a recent report about wind turbines being decommissioned in PEI .
A report studying the Maritime link stated it would be more cost effective to choose that source of energy
than wind turbine or natural gas.
Health Canada is presently doing a study on the effects of Wind turbines.
Darrell Dexter refuses to wait for the results of this study.
BENEFITS
Other than the half a million in tax dollars that will be generated for the municipality what are the other
benefits?
It has been suggested that there will be an increase in employment opportunities. How many of these
jobs will go to local workers? At the end of the project only 3 people will be employed.
It has been suggested that there will be opportunities for eco tourism. Is this really a tourism destination?
Most people who seek out ecotourism are looking for natural experiences.
FINAL REPORT that has been prepared by the Planning Dept in Chester to be presented at the PAC
Meeting Monday evening.Jan 21
The main area of concern shows up on pgs 11-12 under discussion and the specific items that are
subject to change. These items will only require approval of council at a later date. There will be no
public consultation on these decisions. These items subject to change at a later date include acquisition
of new lands and repositioning of turbines…that will likely be closer to New Russell Road…the very thing
that is a major concern to those in our area. This will make the project boundary closer to many
residents and a water source for a lake.
COUNCIL PRESSURE
I am concerned that this is a very large project, worth a lot of money and tax dollars for the municipality.
I am also concerned that there is a lot of pressure placed on councilors to agree to go ahead with this
project; pressure from the provincial government, pressure from fellow councilors and those linked to the
companies proposing project.
I feel the majority of the residents, land owners and seasonal residents were not informed about this
project in a timely manner, and most had no opportunity to respond to the environmental assessment.
There has been a short period of time to organize and inform the public about the concerns of a large
scale industrial wind turbine site. The very little information the public may have been receiving was from
the CLC. Overall a balanced approach to the education of the public was lacking.
The individuals who will present their concerns today are fewer in number than those proposing the
project but please hear what their concerns are.
There are many reasons that so many other councilors, councils, communities and townships in Nova
Scotia have passed bylaws to restricting or not allowing wind turbine sites.
I am including a website address to documents submitted to the King Co council (June 2012) in their
consideration of rescinding bylaws allowing wind turbine sites. These include many personal accounts of
health effects from those living in areas close to wind turbines, medical professionals concerned with the
health effects, explanations of the effects of noise both audible and inaudible as well as those supporting
wind energy: a balanced account.
http://www.county.kings.ns.ca/upload/All_Uploads/Comdev/Planning/windturbines/Reports/2012.06.20%2
0Notes%20of%20Public%20Hearing%20and%20submissions.pdf
WHAT I AM ASKING FOR
For council to carry out a more thorough investigation into the negative health and environmental effects
of wind turbines.
For council to delay the start of this project until Health Canada’s study is complete.
For councilors to consider the resulting devaluation of peoples homes and properties.
For councilors to consider if they would want these turbines near your home and family without knowing
fully what the effects on them will be. Are you willing to place your constituents in this position?
Respectfully Submitted
Karen E. Flinn
From:Frank Peters
To:t.connors@chester.ca
Cc:Dan Flinn; Richard Krane; Tara Maguire; adrienne.malloy55@gmail.com; Sue Deal; macphafh@gov.ns.ca
Subject:South Canoe Windmill Project
Date:Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:58:26 PM
Hi Tina. My name is Emery Peters and I own a cottage on Red Shirt Lake (Long Lake) in New Russell
which I understand is within the boundaries of your constituency. Congratulations on your recentsuccess in the Municipal elections. I am writing as a taxpayer to express my concerns with the progression of the above proposal todevelop the largest windmill farm in Nova Scotia and possibly the largest in the Atlantic provinces. Thisproject has progressed through the provincial environmental review process with little, if any, input orcomment by a large number of cottage owners and seasonal residents along the New Russell Road.Many of these people have not received any information or notification about the project, it's magnitudeor how close it is to them. The primary reason for this lack of information is that this segment of yourconstituency does not normally use local mail or frequent community centers where information wasapparently posted. It is my opinion that responsibility here should have been on the proponent tocontact this segment of the community, particularly since it is likely that this area of New Russell Roadrepresents one of the largest group of people that will feel the effects of the proposal. Even though thisomission was noted in the minutes of their Community Liaison Committee (CLC) meeting as far back asMay 2012, no action to contact them was made until they were pushed during discussion at themeeting of 22 October 2012. That being said, the project has now moved to the Municipal level ofgovernment and in the near future you will be asked to make a decision as whether or not this projectwill proceed. I have to make it perfectly clear, I am not against renewable energy sources or specifically windmills.However as I try to play "catch up" on this proposal and find how windmills work, what the impactsmay be be and how it will affect myself, I have quickly come to the conclusion there is a lot ofinformation out there and a lot lot of information unknown. As an example, the health impacts onpeople around windmill farms seems to go from one end of the spectrum where some people are totallyunphased, to the other end, where people have had to move away to regain normalcy back in therelives. This is now the subject of Health Canada study which I believe is due in 2014. Depending on whoyou speak to, the impacts of noise, property values or mass killing of birds are extreme or non-existent.In other words there is still a long ways to go before all the impacts are known, what the safe distancesfor "buffer" zones should be and how large windmill farms compare to small farms. My concern is that,with so much information still "up in the air", the fact the primary source of information for theMunicipality is the developer who will present a biased approach and the fact that Municipality has nospecific policy addressing windmill development of this magnitude, this project will take another stepforward before all of the community has been heard and no steps are taken to minimize potentialimpacts on the environment and people. Such a policy would protect the environment andpeople until the impacts of windmills are better identified by scientific study such as that beingconducted by Health Canada. In other words, better to err on the side of caution than to have causeddamage that cannot be repaired, all for the sake of the tax revenue that may be gained today. My suggestion is that the Municipality first consider developing a policy that will protect the interests ofits residents, before it allows a project of this magnitude to proceed unfettered. You can be assured thatonce this project is up and going, no what the circumstances, the windmills will keep turning. I have also forward a copy of a recent email to the chair of the CLC expressing my concern over theinability of the committee to act as an unbiased communication linkage with the community. Please donot hesitate to contact me my email (emery_260 @ hotmail.com) or call me at home (1-902-852-3469)or on my cell(1-902-999-3232). Respectfully; Emery F. Peters
BRIEFING DOCUMENT
Preface
For several years it has been apparent that there have not been sufficient or appropriate
health care resources available to serve the current and growing needs of our community.
