Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015-06-11_Council Public Agenda PackageMUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 8:45 a.m. AGENDA 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER. 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 2.1 Council - Thursday, May 28, 2015 3. MATTERS ARISING: 3.1 Lands of the former navigational Aid-FVH Repeater Site, Wake -Up Hill: a. Request for Decision from Director of Engineering dated April 16, 2015. 3.2 Copy of ad placed by the NS Utility and Review Board with regard to the Boundary Review (date of public hearing is June 29, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Council Chambers). 3.3 Request for Decision - Universal Sewer 2014/15 Financial Results - Director of Finance. 3.4 Request for Direction - Architectural Control via Site Plan - Director of Community Development 3.5 Report dated June 4, 2015 - Proposed Amendments to the Heritage Property Act and to Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations - Senior Planner. a. Consultation Paper - Proposed Amendments to Heritage Property Act and Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations. b. Heritage Property Amendments Table. C. Heritage Property Act. d. Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations. 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 4.1 Citizens Planning Advisory Committee - April 27, 2015 - Warden Webber 4.2 Municipal Area Advisory Committee - April 28, 2015 - Councillor Veinotte 4.3 Any other Committee Reports. S. CORRESPONDENCE: 5.1 Letter from Municipality of the District of West Hants dated May 21, 2015 regarding Notice of Public Hearing - Falmouth Growth Zoning Map - housekeeping corrections. 5.2 Letter from Events Lunenburg County dated May 26, 2015 regarding request for Letter of Support as part of the bid process for the 2017 +55 Games bid. 5.3 Request for Decision - Visitor Information Centre (VIC) - Senior Economic Development Officer. 5.4 Letter dated June 2, 2015 from VOCTADA regarding the Gold River Western Shore School Project. 5.5 Response dated May 29, 2015 from NS Department of Transportation & Infrastructure Renewal regarding McInnis Road, Chester Basin. Page 1 of 2 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Energy Strategy - Next Steps a. Final Energy Strategy - Minas Energy Report from CAO 7. ADJOURNMENT. In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA - Land Negotiations Page 2 of 2 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD $` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE POLLING DISTRICTS The MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER has made application to the Board under section 369 of the Municipal Government Act to confirm the number of councillors to be elected in October 2016, and confirm the number and boundaries of its polling districts. The hearing has been scheduled as follows: COMMENCING: Monday, June 29, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: Chester Municipal Council Chambers 151 King Street Chester, Nova Scotia ALL PERSONS are entitled to attend the hearing. NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that any persons wishing to comment on the application may also provide comments to the Board no later than Monday, June 22, 2015 by forwarding a letter to the Clerk of the Board at PO Box 1692, Unit "M", Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 3S3, or by email at boardnnovascotia.ca or Fax: (902) 424-3919, or by calling the Clerk at 1-855-442-4448. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Board may conduct the hearing by telephone conference call. A copy of the application is available for inspection at the Office of the Municipal Clerk, Municipal Administration Building, 151 King Street, Chester, Nova Scotia, during regular business hours and at the offices of the Board, Summit Place, 3rd Floor, 1601 Lower Water Street, Halifax Nova Scotia or on the Board's website at http://nsuarb.novascotia.ca/, by clicking on "Cases & Evidence", Find Cases by Case Number" and insert in "Search Term" Matter ID M06633. Document; 236999 Report To: Submitted By: Date: Subject: CD�n� Gll/I � THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE 03� DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION Council Steve Graham, Director of Finance June 11, 2015 Universal Sewer - 2014/15 Financial Results Current Situation: We have processed revenue and expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31St, 2015 and the results for the Universal Sewer as compared to the budget are below: Universal Sewer - 2014/15 Financial Trial Balance: May 27, 2015 Actual Budget Variance Revenue: Universal Sewer Rate $830,619 $821,514 $9,105 Sewer Hook up Fees $24,294 $0 $24,294 PCAP Grant $44,856 $0 $44,856 $899,769 $821,514 $78,255 Expenditures: Operating $571,658 $566,782 ($4,876) Capital from Revenue $161,863 $147,500 $14,363 $733,521 $714,282 ($19,239) Transfer to Reserve $166,248 $107,500 $58,748 Capital from Borrowing $147,500 $147,500 $0 As an overview, under the revenue section, the universal sewer rate revenue is up over budget mainly due to adjustments made to the EDU's assigned to various property accounts. The sewer hook-up fee revenue is reflected differently this year as it would normally be netted to the expenditures. And the PCAP grant was not anticipated during the budget process. Under the expenditure section, our operating expenditures are slightly above budget by $4,876 (less than 1%) and capital from revenue is up over budget by $14,363 (approximately 10%) mainly due to inflow and infiltration expenditures that is more than covered by the PCAP grant. Under the transfer to reserves section, we budgeted the expected surplus ($107,500) to be transferred to the sewer reserve however the surplus is anticipated to be $166,248 (up approximately 55%). As per budget, we would borrow $147,500 for those capital expenditures not covered through the EDU rate. Discussion: With the positive financial results of the universal sewer operations, there is an opportunity to forgo the capital borrowing mentioned previously if we covered those costs prior to transferring the surplus to the sewer reserve. The analysis is shown below: If we didn't borrow for the capital expenditures: Actual Budget Variance Revenue: Universal Sewer Rate $830,619 $821,514 $9,105 Sewer Hook up Fees $24,294 $0 $24,294 PCAP Grant $44,856 $0 $44,856 $899,769 $821,514 $78,255 Expenditures: Operating $571,658 $566,782 ($4,876) Capital from Revenue $309,363 $147,500 $161,863 $881,021 $714,282 ($166,739) Transfer to Reserve $18,748 $107,500 $88,752 Capital from Borrowing $0 $147,500 $147,500 As it shows, if all of the capital expenditures were covered through the EDU rate, we would be transferring less to reserve ($18,748) than what was budgeted ($107,500) however we would not have to borrow $147,500. If we look at the advantages/disadvantages of borrowing versus reserves, the cost of borrowing would be incurred over the next five years (approximately $10,000) as well as the debenture discount incurred at the time of borrowing (approximately $5,000). On the other hand, Interest earned on the net difference of the funds transferred to reserve ($88,752) would earn approximately $7,000 in revenue over the next 5 years. To summarize, the difference between the cost to borrow and the interest revenue is approximately $8,000 loss over the five year period. As well, our debt service ratio would increase if we borrowed the funds. Recommendation: I would recommend the capital expenditures be covered by the EDU rate rather than borrow $147,500 and to transfer the net surplus of $18,748 to the sewer reserve. Prepared BY Steve Graham Date June 4, 2015 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date June 4, 2015 REPORT TO SUBMITTED BY DATE SUBJECT ORIGIN MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DIRECTION Municipal Council Tara Maguire, Director February 2, 2015 Architectural Control Via Site Plan Motion CURRENT SITUATION: Staff are currently working on a set of draft amendments to both the Chester Municipal Planning Documents and the Chester Village Planning Documents to address the tools used for architectural control. The UNSM Board of Directors submitted a request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in December requesting that an amendment be made to the MGA to permit Municipalities to control architecture through site -plan approval. This is something that already exists in the Halifax Charter and staff believes it would be a good tool for all municipalities. This matter was brought forward to Council earlier this year, when it was identified that MODC could not presently control architectural features through Site Plans. Council was supportive of such a change to the MGA as it would enable MODC to control architectural items through Site Plans. During the process of discussing with the Department of Municipal Affairs, the amendment to MODC documents to control architectural features by way of a Development Permit (as the option of Site Plans was not available), the proposed changes to the MGA were discussed. Municipal Affairs staff have been requested to reach out to Municipalities to understand the nature of the request. Municipal Affairs staff were unaware of our particular situation and suggested it may be useful to have a letter from the Municipality to support the changes proposed by UNSM, encouraging them to include the changes in the fall legislation amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Send a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, copied to both the Deputy Minister and the Director of Planning advising them of our support for pursing the requested changes as part of the fall legislation amendments. IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: n/a 2 Financial/Budgetary: n/a 3 Environmental: n/a 4 Strategic Plan: n/a 5 Work Program Implications Staff will continue to work on amendments to the MPS and LUB to remove architectural controls via site plan. ATTACHMENTS: Draft letter to Municipal Affairs Letter to Municipal Affairs from UNSM dated Dec 8, 2014. OPTIONS: 1. Direct staff to finalize the draft letter and send to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, copied to both the Deputy Minister and the Director of Planning advising them of our support for pursing the requested changes as part of the fall legislation amendments. 2. Direct staff to take no action. Prepared BY Tara Maguire Date June 4, 2015 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY '1'�jn)r �... ijsgi : Date t� is Vii , , 11-5- June 11, 2015 The Hon. Mark Furey Minister of Municipal Affairs P.O. Box 216 Halifax, Nova Scotia, 63J 31<5 Dear Minister Furey: The Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester supports the request made by the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities in December, 2014, to: Amend Section [Part] 8 of the MGA so that municipalities have the ability to regulate architecture through the site plan approval process. It is our opinion that this provision would represent another important tool to assist municipalities in achieving their land -use planning goals and would serve to streamline and add some flexibility to otherwise complex planning processes. Further, it would assist local municipalities in their efforts to maintain and enhance community character and vibrancy. This tool is already available to Halifax through the HRM Charter and is considered a pressing request for those municipalities that are actively planning for the protection of heritage, community character, and economic development. It is our position that the same planning tools should be made available to other municipalities, both in this particular situation, and in a general sense. Those powers contained in the MGA and the Halifax charter which are enabling tools are meant to assist municipalities. As such, when tools are made available in one document, the same tools should be made available in the other document to ensure fairness and equality for all municipalities. We respectfully request that you put forth the above amendment in the fall of 2015. Sincerely, Warden Allen Webber Cc: Mr. Dan McDougall, Deputy Minister Mr. Gordon Smith, Provincial Director of Planning MUNICIPALITY OF THE ii DISTRICT OF CHESTER REPORT REPORT TO: Tammy Wilson, CAO SUBMITTED BY; Bill DeGrace, Senior Planner DATE: June 4, 2015 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Heritage Property Act and to Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations ORIGIN: 2015-111; March 26,2015: Direction from Council to prepare a report, meet with Area Advisory Committees, and provide comments to Municipal Council for consideration CURRENT SITUATION: By e-mail to municipal CAOs, the Nova Scotia Department of Communities, Culture and Heritage (CCH), requested feedback from municipalities on proposed amendments to the Heritage Property Act and to Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations. Municipalities are requested to respond by June 19, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the comments received from by the Village Area and Municipal Area Advisory Committees related to the Heritage Property Act and to Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations and forward them to the Province. BACKGROUND: This request follows advice from the Minister for Communities, Culture and Heritage that municipalities would be consulted on the proposed amendments. The amendments themselves were developed based on input from stakeholders. The Heritage Property Act has been in place since 1989 and was last amended in 2010. The Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations were created in 1992 and last amended in 2000. A consultation paper prepared by the CCH outlines certain provisions under review, explains why they are proposed to be amended, and offers the amended text. A key factor in the proposed amendments is the Province's intention to formally adopt the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation ofHistoric Places in Canada as Nova Scotia's official standards. These standards, developed by Parks Canada in collaboration with provinces, territories and local governments, are being adopted by many jurisdictions. Subscribing to a set of national standards is common in most countries. Currently, the MODC has 61 properties registered under the Act. There are no heritage conservation districts. DISCUSSION: There are seven proposed amendments to the Heritage Property Act, and three proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations. Meeting dates were: ■ Village Area Advisory Committee -April 22, May 25 .