Loading...
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 ¯³14 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 LayersDwellingOther BuildingUnidentified 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 ¯³14 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 ¯³14 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.