Many of our residents are without a family physician, yet our region has one of the highest
obesity, diabetes and heart disease levels in the province as well as an aging population in
need of geriatric and palliative support.
After reviewing how other regions of the province are dealing with similar health care
delivery problems, we believe we have created a model that addresses the immediate
needs of our community. Our Health Centre will be built in Chester beginning this year, to
be in full operation before the end of 2014. It will serve the entire Chester Municipality
(from Martin’s River, to and including all of the Blandford Peninsula, and inland to New
Ross), the Hubbards area, and the Tancook Islands. The facility will incorporate primary
care physicians and nurse practitioners, provide space for visiting medical specialists (e.g.
pain management, pediatrics) and coordinate public health services throughout our region
(e.g. mental health, pre-natal, blood collection). Through coordination of programs focused
on healthy living (smoking cessation, support groups, nutritional cooking classes, etc.), we
will be able to improve and enhance the wellness of our residents. Our Health Centre, its
staff, volunteers, and database will become a multi-faceted health care resource for all
residents of our municipality.
The broad and dynamic vision for Our Health Centre is a welcoming, comprehensive facility
where residents can obtain health-related information and care, thus feeling well-served in
times of health or illness. We believe it will be a model for other communities to emulate,
and potentially a platform for further expansion of resources serving the many aspects of
health and wellness in our region.
OHC Briefing Document
Page 2
Our Health Centre’s Mission
To partner with individuals, families, and our communities to identify, promote, and
provide the services and supports required to improve health and wellness for all.
Prescription for a Healthy Community
Like many rural areas in Nova Scotia, we urgently need more doctors and nurse
practitioners and, when referred to a medical specialist, we would also benefit by receiving
that consultation right here, closer to home. These and many other health related services
will all be housed under one roof in a suitable, well designed, and welcoming facility.
The Canadian Medical Association tells us that current graduates prefer a practice where
they can consult and interact with other health care providers in an environment that
facilitates shared learning and research benefiting the health care consumer.
Our Health Centre is intended to serve the communities of the Municipality of Chester, the
Hubbards area and the Tancook Islands.
Our goal is to provide this model to ensure that the population of almost 15,000 will have
access to a strong health team providing consultation, treatment, wellness education,
satellite services to surrounding communities, and urgent attention when needed. After
hours care will be provided seven days a week.
A successful Capital Campaign will ensure that Our Health Centre is in full operation before
the end of 2014.
“Our community has benefited greatly, over the years, from exceptional health
care. Our Health Centre will ensure that access to health care providers
improves and that this exceptional care is accessible to all.”
- Rev. Dr. M. Allen Gibson
OHC Briefing Document
Page 3
The Benefits
Immediate Impact: More accessible medical services
An increased number of health care practitioners in our community;
Coordinated resources, provided by medical practitioners across the area, that
ensure “after hours” services;
Health related programs delivered throughout our many communities;
Centralized health and wellness services linked to outreach and supportive
community programs;
Increased delivery of health services and programs to households;
Expanded and new health and recreation programs that build on existing local
community initiatives.
Long-term Impact: Healthier people and a healthier community
Better educational opportunities for health and wellness;
Continuous and stable primary health care through a collaborative practice that
can maintain medical histories;
Local economic development through independent healthcare-related small
businesses;
Increased numbers of professionals and families, young and old, who settle in the
area because of the high quality of medical services close to home;
A unique organization that participates in health care pilot projects, training and
research.
In addition to essential frontline medical service, Our Health Centre will provide referrals
to specialists, counseling, and support for healthy lifestyle changes. Our Health Centre will
also be a resource base for those seeking information about programs and services, as well
as assistance for aging family members and those with unique needs. Engaging, fun,
educational opportunities will support growth and learning for all ages.
“I believe the best model for optimal health care is a multidisciplinary one.
This can be achieved in a setting where the various professionals are in
constant communication with each other, such as in a community health
centre.”