(owing to lack of quorum on first date) 0 Municipal Area Advisory Committee -April 28 Each Committee was provided with the Province's consultation paper and a table of proposed amendments with staff comments. The Municipal committee endorsed the comments of the Village committee and offered a few additional comments. Several of the proposed amendments are administrative in nature and neither staff nor the committees had any issue with them. They include: ■ Annual filing of the Registry list with the Minister; ■ Ensuring at least two members of the public are on the Heritage Advisory Committee; ■ Enabling Council to amend the scope (geographic area) of a registration; ■ Heritage Advisory Committee (not Council alone) to consider de -registration requests; ■ Amendments to Heritage Conservation District Regulations pertaining to designation timelines, public hearing notices and Provincial approval procedures. The committees offered comments on three key amendments, as follows: #1 Definition of "substantial alteration" This amendment adds a statement to the effect that a "substantial alteration" is one that is not supported by standards and guidelines and affects the character -defining elements of a property. COMMENT: Ensure that the standards and guidelines allow for the use of similar -looking substitute materials, and in particular that they do not affect our policy (P-46) that allows for replacement of windows and doors with those of modern materials. #5 Deregistration of a municipal heritage property This amendment adds a statement to the effect that, in addition to loss or damage of a property's heritage value (not willfully or by neglect), Council may accept "a reasonable rationale by the property's owner to justify deregistration." A public hearing must still be held. Currently, some property owners report issues with insurance, and there are other types of rationale that could be considered. COMMENT: Council should pre -determine the criteria that it will consider for de -registration and provide property owners with this information. It should be as easy to de -register as it is to register. #10 Consideration of a cultural landscape This is not an amendment, but a proposal (without providing specific wording) to make it possible for a municipality to determine the boundaries of a cultural landscape and create a plan and by-law. The concept of "cultural landscape" (a geographical area illustrating the combined work of nature and of people) is similar to that of heritage conservation districts (groups of buildings, neighbourhoods or streetscapes with notable or distinct heritage identity). COMMENT: Tell us more. In the meantime, ensure that the rights of individual property owners are respected when considering cultural landscape and heritage conservation districts. The committees offered additional comments not related to proposed amendments, namely: Registration should not take place without the consent of the owner. The spirit of the legislation is that registration takes place with the co-operation of the owner. There is a public hearing and the owner or anyone else has the right to object. However, there is no stipulation on actual consent. ■ Staff should review the original building survey results to see whether un -registered properties could be re-evaluated. The committees noted that a Strategic Plan success measure is to "increase the number of municipal heritage properties" and felt that this is one approach to reaching this measure.. The Municipality could consider an honorific system whereby buildings are not registered legally, but are simply commemorated by means of a plaque or sign. This approach is one of the New Ross 200th Anniversary initiatives. ■ Consideration should be given to energy efficiency and the realities of the national building code when applications are received. Often the National Building Code appears at odds with heritage. A skilled designer or builder will look to the underlying objective of a code to find a reasonable alternative. OPTIONS: a) Adopt the comments received from the Village Area and Municipal Area Advisory Committees related to the Heritage Property Act and to Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations and forward them to the Province. b) Adopt an amended set of comments based on further discussion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Consultation paper presented by NS Dept. of Communities, Culture and Heritage 2. Table of proposed amendments with staff comments 3. Heritage Property Act 4. Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations Bill DeGrace, MCIP, LPP Senior Planner Prepared BY Bill DeGrace Date June 4, 2015 Reviewed BY Tara Maguire Date June 4, 2015 Authorized BY Date Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 3.5 a Proposed t -to I @eritage PropertyAct and lieritage Conservation Districts Regulations #1: Proposed Amendment — Municipal and Provincial Definition of substantial alteration The present HPA defines the term 'substantial alteration' to better advise stakeholders with the conservation of registered heritage properties, specifically; Interpretation 3(k[I]) "substantial alteration" means any action that affects or alters the character -defining elements of a property. Currently, the definition does not prescribe if such an alteration is in compliance of standards and guidelines. With the adoption of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as the standards and guidelines to be used by government, there is opportunity to better determine what would require consideration by an authority. The proposed amendment to the definition would prescribe that substantial alterations are interventions that do not comply with the standards and guidelines of the HPA. This would provide a more consistent method to ensure the authority only respond to alterations that would negatively impact the character - defining elements of a registered heritage property. Amend Section 3(k[1]) of the HPA with: 3(k[1]) 'substantial alteration" means any action not supported by the standards and guidelines that affects or alters the character -defining elements of a property. Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #2: Proposed Amendment - Municipal Municipal Registry of Heritage Property The Heritage Property Act (HPA) permits a municipality to create a heritage by-law and establish a municipal registry of heritage property, specifically: Municipal registry of heritage property and heritage advisory committee 12 (1) A municipality may by by-law establish a municipal registry of heritage property. The proposed amendment to the HPA would require the municipality to provide a copy of the municipal registry of heritage property to the Minister on an annual basis. The sharing of this information would provide Minister a better awareness of the number of municipal heritage properties registered under the HPA in Nova Scotia. Amend Section 12(1) of the HPA with: 12(1) A municipality may by by-law establish a municipal registry of heritage property and if established, provide the Minister a listing of these properties every September V Fcause ment to an existing provision within the HPA will require that the listing of properties contained municipal registry of heritage property be provided to the Minister on an annual basis. Does oncern for your municipality? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes help address your concern? Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #3: Proposed Amendment - Municipal Composition of the Heritage Advisory Committee This provision is already allowed for within the HPA. The current provision identifies that the heritage advisory committee (HAC) consist of at least two members of council and such persons or such number of persons as the council may determine. The current provision also provides for the municipal planning advisory committee to serve as the HAC, specifically; Municipal registry of heritage property and heritage advisory committee 12(3) The heritage advisory committee shall consist of at least two members of the council and such persons or such number of persons as the council may determine by by-law. The proposed amendment would expand the provisions of the composition of the HAC to include at least two general members of the municipality. As an advisory body, such a committee should not be comprised of only municipal councillors, which can result under the current provisions. The amendment would enhance the committee's primary function; an advisory body to council. Amend Section 12(3) of the HPA with: 12(3) The heritage advisory committee shall consist of at least two members of both the council and the general public, and such persons or such numbers of persons as the council may determine by by-law. E ndment to an existing provision within the HPA will require that two members of the general part of the heritage advisory committee. Does this cause concern for your municipality? If so, scribe your concern. Can you suggest any changes that would help address your concern? Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #4: Proposed Addition - Municipal Scope of municipal heritage property registration The present HPA, where heritage value is determined, typically registers the entire parcel of land as a municipal heritage property. In most cases, not all of the land has heritage value but the blanket approach to designation implies it does. Currently, the HPA may require a property owner to seek approval from council if they would like to develop a portion of their property that does not have any identified heritage value. The blanket approach to registration may result in unnecessary reviews and time delays for a property owner's enjoyment of their property, and provide a false sense of a property's true heritage value by the public. The proposed amendment would permit the council the authority to amend the scope of a municipal heritage property provided the heritage value identified at the time of registration is maintained. Add a new Section 15A to the HPA as follows: Scope of municipal heritage property 15A(1) On the application of an owner of a municipal heritage property or on its own motion, the heritage advisory committee may recommend to the council that the scope of designation of municipal heritage property be amended. (2) Such a recommendation may be made where (a) the heritage value of the property is maintained;. (b) the property's owner has submitted supporting documentation, including mapping, describing the proposed amended scope of designation. (3) Where the council receives a recommendation to amend the scope of designation from the heritage advisory committee or where it appears to the council that the amended scope of designation is reasonable. (4) Where the council amends the scope of designation of a property, the council shall cause notice of the amended scope to be sent to the registered owner of the property and a copy thereof to be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the property is situate. Fmunicipal n to the HPA will provide council the opportunity to consider requests to amend the scope of heritage designation for a registered municipal heritage property. Does this cause concern nicipality? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes that would help r concern? 41Il^aI Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #5: Proposed Amendment - Municipal Deregistration of municipal heritage property The present HPA provides a process to consider requests to deregister a municipal heritage property, including specific criteria that must be met before the request is considered by council, specifically; Deregistration of municipal heritage property 16 (1) On the application of an owner of a municipal heritage property or on its own motion, the council may deregister a municipal heritage property where a) the property has been destroyed or damaged by any cause; or b) the continued registration of the property appears to the council to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the property's heritage value, as identified in the property's heritage file or notice of recommendation, unless the loss of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner, After holding a public hearing to consider the proposed deregistration. Currently, should a property owner be faced with a unique hardship issue, such as higher insurance rates based on the property's legal encumbrance of the municipal designation, the authority is not able to provide consideration. The proposed amendment would permit council the authority to consider deregistration of a municipal heritage property provided the property owner's rational is reasonable. Amend Section 16(1) of the HPA with: Deregistration of municipal heritage property 16 (1) On the application of an owner of a municipal heritage property or on its own motion, council may deregister a municipal heritage property where (a) the property has been destroyed or damaged by any cause; or (b) the continued registration of the property appears to the council to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the property's heritage value, as identified in the property's heritage file or notice of recommendation, unless the loss of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner; or (c) a reasonable rationale by the property's owner to justify deregistration, After holding a public hearing to consider the proposed deregistration. Fthotwould ment to an existing provision within the HPA will provide council the opportunity to consider ration of a municipal heritage property based on a reasonable rational for such a request. Does oncern for your municipality? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes help address your concern? Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #6: Proposed Amendment - Municipal Advice on deregistration application The present requirements of the HPA permits council to consider a variety of applications affecting proposed or registered municipal heritage property. The majority of applications are forwarded to the HAC for advice prior to council's consideration, specifically; Powers of heritage advisory committee 13 The heritage advisory committee may advise the municipality respecting (a) the inclusion of buildings, public -building interiors, streetscapes, cultural landscapes and areas in the municipal registry of heritage property; (b) an application for permission to substantially alter or demolish a municipal heritage property; (ba) the preparation, amendment, revision or repeal of a conservation plan and conservation by-law; (bb) the administration of heritage conservation districts pursuant to the provisions of this Act; (bc) an application for a certificate that is required by this Act or the conservation plan and conservation by-law to go to a public hearing; (c) building or other regulations that affect the attainment of the intent and purpose of this Act; (d) any other matters conducive to the effective carrying out of the intent and purpose of this Act. Currently, all applications to deregister a provincial heritage property are forwarded to the Advisory Council on Heritage Property to better advise the Minister before consideration is provided. The proposed amendment to the powers of the HAC would permit its review of applications to deregister a municipal heritage property. While most municipalities currently forward such applications to its HAC, the HPA does not require this advice. Amend Section 13 of the HPA with: 13 The heritage Advisory committee may advise the municipality respecting (aa) an application to deregister a municipal heritage property Amend Section 16(1) and 16(1)(b) of the HPA with: 16(1) On the application of an owner of a municipal heritage property or on its own motion, the heritage advisory committee may recommend to the council that the municipal heritage property cease to be registered in the Municipal Registry of Heritage Property; and 16(1)(b) the continued registration of the property appears to the heritage advisory committee to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the property's heritage value, as identified in the property's heritage file or notice of recommendation, unless the loss of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner. FThisomendment to an existing provision within the HPA will require advice from the heritage advisory on applications to deregister a municipal heritage property. Does this cause concern for your ? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes that would help address n? Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #7: Proposed Addition - Municipal Timeline to consider municipal heritage conservation districts The present requirements of the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations (HCDR) permits council to consider the approval of a municipal heritage conservation district. The steps to develop and consider the proposed plan and by-law for the proposed district are clear, however, there is a defined timeline to complete this process. The proposed addition to the HCDR would provide council a reasonable timeline of three -years to complete the consideration of a HCD; the process would begin with council's adoption of the necessary public participation program. Without a set timeline, there is uncertainty for council, property owners and the general public regarding the future conservation and development for the area. Add a new section as HCDR Section 5(5) as follows: Processing time for consideration 5(5) Council shall have not more than three years to complete the process to consider the approval of a municipal heritage conservation district. This timeline shall begin upon the adoption of a public participation program outlined in Section 6(1) of the HCDR. Ftimeline n to the HCDR enables council, property owners and the general public to be better aware of to process the application to consider a new municipal heritage conservation district. Does oncern for your municipality? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes help address your concern? Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #8: Proposed Amendment - Municipal Public notice to adopt a conservation plan and by-law The present requirements of the HCDR require council to provide individual notice to each property owner of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law associated with a HCD by mail, specifically; Public hearing for adoption, amendment or repeal 8 (1) Before adopting a conservation plan and by-law, a council shall hold a public hearing at which oral and written submissions regarding the proposed conservation plan and by- law are received. (2) The council shall cause notice to be given of the public hearing and of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law by an advertisement inserted at least once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area of the district, the first of such notices to be published at least twenty-one clear days before the date fixed for the public hearing. (3) The council shall cause notice of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law to be delivered by personal service upon or by ordinary mail to each assessed owner, or any subsequent owners shown on the records in the regional assessment office, of property within the proposed district at least twenty-one clear days before the date fixed for the public hearing. (4) The notices required by subsections (2) and (3) shall (a) describe the proposed district by metes and bounds, by a plan, map or sketch or other description adequate to identify the district; (b) give a synopsis of the proposed conservation plan and by-law and the effect of the conservation by- law on development of the property; and (c) state the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing and the place where and hours during which the proposed conservation plan and by-law may be inspected by the public. (5) The council shall provide copies of the proposed conservation plan and by-law or a portion thereof to interested persons and may charge an amount for copies sufficient to recover the cost of reproduction of copies provided. While effective, it becomes a burden to municipalities that have numerous property owners within the proposed district, including seasonal owners. This provision is inconsistent with the reasonable notice requirements of the Municipal Government Act (MGA); notice is provided by an advertisement in the local paper. The proposed amendment to the HCDR would provide council a reasonable method to provide the public notice of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law that is consistent with the MGA. Amend Section 8(3) of the HCDR with: 8(3) The council shall cause notice of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law in a newspaper circulating in the municipality at least twenty-one clear days before the date fixed for the public hearing. F ment to the HCDR enables reasonable public notice of council's intention to adopt a n plan and by-law associated with a municipal heritage conservation district. Does this cause your municipality? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes thatwould s your concern? Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #9: Proposed Addition - Municipal Approval procedures The present HCDR provides a process for the approval of a conservation plan and by-law, including the roles of the council and Minister, however there is no defined timeline for Minister to review and approve the documents. The proposed addition to the HCDR would provide Minister a sixty day period to consider the approval of these documents. This timeline would be consistent with the MGA. Add a new Section 9(1)(a) to the HCDR as follows: 9(1)(a) Within sixty days after the date of a written notice that conservation plan and conservation by-law are subject to the approval of the Minister, the Minister shall (a) approve all or part of the documents; (b) approve the documents with amendments; or (c) refuse to approve the documents, And return to the clerk two copies of the conservation plan and conservation by-law as approved, amended, or refused with written reasons for the decision. This addition to the HCDR enables council to better plan for the consideration of new or amended conservation plan and conservation by-law. Does this cause concern for your municipality? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes that would help address your concern? Consultation — Proposed additions/amendments to HPA and HCDR Winter 2014 #10: Proposed Amendment — Municipal Consideration of a Cultural Landscape The present HPA defines the term 'Cultural Landscape' and Section 13(a) provides opportunities for the municipal heritage advisory committee to advise the municipality respecting cultural landscapes, specifically; Interpretation 3(k[I]) "substantial alteration" means a distinct geographical area or property uniquely representing the combined work of nature and of people. Powers of heritage advisory committee 13 The heritage advisory committee may advise the municipality respecting (a) the inclusion of buildings, public -building interiors, streetscapes, cultural landscapes and areas in the municipal registry of heritage property; (b) an application for permission to substantially alter or demolish a municipal heritage property; (ba) the preparation, amendment, revision or repeal of a conservation plan and conservation by-law; (bb) the administration of heritage conservation districts pursuant to the provisions of this Act; (bc) an application for a certificate that is required by this Act or the conservation plan and conservation by-law to go to a public hearing; (c) building or other regulations that affect the attainment of the intent and purpose of this Act; (d) any other matters conducive to the effective carrying out of the intent and purpose of this Act. Currently, the HPA does not provide a provision which allows for the establishment of Cultural Landscapes. The 2013 Heritage Conference Shaping Cultural Landscapes hosted by the Region of Queens Municipality provided direct input from stakeholders on how cultural landscapes should be developed in Nova Scotia. During the Round Table Workshop, stakeholders supported that the process for a municipality to consider a cultural landscape be aligned with the current process for heritage conservation districts. The proposed amendment to Section 19A of the HPA would permit the municipality to determine the boundaries of a cultural landscape, specific cultural landscape plan and by-law, and for the municipality to designate a person employed by the municipality as a cultural landscape officer. Regulations similar to those supporting heritage conservation districts would be developed for cultural landscapes. Amend Section 19A of the HPA by adding a provision which allows for the establishment of Cultural Landscapes similar to Heritage Conservation Districts as seen in Section 19A. FThisomendment to an existing provision within the HPA will permit for the establishment of Cultural which will align with the process for Heritage Conservation Districts. Does this cause concern nicipality? If so, please describe your concern. Can you suggest any changes that would help r concern? 10111"age o 3 c v $ w> > Y s Ul a n v .E C E L aY- c a _ L o a vra`o a m E o« o N 3 �_ 0 v s" L L a m E EO u= E v a- @@ � m R � o o v o. o v R c o v v g E m E" c o 3 u E o o E> o- " O a p E> o c m w f6 E Y c u T w s n L v o -- R E v c¢ c c .c a v Y o v E v ,l a $ o '� m v� ~ t o R w> Q z E' c my c vin «° o y t6 W a C O v a - 0 O O L L N �' 0 O N O O N Y== N p 0 y u N �a��a-a oa N C E L7 a U- O o o o R 3 W y Y n N Y u — «-6Qa a U- •' L u c c v 3 m .. or 3u E > 43 oL E U a _ c Q O a+ u O u _> R O Y N a�9 c Q>«t o o m,vx v L 3 3 L Y .� v a ` Y ,L Y o L Y L Y v R v m .v U0 ¢ E v3-OL u ._ $ v E 3 uQ u° v « L ¢.. a =._s �._ ,�-vo > u=m u vv� ° a v v rs y v« = ma a o > m « y v m u v E o o @ 48 v a o. v w o m a E O 0 u Y O - R w E u O c O �- n ° E 3 o° a + o m N v U o c a u o ,y m ° c oc L mE c v « L H v o E va>+ E n a c N ? `o g '" c '�' a >' v o m o L a r v o- u a R n E°+�-+ E m c o. :4 � o. y ou a E c c R R « O N u v cy o a N O m •' a o ° o u a L v@ c> 3 E s °1 R v R E 3 6 to E ~ o o. u N 6 o _ E p c t c a 'a « -pp ° c n C '6`O c v -a a t O O '^ s `E a— c 0 O R o c o c p p n t u y E N v o °' « 0 9 m. m o E m N o R i a n- „ o o > v t> o o. R n m E m- E t Y o@ E o .Y E u. `o o r .� L m m E c IT y->, a `m m n y ° o u b0 m O m° w R «L. Y R R O E O. H a N .O N o m N E a o c U Y o` c v m o? `v c m rYa `« ' o o v ° m v f' m a- y a` 3 E N d o= .� v a o O R ud L O a p E a UO a 3 -va d p o m v i a u a C c n a c a 'S o @ o 'E 5 u ,, Y C u a+ u W "6 n C O N O Q o E o � O O. "- �C O L c v s c « Q v d �° a E« o« u v `v o v E v v L o o v L R u ` Y UI E« Q v a v a - H N c R a v ^' a o O> '�' L L a d y> `w a N W S N L '6 v « 13 v� Q 0 @ m x v 41 C O m c o m Op d R O N N u`°i a m O N O R m an d tD N -o W u Z N .� t v vUOi •O H w .� 3 - o o - -o o c o - c - - o Y m c o o o a h 0 E Y O 'E Y N O s y -° C U vo o Y O ., c> c c c a v o c a c ro R a o o v `v c y .> v a a v R o a '`°-' -a w X .� v c Y m Y m o 'v' "- - R Y o s - 3 c v ro 3 - u s,�c L v ¢ E E O OL x u u ._ .m L N n v Q a v_ _ L S OL ¢ O ¢ R x u O O a+ u= o R u E w W = N Z \( })} ;\7 /;{ \\( §{/ \/} \> w. f » \ \\ \ o\\ \M0 \ /_— §� � -— ]$_7 { ! - !) B 0 V § § # _ w |§§ \\) )� � �/ �e� }}/ \\) )s Heritage Property Act CHAPTER 199 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 amended 1991, c. 10; 1998, c. 18, s. 561; 2010, c. 54 NOTE - This electronic version of this statute is provided by the Office of the Legislative Counsel for your convenience and personal use only and may not be copied for the purpose of resale in this or any other form. Formatting of this electronic version may differ from the official, printed version. Where accuracy is critical, please consult official sources. An Act to Provide for the Identification, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Propert Short title 1 This Act may be cited as the Heritage Property Act. R.S., c. 199, s. 1. Purpose 2 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the identification, designation, preservation, conservation, protection and rehabilitation of buildings, public -building interiors, structures, streetscapes, cultural landscapes, areas and districts of historic, architectural or cultural value, in both urban and rural areas, and to encourage their continued use. R.S., c. 199, s. 2; 1991, c. 10, s. 1; 2010, c. 54, s. 1. Interpretation 3 In this Act, (a) "Advisory Council" means the Advisory Council on Heritage Property; (b) "alter the exterior appearance" includes move in whole or in part; (c) "building" includes the land and structures appurtenant thereto; (ca) "certificate" means a certificate of appropriateness issued by a heritage officer certifying that a proposed development conforms with the requirements of a conservation by-law; (caa) "character -defining elements" means the materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that contribute to heritage value and that must be sustained in order to preserve heritage value; (cb) "conservation by-law" means a heritage conservation district by-law adopted and approved pursuant to this Act; (cc) "conservation plan" means a heritage conservation district plan adopted and approved pursuant to this Act; (d) "council" means council of a municipality; (da) "cultural landscapes" means a distinct geographical area or property uniquely representing the combined work of nature and of people. (daa) "development" includes the demolition or removal of a building or structure; (e) "heritage advisory committee" means a heritage advisory committee established by a municipality pursuant to this Act; (ea) "heritage conservation district" means an urban or rural area with historic or architectural value that is established as a heritage conservation district pursuant to this Act; (eb) "heritage value" means the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations and embodied in character - defining materials, forms, locations, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings; (f) "Minister" means the member of the Executive Council charged by the Governor in Council with the administration of this Act; (g) "municipal heritage property" means a building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area registered in a municipal registry of heritage property; (h) "municipality" means a regional municipality, incorporated town or municipality of a county or district; (ha) "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations; (i) "provincial heritage property" means a building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area registered in the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property; (ia) "public -building interiors" means character -defining elements of publicly accessible interiors of a building owned by the Government of the Province in the case of a provincial heritage property or owned by a municipality in the case of a municipal heritage property; (ib) "regional municipality" means a regional municipality as defined in the Municipal Government Act; 0) "registered owner" means an owner of land whose interest in the land is defined and whose name is specified in an instrument in the registry of deeds, and includes a person assessed in respect of the occupancy of the land; (k) "streetscape" means two or more adjacent properties whose collective appearance from the streets has heritage value.