- Dr. Tom Marrie
Dean of Dalhousie Medical School
and resident of Marriott’s Cove
OHC Briefing Document
Page 4
The Building Project
Our Health Centre will be a 12,500 square foot complex of new and existing space located
to the left of the Shoreham Village driveway in Chester. The facility will house:
Six family doctor’s offices with connecting examining rooms;
A main reception and information centre;
Central administrative offices;
South Shore Health Authority offices for mental health and addiction, a diabetic
clinic, and continuing and primary care;
Blood collection (as a separate designated service area);
Office space for visiting and consulting professionals;
Waiting rooms, meeting rooms, and private space to gather patient
information;
Volunteer support areas.
Our Health Centre will be easily accessible to all communities in our area, from New Ross to
Southwest Cove, and from Martin’s River to Hubbards. Adequate parking with easy access
to the Centre has been forefront in planning.
OHC Briefing Document
Page 5
Operations
Our Health Centre, its programs and staffing, will be overseen by a Board of Directors,
elected to this position based on their abilities and reflective of our collective communities.
The Board will hire a Centre Manager responsible for staff and volunteers, operation of the
facility, assistance with sourcing health professionals, management of records, and
ensuring that information about healthy living, health support, and health care is widely
accessible. Initial hiring will be done by members of the current implementation Task
Force.
Sustainability:
Our Health Centre is committed to balanced budgets, based on a realistic and
conservative revenue plan. Key revenue sources are projected to include:
Rentals of offices to medical practitioners and other health care providers; short-
term and long-term rentals for other health related
activity;
Confirmed rental income from South Shore Health Authority (SSHA) for the use of
space to offer current programs within a single location. These services are
currently housed in different locations in Chester.
Investment income from an endowment fund that is part of our initial
fundraising goal and long-term growth plan;
An annual fundraising program.
Our Assurance of Success:
Our Health Centre is rooted in identified community need and support. Our leaders have a
track record of partnering for success with projects such as the creation of the
collaborative practice in Chester. Our leadership and campaign teams are committed to
responsible planning, sound fiscal and operational management, and responsive, prudent
action.
“We need to encourage our community to focus on becoming the
world’s healthiest place to live. Imagine the attraction of the
community to those considering where they might raise young
families…”
John Risley
Clearwater Fine Foods
OHC Briefing Document
Page 6
Costs
To cover construction and start-up costs and to position Our Health Centre for ongoing
sustainability and success, our goal is to raise $6,000,000:
Cost Estimates:
Engineering & Management $169,000 (including land preparation, testing, tendering, legal & environmental)
Construction $3,830,000
(including well drilling, site service & permits)
Furnishings & Equipment $448,000
(including IT & telephone systems, interior décor & maintenance equipment)
Start-up $53,000
(including OHC Manager, marketing & promotions, campaign & ceremonies)
Contingency $500,000
(including any construction overruns)
Endowment Fund $1,000,000
(to support ongoing operations and innovative programming) ___________
Fundraising Goal: $6,000,000
Land, architectural designs, and project management services for Our Heath Centre have
been donated by supporters from our community. The project is proceeding based on a
financial plan and forecast that indicate a sustainable operating budget for Our Health
Centre. Fundraising costs of the campaign will be less than one percent of funds raised.
Our Team
OHC Foundation Board
Jim Barkhouse, Chair
Barbara Grigsby
Lara Parsons
Sue Pattillo
Gretchen McCurdy
OHC Board
Dan Green, Chair
Gerry Giffin
Joy Calkin
Kim Geldart
Mike Dockrill
Jim Pattillo
OHC Briefing Document
Page 7
Capital Campaign
A broad reaching Capital Campaign has been designed to raise the $6,000,000 required to
turn Our Health Centre into reality.
This campaign begins with the many volunteers – Board Directors, as well as task force and
committee members – who are working on the campaign already. It is anticipated that
everyone in this group will make their personal pledge to the project.
A broad based Community Campaign has been developed that will see organizations and
individuals in each of the communities throughout the region hold local fund raising
events to contribute to Our Health Centre. This community campaign has a dual purpose –
to raise money and to engage residents in the effort so they will come to know this is their
centre; they helped to put it there and it belongs to all.
Approaches are being made to all three levels of government in anticipation of their
interest in being involved in a project that is so critical to the health and wellness of their
citizens, which in turn will have long term economic benefits.
Corporations and businesses that reside in the region, as well as those corporations which
are not resident here but provide services to our citizens, are being approached for their
support in providing for healthier employees and healthier customers.
When the campaign has achieved measurable success, approaches will be made to
Foundations that support such projects in our region. Throughout the campaign every
appropriate granting opportunity that is available will receive a related application.
Already underway is a campaign directed at people in the region, who may have the
capacity to give a large gift to the project. With the support of these individuals,
approaches will then be made to others who live in the area.
Board Directors and Volunteers $ 250,000. (4.2%)
directly working on the Project
Community Based Grassroots Campaign $ 300,000. (5.0%)
Governments $2,000,000. (33.3%)
Corporate $1,000,000. (16.7%)
Foundations $ 500,000. (8.3%)
Major Donors $1,950,000. (32.5%)
In addition to the above , the land, along with the architectural and project management
fees, has been donated. These are three significant gifts to Our Health Centre.