[;] (k[1]) "substantial alteration" means any action that affects or alters the character -defining elements of a property. R. S., c. 199, s. 3; 1991, c. 10, s. 2; 2010, c. 54, ss. 1, 2. Advisory Council on Heritage Property 4 (1) The Governor in Council may appoint not less than five nor more than twelve persons to be the Advisory Council on Heritage Property. (IA) The Governor in Council shall consider any criteria set out in the regulations in the selection of persons to be appointed pursuant to subsection (l). (2) The Governor in Council shall designate one of the members of the Advisory Council to be Chairman and one of the members to be Vice-chairman. (3) A member of the Advisory Council shall hold office for such term as the Governor in Council determines. (4) The members of the Advisory Council shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Governor in Council and actual and reasonable expenses incurred by them in the discharge of their duties. R.S., c. 199, s. 4; 2010, c. 54, s. 3. Powers of Advisory Council 5 The Advisory Council may advise the Minister respecting (a) the inclusion of buildings, public -building interiors, streetscapes, cultural landscapes and areas in the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property; (b) an application for permission to substantially alter or demolish a provincial heritage property; (c) building or other regulations that affect the attainment of the intent and purpose of this Act; (d) any other matters conducive to the effective carrying out of the intent and purpose of this Act. R.S., c. 199, s. 5; 2010, c. 54, s. 4. Provincial Registry of Heritage Property 6 The Minister shall establish and maintain a Provincial Registry of Heritage Property. R.S., c. 199,s. 6. Recommendation as provincial heritage property 7 (1) The Advisory Council may recommend to the Minister that a building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area be registered as a provincial heritage property in the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property. (1 A) Before making a recommendation pursuant to subsection (1), the Advisory Council shall evaluate the provincial heritage value of a property against any baseline criteria established by the regulations. (2) The Minister shall cause notice of the recommendation to be served upon each registered owner of the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area that is the subject of the recommendation at least thirty days prior to registration of the building, [public - building interior,] streetscape[, cultural landscape] or area in the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property. (3) The notice shall contain (a) a statement that the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area described in the notice has been recommended for registration in the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property; (b) a brief statement of the reasons for the recommendation; (c) a summary of the consequences of registration; (d) a statement that no person shall substantially alter the exterior appearance of or demolish the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area for one hundred and twenty days after the notice is served unless the Minister sooner refuses to register the property; and (e) an invitation to the registered owner to comment on the proposed registration. (4) No person shall substantially alter the exterior appearance of or demolish a building, public - building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area for one hundred and twenty days after a notice respecting the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area has been served pursuant to subsection (2) except in those cases where, prior to the expiration of one hundred and twenty days, the Minister refuses to register the property. (5) A copy of the notice served pursuant to subsection (2) shall be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area is situate. R.S., c. 199, s. 7; 2010, c. 54, s. 5. Registration as provincial heritage property 8 (1) At any time not less than thirty days nor more than one hundred and twenty days after service of the notice pursuant to Section 7 and on the advice of the Advisory Council, the Minister may register the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area as a provincial heritage property in the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property. (2) Notice of the registration or the refusal to register shall be served upon each registered owner of the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area and a copy thereof shall be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area is situate. R.S., c. 199, s. 8; 2010, c. 54, s. 6. Deregistration of provincial heritage property 9 (1) On the application of an owner of a provincial heritage property or on its own motion, the Advisory Council may recommend to the Minister that the provincial heritage property cease to be registered in the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property. (2) Such a recommendation may be made where (a) the property has been destroyed or damaged by any cause; or (b) the continued registration of the property appears to the Advisory Council to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the property's heritage value, as identified in the property's heritage file or notice of recommendation, unless the loss of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner. (3) Where the Minister receives a recommendation for deregistration from the Advisory Council or where it appears to the Minister that the continued registration is inappropriate, the Minister may deregister a provincial heritage property not less than thirty days after a notice giving particulars of the proposed deregistration is served on the registered owner of the provincial heritage property and published in a newspaper circulating in the area where (a) the property has been destroyed or damaged by any cause; or (b) the continued registration of the property appears to the Minister to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the property's heritage value, as identified in the property's heritage file or notice of recommendation, unless the loss of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner. (4) Where the Minister deregisters a property, the Minister shall cause notice of the deregistration to be sent to the registered owner of the property and a copy thereof to be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the property is situate. R.S., c. 199, s. 9; 2010, s. 54, s. 7. Sign or plaque 10 The Minister may cause a sign, plaque or other marker to be placed on a provincial heritage property indicating the significance of that property. R. S., c. 199, s. 10. Approval to alter or demolish 11 (1) Provincial heritage property shall not be substantially altered in exterior or public -building interior appearance or demolished without the approval of the Governor in Council. (2) An application for permission to substantially alter the exterior or public -building interior appearance of or demolish provincial heritage property shall be made in writing to the Minister. (3) Upon receipt of the application, the Minister shall refer the application to the Advisory Council for its recommendation. (3A) The Advisory Council shall assess the application using any standards and guidelines set out in the regulations. (4) Within thirty days after the application is referred by the Minister, the Advisory Council shall submit a written report and recommendation to the Minister respecting the provincial heritage property. (5) The Minister shall present the recommendation of the Advisory Council to the Governor in Council for consideration. (6) The Governor in Council may grant the application either with or without conditions or may refuse it. (7) The Minister shall advise the applicant of the determination made by the Governor in Council. R.S., c. 199, s. 11; 2010, c. 54, s. 8. Municipal registry of heritage property and heritage advisory committee 12 (1) A municipality may by by-law establish a municipal registry of heritage property. (2) A by-law made pursuant to this Section shall provide for the establishment of a heritage advisory committee. (3) The heritage advisory committee shall consist of at least two members of the council and such persons or such number of persons as the council may determine by by-law. (4) The by-law may provide the term for which members of the heritage advisory committee shall serve. (5) The by-law may provide that the planning advisory committee of the municipality shall be the heritage advisory committee of the municipality. (6) A by-law made pursuant to this Section is subject to the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and when so approved has the force of law. R.S., c. 199, s. 12. Powers of heritage advisory committee 13 The heritage advisory committee may advise the municipality respecting (a) the inclusion of buildings, public -building interiors, streetscapes, cultural landscapes and areas in the municipal registry of heritage property; (b) an application for permission to substantially alter or demolish a municipal heritage property; (ba) the preparation, amendment, revision or repeal of a conservation plan and conservation by- law; (bb) the administration of heritage conservation districts pursuant to the provisions of this Act; (be) an application for a certificate that is required by this Act or the conservation plan and conservation by-law to go to a public hearing; (c) building or other regulations that affect the attainment of the intent and purpose of this Act; (d) any other matters conducive to the effective carrying out of the intent and purpose of this Act. R.S., c. 199, s. 13; 1991, c. 10, s. 3; 2010, c. 54, s. 9. Recommendation as municipal heritage property 14 (1) A heritage advisory committee may recommend to the municipality that a building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area be registered as a municipal heritage property in the municipal registry of heritage property. (2) The municipality shall cause notice of the recommendation to be served upon each registered owner of the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area that is the subject of the recommendation at least thirty days prior to registration of the building, public- building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area in the municipal registry of heritage property. (3) The notice shall contain (a) a statement that the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area described in the notice has been recommended for registration in the municipal registry of heritage property; (b) a brief statement of the reasons for the recommendation; (c) a summary of the consequences of registration; (d) a statement that no person shall substantially alter the exterior appearance of or demolish the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area for one hundred and twenty days after the notice is served unless the municipality sooner refuses to register the property; and (e) notification of the right of the owner to be heard and of the time and place for the hearing. (4) No person shall substantially alter the exterior appearance of or demolish a building, public - building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area for one hundred and twenty days after a notice respecting the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area has been served pursuant to subsection (2) except in those cases where, prior to the expiration of one hundred and twenty days, the municipality refuses to register the property. (5) A copy of the notice served pursuant to subsection (2) shall be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area is situate. R.S., c. 199, s. 14; 2010, c. 54, s. 10. Registration as municipal heritage property 15 (1) At any time not less than thirty days nor more than one hundred and twenty days after service of the notice pursuant to Section 14 and on the advice of the heritage advisory committee, the municipality may register the building, public -building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area as a municipal heritage property in the municipal registry of heritage property. (2) No registration pursuant to subsection (1) shall take place until the council has given the owner of the property an opportunity to be heard and such opportunity shall be given not earlier than three weeks after service of the notice pursuant to subsection (2) of Section 14. (3) Notice of the registration shall be sent to each registered owner of the building, public - building interior, streetscape, cultural landscape or area and a copy thereof shall be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the building, streetscape or area is situate. R.S., c. 199, s. 15; 2010, s. 54, s. 11. Deregistration of municipal heritage property 16 (1) On the application of an owner of a municipal heritage property or on its own motion, the council may deregister a municipal heritage property where (a) the property has been destroyed or damaged by any cause; or (b) the continued registration of the property appears to the council to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the property's heritage value, as identified in the property's heritage file or notice of recommendation, unless the loss of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner, after holding a public hearing to consider the proposed deregistration. (2) Such a public hearing shall be held not less than thirty days after a notice of the hearing is served on the registered owner of the municipal heritage property and published in a newspaper circulating in the area. (3) Where a municipal heritage property is deregistered, the council shall cause notice of the deregistration to be sent to the registered owner of the property and a copy thereof to be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district in which the property is situate. R.S., c. 199, s. 16; 2010, c. 54, s. 12. Approval to alter or demolish municipal heritage property 17 (1) Municipal heritage property shall not be substantially altered in exterior or public -building interior appearance or demolished without the approval of the municipality. (2) An application for permission to substantially alter the exterior or public -building interior appearance of or demolish municipal heritage property shall be made in writing to the municipality. (3) Upon receipt of the application, the municipality shall refer the application to the heritage advisory committee for its recommendation. (4) Within thirty days after the application is referred by the municipality, the heritage advisory committee shall submit a written report and recommendation to the municipality respecting the municipal heritage property. (5) The municipality may grant the application either with or without conditions or may refuse it. (6) The municipality shall advise the applicant of its determination. R.S., c. 199, s. 17; 2010, c. 54,s. 13. Consideration by municipality of application to alter or demolish IS (1) The municipality may take up to three years to consider an application under Section 17. (2) In its consideration of the application, the municipality may require public notice of the application and information meetings respecting the application to be held. (3) Where the municipality does not approve the application, the property owner may, notwithstanding Section 17, make the alteration or carry out the demolition at any time after three years from the date of the application but not more than four years after the date of the application. (4) Where the property owner has made the alteration or carried out the demolition in accordance with this Section, the municipality may deregister the property if the municipality determines that the property has lost its heritage value. 