OHC Briefing Document
Page 8
Volunteer Component
From the earliest beginnings all work done on the Our Health Centre project has been done
by volunteers. At present more than 40 individuals are working hard to see the facility
become a reality. Every week there are more people who step forward. They want to
become involved to assist in moving the project ahead. It is with the energies of many,
many people throughout the region that the goal will be realized and our ability to become
a more vibrant, energetic and healthy community will be achieved.
Present Status of Health & Medical Services in the Region
The current situation is dire, as many people do not have a family practitioner at
present.
One doctor in the region currently seeing a large number of patients is close to
retirement.
Several family practitioners in region work part-time.
Many residents travel to walk-in clinics which are an hour or more away for their
medical needs.
South Shore Regional Health Authority services are scattered throughout the region,
making it difficult for residents to know of their availability or location.
Significant distances must be travelled for consultations and appointments with
medical specialists.
When needing health or medical advice, residents are unsure as to where to obtain
the required information.
Few health related programs are currently being offered throughout the region.
A Few of the Many OHC Community Advisors
Roy Conrad - Western Shore Danielle Ouellette - Blandford
Debbie Reeves - New Ross Andy Hare - Hubbards
Mary Ellen Clancey - Fox Point Ann Phelan - East River
Bryan Mitchell - Chester Basin Heather Gates - Blandford
Suzanne Brown – Simm’s Settlement
OHC Briefing Document
Page 9
Historical Background
In 2005 a group of citizens trying to recruit doctors to our area realized that although
doctors want to come, they do not want to work alone or with only one other doctor; they
prefer to be in a group practice with other doctors and/or nurse practitioners.
A Steering Committee investigated health and medical needs in rural communities in an
attempt to understand the best way to deliver these services. The group undertook the
challenge of doing a needs assessment and related research to determine how best to
address the shortage of family practitioners and limited health care opportunities
throughout the region. The first step in their work was the expansion of the Medical Health
Centre to include a nurse practitioner and doctor. The result of ongoing investigation and
work was a strong vision for a collaborative health center.
In 2011 presentations were made to various organizations, including the Aspotogan
Heritage Trust, the Hubbards & Area Business Association, and the Chester Municipal
Council. During the summer public meetings were held in Hubbards, Blandford, Chester
Basin, Western Shore, New Ross and Chester. There was overwhelming support for a
health centre.
September 2011 - At a meeting at Forest Heights Community School the intent to build a
health centre to serve the Municipality of Chester as well as Hubbards and the Tancook
Islands was announced.
2012 - The Steering Committee which led the project this far created two governing bodies
– an OHC Association Board and an OHC Foundation Board – under the Societies Act
and registered them with the Registry of Joint Stocks for Nova Scotia.
The OHC Association Board recruited people with the drive and ability to make the vision
of a collaborative health centre a reality. The Board appointed two task forces: one to raise
money, design, and build the facility, and one to oversee operations and programs. These
task forces have created several subcommittees to lead this work. New volunteers are
joining this effort all the time.
OHC Briefing Document
Page 10
Meet Our Team: Our Health Centre Project Leaders
Dan Green - Chair, Our Health Centre Board
· Ordained Clergy for 33 years
· Pastor of Chester United Baptist for 14 years
· Doctor of Ministry, Acadia University
· Board of Governors, Acadia University
· Chaplain, Royal Canadian Legion, Chester, F.E. Butler Branch #44
Jim Barkhouse - Chair, Our Health Centre Foundation
· Nova Scotia Minister of Fisheries, 4+ years
· MLA in for Chester, 10+ years
· Owner-operator Reddens Hardware in Chester for 16 years
· Chair Lunenburg County Community Fund; numerous volunteer efforts in community,
county and province
Jim Pattillo - Chair, Task Force 1: Design & Build
· Has lived and worked in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and New York while
maintaining a base in Chester where he now lives full time
· Career in investment banking and executive corporate management and ownership
· Member of several crown, corporate, private, and community boards
· Other major projects include Ontario Special Olympics and Calgary Chamber of Commerce
Don Munroe - Finance, Task Force 1: Design & Build
· 52 years in the financial business in various Canadian trust companies; Chief Operating
Officer and Director, Wood Gundy
· President Halifax-Dartmouth United Way
· Treasurer Shoreham Village
· Board member for a variety of organizations ,including St. Francis Xavier University
Kit McCurdy - Build, Task Force 1: Design & Build
· Created, developed, and ran South Shore Marine in Chester for 30+ years
· Created, developed and ran The Galley Restaurant in Chester for 23 years
· Daily oversight of St. Stephen’s Parish Community Centre construction
· Member of community organizations, including Fisherman’s Hospital Board
Lorraine Burch - Communications, Task Force 1: Design & Build
· Lifeskills Director at Bonny Lea Farm, 6 years
· Sherbrooke Lake Camp management, 27 years
· Owner-operator Apple Tree Daycare, 19 years
· Executive Director Alpine Ski Nova Scotia, including Disabled and Freestyle Skiing and
member of related provincial and national
Gretchen McCurdy - Fundraising, Task Force 1: Design & Build
· Chair of the Board Girl Guides of Canada-Guides du Canada, 2003-2006
OHC Briefing Document
Page 11
· Chair Development Committee Mount Saint Vincent University
· Chair of $.5M Capital Campaign for St. Stephen’s Parish Community Centre
Kim Geldart - Chair, Task Force 2: Operations & Programming
· Owner/Operator of several pharmacies, three of which are in the catchment area
· Member Bonny Lea Board &and Bonny Lea Foundation
· Participant in the renovation and expansion of the Community Resource Centre, Chester to
provide space for a doctor and nurse practitioner
· Initiated Chester Physician Recruitment Committee, 2005
Joy Calkin - Programming, Task Force 2: Operations & Programming
· Adjunct Professor at Dalhousie School of Nursing and V-P Academic, University of Calgary
· CEO Extendicare Health Services, Inc., multi-national long term care
· Board member for numerous health related boards and philanthropic foundations in
Canada and USA
· Consultant on various health related taskforces and strategic planning projects for
provincial, state and federal governments in Canada and the USA
Syd Dumaresq, Architect
· Fourth generation Architect committed to Nova Scotia and its heritage
· Designed medical facilities including Gladstone, Clayton & Parkwest Professional Centres
in Halifax, as well as Yarmouth Professional Centre
· Designed community centres, including East Hants and Chester Family Resource centres,
Chester United Baptist Church addition
· Volunteer projects: Mahone Islands Conservation Association, Atlantic School of Theology,
environmental, marine, and historical projects within the Chester area
Wilson Fitt, Co-Project Manager
· Managed new construction and redevelopment projects in excess of $250M in past 10
years
· Currently construction manager for Bluenose II reconstruction
· Project oversight on behalf of NS Department of Health & Wellness for new Truro Hospital
· Advisor to the Waterfront Development Corporation on two ongoing projects
· Managed the Nova Scotia Community College’s multi-location redevelopment and
expansion program, completed in 2010
Thelma Costello, Co-Project Manager
· Currently providing project management services to the IWK Health Centre and the
Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21
· Health care clients have included GEM Health Care Group Ltd., Rosedale Home for Special
Care and Lunenburg Home for Special Care Corporation
· Additional clients include Acadia University, Service Nova Scotia & Municipal Relations, the
Department of Environment & Labour, and the Department of Agriculture,
· Tax Commissioner for Province of NS during the implementation of the HST
OHC Briefing Document
Page 12
Ways to Give: Every gift is important.
Gifts of Cash
Gifts of cash are tax deductible in the year received and include cash, cheque and money
orders. Your gift may also be charged to a major credit card. You will receive a tax receipt for
the full amount of the gift. (Tax savings may reduce your actual cost by as much as 45%,
depending on the gift amount, your current tax rate and your place of residence in Canada.)
Pledges
Pledges are gifts of money made to Our Health Centre over a period of time. You can pledge a
gift monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or annually. Each portion of the gift will receive a tax
receipt in the year it is given.
Stocks & Securities
Stocks of publicly listed companies donated directly to the OHC offer significant tax benefits to
the donor. A donation of appreciated stocks will receive a charitable tax receipt for the fair
market value of the shares, valued on the day the donated stocks or securities are received.
The donor will not have to pay capital gains tax on the shares.
Donations of Property
Donations of land or other physical property (art, equipment, collections, memorabilia) will
receive a tax receipt based on assessed value. Such items will be sold, and turned into cash to
go towards funding the project.
Giving is Easy
For donors who have already made the decision to donate to OHC, a straightforward donation
(cash, a personal cheque, or credit card) is a simple way to ensure you are part of creating our
healthy community.
Cheques may be made payable to: Our Health Centre
PO Box 74
Chester, NS B0J 1J0
For more information on how you can make a gift, please email info@ourhealthcentre.ca
OHC Briefing Document
Page 13
Our Health Centre Capital Campaign Pledge Form
2013 – 2018
I/we wish to make a contribution to Our Health Centre. I/we hereby pledge/agree to contribute:
$ ______________ to be paid: in a single payment
in installments:
over ______ years (up t0 5 yrs)
First payment of $ _____________ on _____________________
(DD/MM/YY)
Balance to be paid in ________________ installments
(monthly, quarterly or yearly)
[Note: Pledge reminders will be sent in accordance
with your payment schedule.]
Contact Information:
Name(s): __________________________ Email __________________________________
Address: _________________________________ Phone: ( ) - ________________
Credit Card: (If making payment by credit card) Card Type (VISA etc.)
Card Number Expiry Date CW Code
Additional Information:
I wish to help in the general canvass. I would like my gift to be
recognized on a donor wall.
Please contact me to discuss my gift. (Gifts of $250 and more will be displayed on a
donor wall)
My company will match this gift. I would like my gift to be anonymous.
This gift is made in memory of _________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________ Date: _______________________
Cheques should be made payable to: Our Health Centre
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
December, 2012
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Within the Municipality of Chester and areas there are fragmented models of health delivery which are
poorly co‐ordinated.
There are too few Doctors, Nurse Practitioners and related disciplines to deliver health services
efficiently to a demographic population whose growing health requirements range from pediatric needs
to an increasing proportion of geriatrics, suffering from a wide range of ailments, who all pour into an
aged infrastructure and system which does not encourage collaboration and preventive, proactive
health care. The situation creates stress among the new generation of practitioners who want a more
defined lifestyle than their predecessors.