2010, c. 54, s. 14. Sign or plaque 19 The municipality may cause a sign, plaque or other marker to be placed on a municipal heritage property indicating the significance of that property. R.S., c. 199, s. 19. Establishment of heritage conservation district 19A (1) A municipality may establish a heritage conservation district by concurrently adopting a heritage conservation district plan and a heritage conservation district by-law for a part of the municipality and there may be different conservation plans and conservation by-laws for different parts of the municipality. (2) A conservation by-law made pursuant to this Section shall provide for the establishment of a heritage advisory committee and subsections (3) to (5) of Section 12 apply mutatis mutandis unless a heritage advisory committee is established pursuant to Section 12. (3) A conservation plan and conservation by-law shall be adopted by a majority vote of the whole council after a public hearing and consideration of any submissions received, but only those councillors present at the public hearing may vote upon the adoption of the conservation plan and conservation by-law. (4) The Minister shall forward a copy of the conservation plan and conservation by-law and the prescribed background studies and information to the Minister responsible for the Municipal Government Act for that Minister's recommendation. (5) The Minister shall approve a conservation plan and conservation by-law unless (a) the conservation by-law does not carry out the intent of the conservation plan; (b) the conservation plan is not implemented by the conservation by-law; (c) the prescribed background studies or information do not support the conservation plan or conservation by-law; (d) the conservation plan or conservation by-law conflicts with an applicable provincial land -use policy or regulation adopted pursuant to the Municipal Government Act; (e) the conservation plan or conservation by-law conflicts with the applicable municipal planning strategy or land -use by-law; (f) in the opinion of the Minister, there is a conflict with any other provincial interest, and they take effect on and not before approval by the Minister. (6) A conservation plan and conservation by-law approved by the Minister pursuant to subsection (5) may concurrently be amended, revised or repealed by the council and subsections (3) to (5) apply mutatis mutandis. (7) Where a proposed heritage conservation district includes a provincial heritage property, the Minister shall refer the proposed conservation plan and conservation by-law to the Advisory Council for its recommendation and, upon consideration of the recommendation, shall determine that the conservation plan and conservation by-law (a) apply to the provincial heritage property and that Sections 7 to 11 do not apply to the provincial heritage property; (b) apply to the provincial heritage property to the extent determined by the Minister and subject to such conditions as the Minister determines; or (c) do not apply to the provincial heritage property. (8) Where a building, streetscape or area in an established heritage conservation district is to be designated as a provincial heritage property, the Minister may determine that the conservation plan and conservation by-law apply or do not apply to the provincial heritage property to the extent determined by the Minister and subject to such conditions as the Minister determines. 1991, c. 10, s. 4; 2010, c. 54, s. 15. Consequences of establishing district 19B (1) Where a heritage conservation district is established, (a) no further building, streetscape or area in the district shall be registered as a municipal heritage property; (b) Section 18 does not apply to any municipal heritage property within the district; (c) the conservation plan and conservation by-law shall include (i) policies respecting demolition or removal of municipal heritage properties within the district, and (ii) a requirement that a certificate be issued for demolition or removal of any municipal heritage property within the district; and (d) notwithstanding clause (c) and for greater certainty, Section 17 continues to apply to a municipal heritage property within the district. (2) Subject to subsection (1), a municipal heritage property located in a heritage conservation district continues to be a municipal heritage property. 1991, c. 10, s. 4. Design guidelines 19C Design guidelines included in a conservation by-law shall (a) with respect to a building or structure, address only the exterior of the building or structure; (b) not address the use to which land, a building or a structure may be put. 1991, c. 10, s. 4. Prohibited restriction in by-law 19D A restriction in a conservation by-law that does not permit a building of any kind on a lot is ultra vires. 1991, c. 10, s. 4. Certificate for development 19E (1) Where a council has adopted a conservation plan and conservation by-law, a certificate is required to undertake the types of development for which a certificate is required by the conservation by-law. (2) A certificate shall be issued for a proposed development if the development meets the requirements of the conservation by-law or is approved by the council following a public hearing where the conservation plan and conservation by-law require such a hearing. (3) No certificate that is or may be inconsistent with the proposed amendment or revision of a conservation by-law shall be issued for a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of publication of the first notice advertising the intention of the council to amend or revise the conservation plan and conservation by-law. (4) Where the proposed amendment or revision of the conservation plan and conservation by-law has not come into effect after the expiry of the time specified in subsection (3), the certificate shall be issued if, in all other respects, it meets the requirements of the conservation by-law or is approved by the council, as the case may be, following a public hearing, where one is required pursuant to this Act or the conservation plan and conservation by-law. (5) No development permit granted pursuant to the Planning Act and no permit granted pursuant to the Building Code Act and regulations that is or may be inconsistent with a proposed conservation by-law, or an amendment or revision thereof, shall be issued for a period of one hundred and twenty days from the publication of the first notice advertising the intention of the council to adopt, amend or revise the conservation plan and conservation by-law. (6) Where the proposed conservation plan and conservation by-law, or amendment or revision thereof, has not come into effect after the expiry of the time specified in subsection (5), the permits referred to in subsection (5) shall be issued if, in all other respects, they meet the requirements of applicable by-laws of the municipality. 1991, c. 10, s. 4. Public hearing and conditions for approval of demolition or removal 19F (1) Where the conservation plan and conservation by-law require that a certificate be issued for demolition or removal of a building or structure in a heritage conservation district, the council shall hold a public hearing. (2) Where the council considers an application for a certificate for demolition or removal of a building or structure, the council shall not approve the application unless (a) there is irreversible structural damage or deterioration to the building or structure; or (b) the applicable policies of the conservation plan respecting demolition or removal of the building or structure are met. 1991, c. 10, s. 4. Heritage officer 19G (1) A council that has adopted a conservation plan and conservation by-law shall designate a person employed by the municipality as the heritage officer and the heritage officer shall be responsible for the administration of the conservation plan and conservation by-law and the issuance of certificates. (2) A council may, from time to time, authorize another person to act in the heritage officer's stead. (3) Within fifteen days of receiving an application for a certificate, the heritage officer shall inform the applicant whether or not the application is complete. (4) Where no public hearing is required pursuant to a conservation plan and conservation by-law, within thirty days of receiving a completed application, the heritage officer shall grant the certificate if it meets the requirements of the conservation by-law or inform the applicant, in writing, of the reasons for not granting the certificate. (5) Where required to do so by a conservation plan and conservation by-law, the heritage officer shall refer the application for a certificate to the council for a public hearing and shall issue or deny the certificate in accordance with the decision of council, but no certificate shall be issued until the time for appeal has elapsed or the appeal has been disposed of, whichever is the longer. 1991, c. 10, s. 4; 1998, c. 18, s. 561. Appeal re subsections 19G(4) and (5) 19H (1) The denial of a certificate or the imposition of conditions on a certificate granted pursuant to subsection 19G(4) may be appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board by the applicant for the certificate. (IA) The approval, imposition of conditions on or denial of a certificate pursuant to subsection 19G (5) may be appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board by (a) the applicant for the certificate; (b) an aggrieved person; (c) the council of a municipality adjoining the heritage conservation district to which the certificate relates; (d) an official in the public service designated by the Minister. (2) In subsection (1), "aggrieved person" includes (a) an individual who bona fide believes that the proposed certificate will adversely affect (i) the value of or the reasonable enjoyment of that person's property, or (ii) the reasonable enjoyment of the property occupied by that person; (b) an incorporated organization the objects of which include promoting or protecting (i) the quality of life of persons resident in the neighbourhood affected by the council's decision, or (ii) features, structures or sites of the community affected by the council's decision of significant historic, architectural or cultural value; and (c) an incorporated or unincorporated organization of which the majority of its members are persons who are aggrieved persons pursuant to clause (a). (3) The Board shall (a) confirm the decision of the heritage officer or the council, as the case may be; (b) make any decision the heritage officer or the council, as the case may be, could have made; or (c) refer the matter back to the heritage officer or council, as the case may be, for reconsideration. (4) The Board shall not interfere with the decision of the heritage officer or the council, as the case may be, unless the decision cannot reasonably be said to be consistent with the conservation by-law or clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 19F. 1991, c. 10, s. 4; 1998, c. 18, s. 561. Conflict with Building Code Act 19I Where there is a conflict between this Act or the regulations and the Building Code Act or regulations, the Building Code Act and regulations prevail. 1991, c. 10, s. 4. Severability of by-law 19J The provisions of a conservation by-law are severable and the illegality of any part does not affect the validity of the rest of the conservation by-law. 1991, c. 10, s. 4. Agreement between Minister and owner 20 (1) The Minister may enter into an agreement with the owner of a provincial heritage property, and the council may enter into an agreement with the owner of municipal heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district, whereby the owner grants to the Minister or the council a right or incurs an obligation respecting the use, preservation or protection of the heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district. (2) An agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (1) shall be deposited in the registry of deeds for the registration district within which the heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district is situate. (3) Where an agreement is deposited in the registry of deeds, the right or obligation given by the owner becomes an encumbrance upon and runs with the property, and the Minister, in respect of provincial heritage property, and the municipality, in respect of municipal heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district, may enforce the right or obligation against the property and against the owner or any subsequent owners of the property. (4) A right or obligation created by an agreement made pursuant to subsection (1) may be waived or discharged by the Governor in Council in respect of provincial heritage property and by the municipality in respect of municipal heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district. R.S., c. 199, s. 20; 1991, c. 10, s. 5. Appeal re agreement 20A (1) The entering into an agreement or waiving or discharging of a right or condition in an agreement by a council pursuant to Section 20 may be appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board by (a) an aggrieved person; (b) the council of a municipality adjoining the heritage conservation district to which the agreement relates; (c) an official in the public service designated by the Minister. (2) In subsection (1), "aggrieved person" includes (a) an individual who bona fide believes that the proposed agreement or waiver or discharge of a right or condition in the agreement will adversely affect (i) the value of or the reasonable enjoyment of that person's property, or (ii) the reasonable enjoyment of the property occupied by that person; (b) an incorporated organization the objects of which include promoting or protecting (i) the quality of life of persons resident in the neighbourhood affected by the council's decision, or (ii) features, structures or sites of the community affected by the council's decision of significant historic, architectural or cultural value; and (c) an incorporated or unincorporated organization of which the majority of its members are persons who are aggrieved persons pursuant to clause (a). (3) The Board shall (a) confirm the decision of the council; (b) make any decision the council could have made; or (c) refer the matter back to the council for reconsideration. (4) The Board shall not interfere with the decision of the council unless the decision cannot reasonably be said to be consistent with the conservation by-law. 1991, C. 10, s. 6; 2010, c. 54, s. 16. Acquisition by municipality 21 (1) The municipality may acquire municipal heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district or any right therein. (2) Municipal heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district or any right therein acquired by a municipality shall be and shall be deemed to be property acquired for a city, town or municipal purpose within the meaning of the Municipal Act, the Municipal Affairs Act, the Towns Act, the Dartmouth City Charter, the Halifax City Charter and Chapter 174 of the Acts of 1903, An Act to incorporate the City of Sydney. R.S., c. 199, s. 21; 1991, c. 10, s. 7. Financial