A change is required for the betterment of all.
There is no blame‐ times change‐ needs change. Our requirement is simply a focused, community‐based
accountable and collaborative effort on the part of all involved.
The following is the business plan/ model of such an enterprise: Our Health Centre
A plan that merges health needs of the populace with services of family doctors, medical specialists,
allied health care professionals, nurse practitioners, nurses, support staff and our volunteers all working
together.
A plan that incorporates the Communities' needs of today with the new technologies and growing
knowledge base of the varied medical & health industries.
A plan that makes us all more aware of what, where, when and how we access a health delivery system
and healthier living strategies.
A plan that sustains the necessary infrastructure whose activities meet our ongoing health care needs
which produce ' healthier people and healthier communities.
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
Page 2
Table of Contents
A) Structure and Objectives of Our Health Centre Association and Foundation
B) OHC: A Beginning
C) Operations: Impactful & Consequential
D) Financial Projections
E) Time Table
Appendices
1) Our Health Centre Foundation Financial Projections
2) Our Health Centre Association Financial Projections
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
Page 3
A) Objectives and Structure of Our Health Centre Association and Foundation
Association
The objectives of Our Health Centre Association are to establish and maintain, conduct and operate a
charitable society in the Province of Nova Scotia to improve the health and health care of people in the
Municipality of the District of Chester and environs; and specifically to acquire and maintain a physical
plant and equipment and undertake programs for a healthy community, including research, teaching and
patient care and health promotion and education.
The Association is structured as a nonprofit society with charitable status. The Association is governed
by a Board that has as its purpose making of policy and strategy decisions to accomplish the objectives
of the Society. The senior manager (a paid position) of the Centre is selected by and is accountable to
the Board for the qualitative and quantitative performance of the Centre.
The Directors are accountable to and elected by Members at an annual general meeting.
The Members are those who support the objectives of the Society, whose name and address is written in
the Register of Members by the secretary, who pay an annual fee in an amount to be determined by the
Society, and/or those who reside in the geographic area of the Municipality of the District of Chester and
environs, and/or those whose place of work or vacation homes are in this area.
Foundation
The objectives of Our Health Centre Foundation are to establish and maintain, conduct and operate a
charitable society in the Province of Nova Scotia, to receive and maintain a fund or funds to apply all or
part of the principal and income therefrom, from time to time, to improve the health care of the people
of the Municipality of the District of Chester and environs, Nova Scotia, and specifically to provide
support to Our Health Centre Association and/or other health care facilities that are registered charities ,
to acquire and maintain a physical plant and equipment and undertake programs for a healthy
community, including research, teaching and patient care and health promotion an d education.
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
Page 4
B) OHC: A Beginning
Qualitative/Quantitative
The initial Association operating business plan of the OHC has been structured by developing prioritized
core operating health activities (care & programs) and attaching them to their financial consequences.
The initial model is based upon a central operational 'hub' which facilitates and enables responsive
health care on a direct, preventive and educational basis in a number of areas.
From its Chester base the area of service has a population of approximately 12,000 people and reaches
such communities as Tancook Islands, New Ross, Hubbards, Western Shore and the Aspotogan
Peninsula
As the 'hub' is the central magnet of support for all the areas for the issues & care needs that arise, it
may redirect and/or assist to deliver the best health solution or program. This will complement and
augment existing health services, such as physicians in Hubbards and Chester as well as other health
care providers, and hopefully expand those services within our communities. In addition the centre staff
and volunteers will work closely with communities and organizations to identify successful programs
and network them to all and also identify and fill in gaps in services and supports.
The new building is designed to be increased or altered to offer expanded services, programmes and
their administrative needs. The site is 'greenfield' in order to have a modern, efficient and healthy
building.In order to deliver such services the plan needs a consolidated building where doctors, nurses,
other health care practitioners and volunteers can collaboratively operate and communicate whether
physically located in the building or out in the communities.
The initial building will be a capital cost of approximately $4,000,000.00 where systems, offices,
examining rooms, reception areas, and operational support areas will be of a quality as to be able to
deliver services in an efficient, productive, safe & healthy manner.
The services and programs will be in those areas that have the greatest priorities that impact health
dramatically: a constant "work in progress".
The initial Foundation business plan is to raise and manage on an ongoing basis the capital which will
support the operational and capital budgets of the Association.
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
Page 5
C) OPERATIONS : Impactful and Consequential
The Association business plan must ensure OHC is impactful and will produce consequential benefits
while being economically viable. Whereas most 'health centres' are not financially viable, the
Association’s model is designed with a focused balance between revenues, services and costs that will
be constantly monitored.
The Association will operate to support a number of permanent and shared spaces for doctors, nurses,
nurse practitioners, South Shore Health, and administrative staff.
The Association will operate under a culture of excellence while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
Gross revenues are derived from various revenue streams including doctors’ office leases, part time
allied health care/ specialists’ rents, daily or program room rentals, South Shore Health office rents,
membership fees and health related services.
Total revenue is forecast to be in excess of $400,000 to where all costs are covered. In order to prevent
income shortfalls, the Board and Management will plan & arrange programme assistance, a realigned
mix of tenants, and consistent fund raising events coordinated with the Foundation which may support
on a planned and reviewed basis by way of its generated income.