assistance 22 (1) The Minister, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, may provide financial assistance in respect of provincial heritage property and the council may provide financial assistance in respect of municipal heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district to any person to assist in the restoration or renovation of such property upon such terms and conditions as the Minister or the council, as the case may be, deems fit. (2) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may provide financial assistance to a municipality to assist it in exercising its authority pursuant to this Act. (3) Any money required by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to exercise his authority pursuant to this Act may be paid out of money voted for that purpose by the Legislature or out of the Consolidated Fund upon the recommendation of the Governor in Council. (4) Any money required by a municipality in the exercise of its authority pursuant to this Act may be raised, levied or collected as part of the general rates or taxes of the municipality. R.S., c. 199, s. 22; 1991, c. 10, s. 8. Service of notice 23 (1) Service of any notice required to be made by this Act shall be sufficient if served upon the person by registered mail at his last known address. (2) Where a person upon whom service should be made cannot be identified or his address is not known, service shall be sufficient if notice is affixed in a conspicuous place on the building, streetscape or area and a copy is delivered to any occupant of the property. R.S., c. 199, s. 23. Manner of entry of notice in registry 24 A notice deposited in a registry of deeds pursuant to this Act shall be indexed as if it were a conveyance by or to, as the case may be, the registered owner of the building, streetscape or area. R.S., c. 199, s. 24. Contravention of Act 25 (1) A person who contravenes the provisions of this Act is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars and in default of payment thereof to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. (2) Where a corporation is convicted of an offence against this Act, the maximum penalty that may be imposed upon the corporation is two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and not as provided in subsection (1). (3) Where there is a contravention or failure to comply with the terms of this Act or any agreement made pursuant to this Act, the Minister, with respect to a provincial heritage property, and a municipality, with respect to a municipal heritage property or property located in a heritage conservation district, may bring an action in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court and the Court may, in addition to any other remedy or relief, (a) make an order restraining the continuance or repetition of any such contravention or failure; (b) make an order directing the restoration of the property as nearly as may be to its condition prior to the contravention or failure to comply, and directing that upon failure to comply with the order the Minister or the council, as the case may be, may restore the property or may cause it to be restored at the expense of the owner thereof, (c) make such other order as is required to enforce the provisions of this Act and as to costs and as to the recovery of the expense of any such restoration as the Court deems just. R. S., c. 199, s. 25; 1991, c. 10, s. 9; 2010, c. 54, s. 17. Regulations 26 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) determining the form of the Provincial Registry of Heritage Property; (aa) respecting heritage conservation districts, conservation plans and conservation by-laws and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, (i) respecting the adoption and approval of a conservation plan and conservation by-law, including background studies and information, public participation programs and public hearings, (ii) respecting the purpose of a conservation plan and conservation by-law, (iii) respecting the content of a conservation plan and conservation by-law, (iv) respecting certificates required to undertake development in a heritage conservation district, including public hearings, the imposition of conditions to which the certificates are subject and requirements for the issuance of certificates on or before the issuance of permits pursuant to the Planning Act and the Building Code Act, (v) respecting appeals; (ab) determining the criteria to be used to select appointments of persons to the Advisory Council; (ac) determining the baseline criteria to be used by the Advisory Council to evaluate the heritage value of a property under consideration for provincial heritage registration; (ad) determining the standards and guidelines to be used for the conservation of registered provincial heritage property; (ae) respecting cultural landscapes; (b) respecting forms to be used for the purpose of this Act; (c) defining any expression used in this Act and not defined herein; (d) determining whether or not compensation for anything done pursuant to this Act is payable and, if payable, the circumstances in which, the extent to which, by whom and to whom such compensation is payable and the manner in which and the person by whom the amount of such compensation is to be determined; (e) respecting any matter or thing, whether of the foregoing kind or not, that is necessary to effectively carry out the purpose of this Act. (2) The exercise by the Governor in Council of the authority conferred by this Section shall be regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act. R.S., c. 199, s. 26; 1991, C. 10, s. 10; 2010, c. 54, s. 18. Act binds Crown 27 This Act binds Her Majesty in right of the Province. R.S., c. 199, s. 27. Deemed municipal heritage property and deemed agreement 28 (1) A building, streetscape or area which is a heritage resource pursuant to subsection (5) of Section 27 of Chapter 8 of the Acts of 1980 is and is deemed to be registered in the City of Halifax municipal registry of heritage property. (2) An agreement, easement or covenant entered into by the City of Halifax and another person pursuant to subsection (10) of Section 27 of said Chapter 8 is and is deemed to be an agreement entered into by the City and such person pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 20 of this Act. R.S., c. 199, s. 28; revision corrected 1999. 3.5 d This consolidation is unofficial and is for reference only. For the official version of the regulations, consult the original documents on file with the Registry of Regulations, or refer to the Royal Gazette Part II. Regulations are amended frequently. Please check the list of Regulations by to see if there are any recent amendments to these regulations filed with the Registry that are not yet included in this consolidation. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this electronic version, the Registry of Regulations assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have resulted from reformatting. This electronic version is copyright © 2009, Province of Nova Scotia, all rights reserved. It is for your personal use and may not be copied for the purposes of resale in this or any other form. made under Section 26 of the Heritage Property Act R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 199 O.I.C. 92-682 (July 14, 1992), N.S. Reg. 138/92 as amended up to O.I.C. 2000-451 (September 6, 2000), N.S. Reg. 157/2000 Citation 1 These regulations may be cited as the "Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations". Definitions 2 In these regulations (at) "Act" means the Heritage Property Act; (Ir) 'Board" means the Nova Scotia Municipal Board [now Provincial Administrative Review Board]; (c) "directional emphasis" means the relative emphasis given to the horizontal and vertical elements in a building elevation or in a sequence of building elevations; (d) "district" means a heritage conservation district; (e) "massing" means the form and shape of the various parts or elements that comprise a building or structure and their relationship to each other in the overall design of the building or structure or in a sequence of buildings or structures; ) "registered mail" includes certified mail, signature mail and a service provided by private couriers commonly known as signature service; ) "open spaces" include public and private spaces, parks, gardens, parade squares, ponds, waterfront areas, streets, parking areas, yards and areas of vacant or undeveloped land; (h) "rhythm" means the pattern established by a succession of parts or elements in a building elevation or in a sequence of building elevations; (1) "service infrastructure" means the various public utility services and structures such as sewerage systems, waterworks, electricity and gas distribution systems, telephone systems, streets, bridges, tunnels, parking facilities, sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways, which together support and service the occupation of a heritage conservation district and contribute to its physical character; (J) "setting" means the arrangement of (i) open spaces, (ii) topography, (iii) vegetation, (iv) views from public places within the district to places within the district, and (v) other natural or constructed features, that together comprise the visual and physical surroundings of buildings in the district, and that may have historic or architectural significance in their own right; (k) "symmetry" means the correspondence in size, position and proportion of the parts or elements of a building elevation or of a sequence of building elevations, including windows, doors, bays and chimneys about a dividing line or centre; (1) "utility structure" means a building or structure housing or supporting public or private utility equipment or machinery, including but not limited to, telephone poles, power poles, electrical transformers, street lighting fixtures, pumping stations, oil tanks, propane tanks and garbage containers; (im) "visual balance" means equilibrium in the arrangement of the parts or elements of a building elevation or of a sequence of building elevations, including windows, doors, bays or porches, in relation to each other about a dividing line or centre. Purpose of a conservation plan 3 (1) The purpose of a conservation plan is to (a) provide statements of policy that address problems and opportunities concerning the conservation of the historic or architectural value of buildings and structures in the district and their setting; and (Ib) identify expenditures, initiatives and conservation by-law provisions for the implementation of the conservation plan. Content of a conservation plan 4 ( A conservation plan may include statements of policy with respect to the following: (a) the conservation, preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, alteration or redevelopment of buildings or structures and their settings based upon their historic or architectural value; (b) the demolition or removal of buildings or structures in the district; (c) the effects of any alteration or redevelopment of the service infrastructure upon the heritage value of the district; (d) the location and architecture of new developments and their settings in relationship to existing developments and their settings within the district; (e) the conservation of settings; (f) tourism and community improvement undertakings in the district; (1O relationship of the proposed conservation plan and conservation by-law with other municipal, provincial or federal community planning or heritage planning policies, regulations or programs, other than those referred to in clause (e) of subsection (2); (h) the use of agreements as provided for under Section 20 of the Act; and (1) any other matter relating to the conservation of the historical, architectural or cultural value of the district. (2) A conservation plan shall include statements of policy regarding (a) the rationale or justification for heritage conservation measures in the district; (lb) the rationale for the boundaries of the district; (c) the types of development for which a certificate is required; (d) the types of development, if any, for which the council shall hold a public hearing pursuant to subsection (5) of Section 19G of the Act; and (e) the relationship of the proposed plan and by-law with any municipal planning strategy, land use by-law, subdivision by-law or provincial land use policy or regulation in effect for the district. Content of a conservation by-law 5 O A conservation by-law shall include (a) a description of the boundaries of the district by the use of a map or text adequate to identify the area; (b) a list of those types of development for which a certificate is required, that may include any or all of the following: (i) the construction of new buildings or structures, (ii) the substantial alteration, restoration or rehabilitation of existing buildings or structures, (iii) the demolition or removal of buildings or structures, (iv) the construction, relocation, reconstruction, substantial alteration, demolition or removal of fences, walls, steps, staircases or other structures that may affect or contribute to the heritage value of the district, (v) the construction, relocation, reconstruction, substantial alteration, demolition or removal of utility structures, (vi) the construction or placement of signage that may affect or contribute to the heritage value of the district, (vii) the substantial alteration of the exterior colour of existing buildings or structures, (viii) the planting, placement or removal of trees, hedges, shrubs or other vegetation that may affect or contribute to the heritage value of the district, (ix) the substantial alteration of grade; and (c) the form and content of an application for a certificate including, where applicable, a site plan and a graphic representation of buildings or structures. O A conservation by-law may specify developments for which no certificate is required. (3) A conservation by-law may include design guidelines, which may include any or all of the following: (a) aspects of the architectural design, character or external appearance of buildings or structures including, but not restricted to, facade design, scale, proportion, bulk, height, massing, symmetry, visual balance, rhythm, directional emphasis, number of storeys, ground area, roof shape, exterior materials, appearance and placement of utility structures, architectural details or ornamentation; (b) the location or arrangement of buildings or structures in relation to their setting; (c) the design, location or arrangement of fences, walls, steps, staircases or other structures that may affect or contribute to the heritage value of the district; (d) landscape design and the placement, location or arrangement of trees, hedges, shrubs and other vegetative features of the district in relation to their setting; (e) the location, or placement design of signage that may affect or contribute to the heritage value of the district; (1) the exterior colour of buildings or structures. O A conservation by-law shall include (,a) a list of the types of development for which the heritage officer may issue a certificate directly in accordance with the conservation by-law, and which does not require a public hearing; (b) a list of the types of development, if any, for which the council shall hold a public hearing. Public participation program for adoption 6 () Before undertaking the preparation of a