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
Page 6
D) Financial Projections
Appendices
1) Our Health Centre Foundation Financial Projections
2) Our Health Centre Association Financial Projections
Our Health Centre
Business Plan
Page 7
E) Time Table
Construction
The earliest start date will be the fall of 2013 with a completion date of September 2014.
Capital Campaign
The capital campaign has all of its’ infrastructure in place and is underway.
APPENDIX 1
OUR HEALTH CENTRE FOUNDATION
PROJECTED BALANCE SHEET
As at
Unaudited - See Notice to Reader
Dec. 10, 2012 March, 2013 March, 2014 March, 2015 March, 2016
Assets
Cash and investments -$ 452,534$ 74,534$ 746,276$ 746,276$
Pledges receivable 2,000,000 2,200,000 1,000,000 500,000
Funds held in trust 96,534
96,534 2,452,534 2,274,534 1,746,276 1,246,276
Property, Plant and Equipment
Land 500,000 500,000
Building and equipment, at cost 645,000 5,280,000
- 1,145,000 5,780,000 - -
Total Assets 96,534$ 3,597,534$ 8,054,534$ 1,746,276$ 1,246,276$
Liabilities
Bank operating loan 1,500,000$ 1,000,000$ 500,000$
Accounts payable
Due to/from association
- - 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000
Construction Debt
Short term loan
- - 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000
Foundation Equity
Investment in land and building 1,145,000 5,780,000
Restricted 96,534 2,452,534 774,534 746,276 746,276
96,534 3,597,534 6,554,534 746,276 746,276
Total Liabilities and Equity 96,534$ 3,597,534$ 8,054,534$ 1,746,276$ 1,246,276$
NOTICE TO READER
These financial projections have been compiled based on information provided by members of the Task Forces established to organize
and coordinate the development of the Foundation and Association. The projections have not been audited or reviewed. Readers are
cautioned that this statement may not be suitable for their purposes.
The accompanying notes form an integral part of these financial projections
OUR HEALTH CENTRE FOUNDATION
PROJECTED STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND DISBURSEMENTS
Unaudited - See Notice to Reader
Dec. 10, 2012 March, 2013 March, 2014 March, 2015 March, 2016
Revenue
Donations 122,976$ 1,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Investment income 1,000$ 30,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$
Pledges 2,000,000 1,000,000
122,976 3,001,000 3,030,000 25,000 25,000
Disbursements
Initial organizational costs 26,442
Land acquisition 5,000 10,000
Design 25,000 25,000
Construction 500,000 3,500,000
Project management 25,000 50,000
Furnishings and equipment 380,000
Start-up costs 50,000
HST 80,000 560,000 40,000 20,000
Construction financing and pledge financing 5,000 55,000
Foundation operating costs 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Transfers to Association 73,000 8,258 -
26,442 645,000 4,708,000 53,258 25,000
Excess revenue over disbursements 96,534 2,356,000 (1,678,000) (28,258) -
Surplus, beginning - 96,534 2,452,534 774,534 746,276
Surplus, ending 96,534$ 2,452,534$ 774,534$ 746,276$ 746,276$
NOTICE TO READER
These financial projections have been compiled based on information provided by members of the Task Forces established to organize
and coordinate the development of the Foundation and Association. The projections have not been audited or reviewed. Readers are
cautioned that this statement may not be suitable for their purposes.
The accompanying notes form an integral part of these financial projections
OUR HEALTH CENTRE FOUNDATION
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
(Unaudited - See Notice to Reader)
Status and Nature of Financial Projections
1 Revenues
Donations and Pledges are estimated.
Revenue Dec. 10, 2012 March, 2013 March, 2014 March, 2015 March, 2016
Donations 122,977 1,000,000 2,000,000 - -
Pledges - 2,000,000 1,000,000 - -
Totals 122,977 3,000,000 3,000,000 - -
2 Land Acquisition
Land has been donated. Land acquisition costs relate to legal fees and appraisal costs.
3 Operations
On an ongoing basis the Foundation will have minimal operating costs.
4 Property Plant and Equipment
The building cost estimates have been calculated in consultation with a professional construction manager.
5 Bank Operating Loan
a) revolving operating loan with maximum limit of $1,500,000 to be fixed once construction is completed
and repayable over three to five years to coincide with collection of pledges.
6 Pledges Receivable
Pledges receivable are estimated to be collected within one to five years of commitment.
7 Income Taxes
The Foundation is a not for profit organization and not subject to income taxes.
8 Related Party
Our Health Centre Association was incorporated on March 14, 2012 as a non-profit organization under the Societies Act.
The Association is an operating entity with aims and objects similar to the Foundation.
The surplus of the Foundation is projected to be used to assist as required to balance the operating budget of the Association as well
as other health related programs.
Land is based on the market value of existing land which has been donated to the Foundation. Once completed the land and building
will be conveyed to Our Health centre Association.
These projections are based on the Foundation obtaining lender financing in the following amounts:
The Foundation was incorporated on March 19, 2012. The purpose of the Foundation is to receive and maintain a fund to improve the
health and health care of the people of the Municipality of the District of Chester and environs, Nova Scotia, and specifically to provide
support to Our Health Centre Association and other health facilities that are registered charities, to acquire and maintain a physical plant
and equipment and to undertake programs for a healthy community, including research, teaching and patient care and heath promotion
and education.
These financial projections have been prepared based on the Task Forces' estimates as of the date of the accompanying report using the
significant assumptions as set out below. The precise determination of these amounts is dependent on future events and as a result,
actual results will differ. This information has been prepared to assist with obtaining registration and charitable status with the Canada
Revenue Agency and for internal planning and budgeting purposes. These financial projections are not intended for general purpose use
and readers are cautioned that the information may not be suitable for their purposes.
APPENDIX 2
OUR HEALTH CENTRE ASSOCIATION
PROJECTED BALANCE SHEET
As at
Unaudited - See Notice to Reader
Dec. 10, 2012 March, 2013 March, 2014 March, 2015 March, 2016
Assets
Cash -$ 1,000$ -$ -$ 21,077$
Accounts receivable 5,000 5,000
Inventories 5,000 5,000
- 1,000 - 10,000 31,077
Property, Plant and Equipment
Land 500,000 500,000
Building and equipment, at cost 5,280,000 5,280,000
- - - 5,780,000 5,780,000
Total Assets -$ 1,000$ -$ 5,790,000$ 5,811,077$
Liabilities
Bank operating loan
Accounts payable 10,000 10,000
Due to/from Foundation
- - - 10,000 10,000
Association Equity
Unrestricted - 1,000 - - 21,077
Restricted 5,780,000 5,780,000
- 1,000 - 5,780,000 5,801,077
Total Liabilities and Equity -$ 1,000$ -$ 5,790,000$ 5,811,077$
NOTICE TO READER
These financial projections have been compiled based on information provided by members of the Task Forces established to organize
and coordinate the development of the Foundation and Association. The projections have not been audited or reviewed. Readers are
cautioned that this statement may not be suitable for their purposes.
The accompanying notes form an integral part of these financial projections
OUR HEALTH CENTRE ASSOCIATION
PROJECTED STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND DISBURSEMENTS
Unaudited - See Notice to Reader
Dec. 10, 2012 March, 2013 March, 2014 March, 2015 March, 2016
Revenue
Collaborative practice 302,400$ 308,448$
Flex space 14,400 14,688
Membership revenue 1,000$ 5,000$ 5,000 5,000
Health care related tenants 20,000 50,000
South Shore Health 25,100 25,602
Donations 15,000 15,300
- 1,000 5,000 381,900 419,038
Disbursements
Salaries 60,000 197,500 201,450
Benefits and training 9,000 33,625 34,298
Office costs 10,000 27,600 28,152
Property taxes 13,333 13,600
Insurance 7,200 7,344
Power and heat 25,000 25,500
Housekeeping 21,800 22,236
Other occupancy 18,100 18,462
Contingency 15,000 15,300
Health promotion and research 15,000 15,300
Information technology costs 16,000 16,320
- - 79,000 390,158 397,961
Excess revenue over disbursements - 1,000 (74,000) (8,258) 21,077
Transfers from Foundation 73,000 8,258
Surplus, beginning - - 1,000 - -
Surplus, ending -$ 1,000$ -$ -$ 21,077$
NOTICE TO READER
These financial projections have been compiled based on information provided by members of the Task Forces established to organize
and coordinate the development of the Foundation and Association. The projections have not been audited or reviewed. Readers are
cautioned that this statement may not be suitable for their purposes.
The accompanying notes form an integral part of these financial projections
Status and Nature of Financial Projections
1 Revenues
The collaborative practice envisions 6 practitioners with a rent of $4,200 per month. Flex space projects 3 rooms with rent of $400
per month.
2 Transfers from Foundation
The Foundation is projected to support the ongoing operations as required. During the initial start-up year the Foundation is projected
to cover the operating costs of the Association.
3 Operating expenses
Wages and benefits are based on 4.5 employees and benefits of 15%.
Municipal taxes are based on area rate only (fire, sewer, waste).
Other occupancy includes snow removal, cleaning and other supplies, waste removal, fire protection and environmental.
Office costs include office and medical supplies, telephone and internet, records management and accounting.
3 Property Plant and Equipment
Land, building and equipment are projected to be transferred to the Association from the Foundation on completion in September,
2014.
The Association was incorporated on March 14, 2012. The purpose of the Association is to improve the health and health care of the
people of the Municipality of the District of Chester and environs, Nova Scotia, and specifically to operate and support the facility to be
constructed, known as Our Health Centre, and other health facilities that are registered charities, to acquire and maintain a physical plant
and equipment and to undertake programs for a healthy community, including research, teaching and patient care and heath promotion
and education.
These financial projections have been prepared based on the Task Forces' estimates as of the date of the accompanying report using the
significant assumptions as set out below. The precise determination of these amounts is dependent on future events and as a result,
actual results will differ. This information has been prepared to assist with obtaining registration and charitable status with the Canada
Revenue Agency and for internal planning and budgeting purposes. These financial projections are not intended for general purpose use
and readers are cautioned that the information may not be suitable for their purposes.
Office and operating costs are projected to increase at 2% per annum.