conservation plan and by-law, a council shall adopt, by resolution, a public participation program. O The content of a public participation program shall be at the discretion of the council, but it shall identify opportunities and establish ways and means of seeking the opinions of the public with respect to the proposed conservation plan and by-law. (3) The public hearing held pursuant to subsection (3) of Section 19A of the Act shall not be considered a part of the public participation program adopted pursuant to this Section, and the public participation program shall be concluded prior to the publication of the advertisement notifying of council's intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law. () A council may adopt separate public participation programs for the preparation of conservation plans and by-laws for different districts. Background studies and information 7 (1) In the preparation of a conservation plan and by-law, the council as a minimum shall undertake studies relating to the following: (a) the rationale or justification for heritage conservation measures in the district; (b) the rationale for the boundaries of the district; (c) the relationship of a conservation plan and conservation by-law with any municipal planning strategy, land -use by-law or provincial land -use policy or regulation in effect for the district; and (d) an analysis of the social and economic implications of the establishment of the district, as these relate to clause (a). (2) After acceptance by a council of background studies prepared pursuant to this Section, the council shall provide public access to the studies and provide two copies of the studies to the Minister. (3) Within sixty days of the receipt of the studies, the Minister may prescribe additional background studies. O The Minister shall advise the council when no additional studies are required. Public hearing for adoption, amendment or repeal 8 O Before adopting a conservation plan and by-law, a council shall hold a public hearing at which oral and written submissions regarding the proposed conservation plan and by- law are received. (2) The council shall cause notice to be given of the public hearing and of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law by an advertisement inserted at least once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area of the district, the first of such notices to be published at least twenty-one clear days before the date fixed for the public hearing. (3) The council shall cause notice of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law to be delivered by personal service upon or by ordinary mail to each assessed owner, or any subsequent owners shown on the records in the regional assessment office, of property within the proposed district at least twenty-one clear days before the date fixed for the public hearing. Subsection 8(3) amended: O.I.C. 1999-587, N.S. Reg. 128/99. O The notices required by subsections (2) and (3) shall (a) describe the proposed district by metes and bounds, by a plan, map or sketch or other description adequate to identify the district; (iii) give a synopsis of the proposed conservation plan and by-law and the effect of the conservation by-law on development of the property; and (c) state the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing and the place where and hours during which the proposed conservation plan and by-law may be inspected by the public. O The council shall provide copies of the proposed conservation plan and by-law or a portion thereof to interested persons and may charge an amount for copies sufficient to recover the cost of reproduction of copies provided. Approval procedures 9 O Upon the adoption of a conservation plan and by-law, four duly certified copies each of the plan and by-law shall be submitted to the Minister for approval together with (a) one duly certified copy of the resolution of council adopting a program of public participation; (b) copies of the two newspaper notices notifying of the intention of council to adopt; )e) one copy of the notice served on property owners; and (d) one copy of any written submissions received by council, and the clerk of the municipality shall provide, by statutory declaration, proof of compliance with the resolution of council adopting a program of public participation, and with the public hearing and notice requirements contained in the Act and these regulations. () Upon approval by the Minister of a conservation plan and by-law, the council shall (a) cause a notice to be published in a newspaper circulating in the district stating that the conservation plan and by-law have been approved, their effective date and the place where they may be inspected; (b) transmit a copy of the notice to the Minister; and (c) cause a copy of the conservation plan and by-law, signed by the Minister, to be filed in the office of the registrar of deeds for the registration district in which the district is situated, without proof of the signature or the official character of the Minister. (3) Section 19A of the Act and Sections 3 to 9 inclusive of these regulations apply mutatis mutandis to the amendment of a conservation plan and by-law. () Notwithstanding subsection (3), the Minister may waive or change the requirement for studies in subsection (1) of Section 7, where Council is proposing to amend a conservation plan or by-law. Subsection 9(4) amended: O.I.C. 2000-451, N.S. Reg. 157/2000. Repeals 10 O Subsections (1), (2) and (4) of Section 8, clauses (b) and (d) of subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Section 9 apply mutatis mutandis to the repeal of a conservation plan and by- law. (2) In the case of a repeal of a conservation plan and by-law, no background studies are required, but the notices required pursuant to subsection (2) of Section 8 shall contain the reason for the repeal. Public hearing for certificate 11 () The council shall cause notice to be given of a proposed development and of its intention to consider the application for a certificate by a notice to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area of the district, the first of such notices to be published at least twenty-one clear days before the date fixed for the public hearing. (2) The notice required by subsection (1) shall (a) describe the location of the proposed development by civic number, by a plan, map or sketch or other description adequate to identify the location; (to) give a description of the proposed development; and (c) state the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing and the place where and hours during which information pertaining to the proposed development may be inspected by the public. Council decision on certificate 12 O Subject to subsection (2) and subsection (2) of Section 19F of the Act, the decision of the council to approve or deny the application for a certificate shall be made, by resolution, after consideration of any submissions received and shall be by a majority vote of those councillors present when the vote is taken, but only those councillors present at the public hearing may vote upon the application. (2) Where the council considers an application for a certificate other than one for demolition or removal of a building or structure, the council shall approve the application if it meets the requirements of the conservation by-law, including applicable portions of any design guidelines. (3) Where the council denies the application for a certificate or approves the granting of the certificate with conditions imposed, the council shall include in the resolution the reasons for the denial or imposition of conditions, as the case may be. O The council, by resolution, may specify conditions that shall attach to the granting of the certificate and the reasons for the conditions, and subsection (2) of Section 14 applies to those conditions. () Upon the making of a decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the granting of a certificate, )gym) the council shall cause notice to be published in a newspaper circulating in the district stating its decision and setting out the right of appeal; and (b) the clerk of the municipality shall serve on the applicant, by personal service or registered mail, a copy of the resolution containing council's decision and reasons therefore, where required. Heritage officer decision on certificate 13 O When the heritage officer decides to grant a certificate without conditions, the heritage officer shall notify the applicant of the decision by ordinary mail or personal service. Subsection 13(1) replaced: O.I.C. 2000-451, N.S. Reg. 157/2000. (2) When the heritage officer decides to grant a certificate subject to conditions or decides not to grant a certificate, the heritage officer shall, by registered mail or personal service, notify the applicant of the decision and the applicant's right to appeal. Subsection 13(2) replaced: O.I.C. 2000-451, N.S. Reg. 157/2000. (3) Unless the contrary is proved, any documents served by ordinary mail shall be deemed to be served, delivered or received, (a.) where the delivery is local, on the third day following that upon which the letter, envelope or wrapper containing the document was posted; or (b) where the delivery is not local, on the day the document would in the normal course of post be delivered, and in proving such service it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter, envelope or wrapper containing the document was properly addressed and mailed with the correct postage. Subsection 13(3) amended: O.I.C. 2000-451, N.S. Reg. 157/2000. Section 13 replaced: O.I.C. 95-521, N.S. Reg. 107/95. Conditions on certificate 14 (1) A certificate may be granted unconditionally or with conditions. (2) Where a certificate is granted with conditions, the conditions shall )gym) relate to the development permitted by the certificate; (to) be for a heritage conservation purpose; and (c) be in accordance with the design guidelines. (3) Without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the conditions subject to which a certificate may be granted include conditions with respect to (a) the use of specific materials on or in a building or structure; (lb) the filing with the heritage officer of acceptable photographic or other documentation of a building or structure before its demolition or restoration, rehabilitation or alteration; )c) the making good, after work is completed, of any damage caused to the building or structure by the work; (d) restoration, rehabilitation or alteration of a building or structure or any part of it following the execution of work, with the use of original materials or acceptable alternatives; (e) the preservation of or alteration in the design of buildings and structures; (1) the site plan; (g) the graphic representation of the proposed buildings and structures; (h) type, species and placement of vegetation; (i) the placement and design of signage; and j) the exterior colour of buildings and structures. Appeal period 15 An appeal concerning the refusal of a certificate or the granting of a certificate with or without conditions by either the heritage officer or council shall be served on the Board within twenty-one days of the date of the publication of the notice of the refusal or granting in the newspaper. Section 15 amended: O.I.C. 95-521, N.S. Reg. 107/95; O.I.C. 2000-451, N.S. Reg. 157/2000. Municipality of the District of West Han z 76 Morison Drive, Windsor -West Hants Industrial Park P.O. Box 3000, Windsor, Nova Scotia BON 2TO Tel: (902) 798-8391 Fax: (902) 798-8553 May 21, 2015 °"'". aaA) 1 5, 1°��er� i2;d„r'„� + 2 015 Osigin'li to — Roviewed by Ms. Pamela M. Myra Municipal Clerk Municipality of the District of Chester P.O. Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ 1 JO Dear Ms. Myra: Re: Falmouth Growth Centre Zoning Map — housekeeping corrections Pursuant to Section 206(5) of the Municipal Government Act, enclosed please find Notice of Intent with respect to the above mentioned amendments. Yours truly, Planning Staff Enc. wp MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST HANTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING C?� LAND USE BY-LAW AMENDMENTS TAKE NOTICE that Council of the. Municipality of the District of West Hants intends to consider, and if deemed appropriate, approve amendments to Schedule A: Zoning Map and Schedule A: GC -1: Falmouth Growth Centre Map. THE PURPOSE of the amendments is to correct property zoning on PIDs 45037652, 45177276, 45386026, 45335924, from Single Unit Residential (R-1) to Agricultural Priority Three (AR -3). . THE PUBLIC HEARING is to be held by the Municipality of the District of West Hants Council on Tuesday, June 9, 2015at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Council Chambers, 76 Morison Drive, Windsor -West Hants Industrial Park, Windsor, N.S. . SECOND READING of the amendments may take place following the Public Hearing. Anyone wishing to inspect or -obtain the staff report may do so at the ..West Hants Planning Department, 76 Morison Drive, Windsor, N.S. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. every day except Saturday, Sundays and Statutory Holidays or at www,westhants,ca/pianning;html. Tel: 902-798-6900. DATED at Windsor, in the County of Hants; May 21, 2015. . Rhonda Brown Municipal Clerk The Hants Journal May 21, 2015 May 26, 2015 2017 +55 Games Request for Letter of Support r� Events Lunenburg County Email: events@eventslunenburgeounty.ca www.eventslunenbur cg ounty.ca Events Lunenburg County is actively working on a variety of bids to bring new events to our community. As part of the bid process it is important to show that the bid is supported by the community, municipal partners, business supporters, and related organizations. These events will enable us to showcase Lunenburg County and support economic growth in our community. The ripple effects and economic spin off that each of these events creates in our community is the reason Events Lunenburg County was created. Today we are requesting support for the 2017 +55 Games bid. This event is scheduled to take place in mid-September 2017 involving 900 competitors in over 20 events, during 4 days of compettion. This event has been held most recently in 2013 in Colchester County and will be held this coming Fall in Pictou County. The Host Committee will be working to promote this event across the province, while showcasing Lunenburg County. A letter of support is being requested from all the municipal partners in Lunenburg County, Our Recreation Directors are involved and supportive of this event. The bid document is due June 26, 2015 and our presentation to the selection committee is scheduled for July 13, 2015. An award will be made the same day. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. We look forward to receiving your letter of support to host the games in 2017. Best Regards, Andrew Tanner Chair, Events Lunenburg County MUNICIPALITY CHESTER 4 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO: Council SUBMITTED BY: Marianne Gates DATE: June 2, 2015 SUBJECT: Visitor Information Center (VIC) Funding ORIGIN: 2015-16 Budget (5 D3 CURRENT SITUATION: The Chester Municipal Chamber of Commerce has operated the VIC for the past number of years and is prepared to do so for the 2015 season. RECOMMENDATION: That Municipal Council provide a grant in the amount of $ 25,000 to the Chester Municipal Chamber of Commerce for the operation of the VIC for the 205-16 season. BACKGROUND: 2014 VIC Highlights: • Received funds to manage and operate the VIC form the Municipality of the District of Chester • Received grants fonn: NSERDT; TIANS and Service Canada • Hired a Co-op student from Mount Saint Vincent • The VIC manger worked two days at the VIC and on two days a week starting on May 4, 2014 and worked at the VIC and on tourism projects until Jan 31, 2015. • Hire two full time students. • Open May 131h, 2014 to October 17, 2014. • Used potable kiosk to travel events. • 195 increase in visitors over 2013. • Joins TIANS to gain access to training, funding opportunities and additional benefits. • Produced a new website targeted to visitors. • Participated in Saltscapes in a coordinated effort with MODC, MODL, Ross Farm and HABBA. VIC stats: 2013 2014 Difference 2013-14 May 251 292 Up 41 June 633 792 Up 159 July 1 1764 1 1946 Up 182 August 1 2090 1 2346 1 Up 256 September 724 1110 1 Up 386 October 301 329 Up 28 Total 5763 6815 Up 1052 Chester Municipal Chamber of Commerce VIC Chair: Steve Workman Committee Members: Jim Barkhouse, Elaine Tough, Angela Jessome, Trudi Curley, Marianne Gates DISCUSSION: Plans for 2015: • VIC open May 20, 2015 until Thanksgiving weekend. • Two summer students and VIC manager will be hired. • All areas of the municipality will be targeted for pop-up information displays at specific events • Promotion of VIC at Saltscapes. • Marketing the area using various media avenues in conjunction with the South Shore Toursim Team. IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: 2 Financial/Budgetary: $25,000 has been included in the 2015-16 Operating Budget 3 Environmental: None 4 Strategic Plan: Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity. 5 Worl,, Program Implications EDO- Oversight ATTACHMENTS: None OPTIONS: 1. Fund the Chester Municipal Chamber of Commerce $25,000 as budgeted to operate the VIC for the 2015-16 season 2. Do not fiind. Prepared BY Marianne Gates Date June 2, 2015 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date June 2, 2015 2015VrTA Min OURIMIDA hoow�,J JUN 0 3 0dollull to., cC c vnC c G_ // / S Roviewud by Gold River Western Shore School Project (, j, L/- Recent news reports of significant budget increases for the repurposing of the Gold River Western Shore School, along with Council's perception of a lack of public opposition, requires a response. As for the Gold River school project, Warden Webber wonders just how much opposition to this project there actually is in the community. "Quite frankly, I don't hear it. So 1'd have to hear it first, and if 1 did hear it that would cause me to re-evaluate," he said. "Nobody's knocking on my door, nobody's writing me a letter, nobody's appearing before council, nobody's calling me." Progress Bulletin May 6, 2015 While the costs of the project have indeed increased significantly, there has been public opposition to the project, which Council has chosen to ignore. The Village of Chester Tourism and Development Association (VOCTADA) would like Council to know our members are disturbed by and disappointed in Council's handling of the Gold River Western Shore School renovation project. At a starting cost estimate of three-quarters of a million dollars for a discretionary undertaking, we would have hoped the courtesy of public consultation would have taken place, as is done in the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg. We regret Council chose not to seek the opinions of the citizens before embarking on this costly journey. In fact, Council turned a blind eye to the petition, signed by over 300 people, which requested that Council introduce a Motion to re-examine its decision to sell the Annex and relocate Recreation and Planning to the Gold River School, The signatories believed: • The projected costs associated with the move ($781,577) were unrealistic • Selling the Annex was a critical error in the development of community based services • Decentralizing services was ill advised and short sighted • Council did not involve the community effectively in such a far reaching decision Our municipality is teeming with people who have a wealth of creativity, intelligence and experience, and who could have provided any number of options for the property that would have pleased both the Council and the taxpayers. We have many contractors who could have pointed out the pitfalls of renovating a derelict, old building. Some made presentations to Council advising against the plan. Our residents could have expressed their vision of how they would have liked the land to be used. For example, the Municipality could have kept the playground as is, where is, (rather than move it for a staggering $100,000) added some picnic benches for family outings, and sectioned off an area for a fabulous, free dog park. June 2, 2015 Page 1 Or, these three acres in Gold River, on the shores of Mahone Bay could have been sold (albeit not for the same price as its outrageous assessment and yes, it can be sold for below assessment) and developed. It could have provided affordable housing (if the sewer system could handle a school, why not four houses - particularly after the budgeted $1.76M sewer upgrade) or light industrial space to foster economic growth in the western area of our community. The sale of the land could have provided a substantial offset to the cost of renovating and linking the present Municipal offices and we probably wouldn't be any deeper in the hole, The Municipality could have accomplished what it said it wanted in 2010, which was to: not only optimize usage of space but also foster synergies and cohesion within and between Departments and ensure that all recommendations reflect a customer friendly approach to the layout and design of both administrative buildings in terms of accessibility and convenience for the public. (source: Municipality's RFP) Council is trying to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse. However, in an effort to 'contain' costs, it has been necessary to slash what was identified by staff in 2010 as being requisite. And what will be the end result? A very expensive sow's ear. Council must take a very hard look at all spending decisions, particularly now that a potential Lunenburg County amalgamation is being discussed. Should that take place in the future, we certainly don't want or need another very expensive surplus building on our hands. It is never too late to stop or reverse a bad decision. We are asking Chester Municipal Council to halt construction; to provide true costs to date and projected costs, not only for the capital project but also for ongoing operations; and to openly consult with the public to gain their input before deciding on whether or not to continue with the project, June 2, 2015 Page 2 NOVAISMA Transportation and - infrastructure Renewal May 29, 2015 Allen Webber, Warden Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King Street PO Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ 1 JO Dear Mr. Webber: 449 Jubilee Road P 0 Box 409 Bridgewater, NS B4V 2X6 Bus: 902-543-4121 Fax: 902-543-5596 Copy to Dte Reamkv AIN 0 3 2015 Original Revievved RE: MCINNIS ROAD (OFF MIDDLE RIVER ROAD), CHESTER BASIN, LUNENBURG COUNTY Thank you for your letter dated May 31d, 2015. The condition of the province's roads is a matter the Government of Nova Scotia takes very seriously. During the past couple of years, spending on highway improvements throughout the province has reached record levels. While much has been accomplished during this period, much remains to be done, as is evidenced by the condition of the McInnis Road. This spring has been very challenging. With the amount of snow melt combined with frost in the roadway, conditions throughout the area were less than desirable, especially on gravel roads. At this time, I am not able to say when the Department might be in a position to upgrade the McInnis Road. Until this occurs, every effort will be made, through our annual maintenance activities, to keep this road in an acceptable state of repair. I can assure you that the need for the upgrading of the McInnis Road will be taken into account in the course or our capital budget deliberations. Thank you for taking the time to write concerning this matter. Sincerely, /(�q Xe.4< Stephen Maclsaac, P.Eng., RPF District Director, Western c: Glen Strang, Area Manager, Lunenburg Queens Mike Doucette, Operations Supervisor Councillor Sharon Church -Cornelius 6.1 a Chester Energy Strategy limas nergg June 5, 2015 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary......................................................................... 2 Introduction.................................................................................... 3 Creating a Sustainable Future.......................................................... 4 Nova Scotia Energy Policy Environment ........................................... 4.1 Renewable Electricity Targets ................................................... 4.2 Future of Wind Energy in Nova Scotia ...................................... 4.3 Policy Support for Anaerobic Digestion (Biogas) ....................... 4.4 Policy Context for Biomass Cogeneration ................................. 5 Anaerobic Digestion Opportunity Summary ..................................... 5.1 Background.............................................................................. 5.2 Feedstock (SSO) Characterization ............................................. 5.3 Potential Biogas Production..................................................... 5.4 Anaerobic Digestion Project Business Case ............................... 5.5 Anaerobic Digestion Project Specific Evaluation Criteria ........... 5.6 Anaerobic Digestion Project Risks ............................................. 5.7 Recommendations................................................................... 6 District Review, Potential Partnerships and Economic Development 6.1 Future Wind Energy Development ............................................ 6.1.1 Background...................................................................... 6.1.2 Meteorological Mast Installation ...................................... 6.1.3 Potential Partnerships...................................................... 6.1.4 Economic Development.................................................... 6.1.5 Project Business Case ....................................................... 6.1.6 Project Risks..................................................................... 6.1.7 Recommendations............................................................ 6.2 Biomass Energy Opportunities................................................. 6.2.1 Background...................................................................... 6.2.2 Community Engagement Sessions .................................... 6.2.3 Economic Development.................................................... 1 .3 .4 .4 .4 .4 .5 .6 .6 .7 .7 .7 .S .9 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 16 17 17 17 30 6.2.4 Project Business Case..................................................................................................... 30 6.2.5 Recommendations 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 30 30 7.1 Opportunity #1— Anaerobic Digestion Project........................................................................ 30 7.2 Opportunity #2 — Wind Energy Project................................................................................... 31 7.3 Opportunity #3 — Biomass CHP............................................................................................... 31 Executive Summary The Chester Energy Strategy was initiated to help determine how the Municipality of the District of Chester should engage in renewable electricity initiatives in the future. Three opportunities were explored in detail: 1. 500 kW Anaerobic Digestion (Biogas) Project using the Community Feed -in Tariff Program 2. Opportunity for a new Wind Energy Project using the Renewable to Retail Program 3. Opportunities in the Biomass supply chain The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Wind Energy project options represent good revenue generating opportunities for Chester and should be further pursued being mindful of project risks identified in this report. There is no immediate opportunity for Chester's involvement in the biomass supply chain. In the case of the AD project, early economic indicators appear to be favourable but, in light of known (and unknown) technology risks contained in this report, further investigative analyses should be pursued to identify and minimize risks to Chester. Additional development activities should be performed before a commitment to the project is made. For the Wind Energy Project, we recommend Chester begin the process of forming partnerships with other municipalities. Until partnerships are formed and project risks are addressed, Chester should exercise caution about spending significant monies on activities such as environmental studies, grid interconnection applications, and community engagement. Time is of the essence for both the AD and Wind Energy Project Opportunity and a plan to address development risks should be established. 2 Introduction The Municipality of the District of Chester (Chester) engaged Minas Energy to undertake an assessment of energy opportunities in the Municipality. The study has a larger goal of identifying short-term and long-term initiatives that will help Chester establish a strategic direction and help secure a future for the Municipality which is environmentally, socially and financially sustainable. Chester has already shown leadership in the energy space with the construction of the 2 MW Kaizer Meadow Wind project and council support for the installation of the 102 MW South Canoe Wind Farm in the municipality. These two projects will bring Chester an estimated $1 million in annual revenue from electricity sales and taxation. This study evaluates three investment opportunities for Chester and helps determine what actions should be taken to foster economic development through the specified energy initiatives. In particular, the opportunities identified include wind energy, biogas (anaerobic digestion), and biomass (combined heat and power). 3 Creating a Sustainable Future The notion of sustainability is multi -faceted. As Chester's Integrated Community Sustainability Plan states: "The four pillars of sustainability are cultural, environmental, social, and economic." Renewable energy initiatives can contribute to Chester's sustainability principally because they provide an alternate source of revenue for the Municipality. Increased revenue can help Chester invest in cultural, environmental, social or economic initiatives. In addition to the increased revenue, renewable energy initiatives have a positive effect on the environment (reduced greenhouse gas emissions), society (increased awareness and education), and the economy (jobs). In 2014 the One Nova Scotia 'Now or Never Report" (the "Ivany Report") was released and prompted much discussion among Nova Scotians on the future direction of the Province. The report highlighted that many rural Municipalities in Nova Scotia were under financial pressure. The report also acknowledges that Municipalities can leverage their strengths, promote economic development and achieve a more sustainable future. Nova. Scolia Energy Policy Envi roninen The Nova Scotia government has enshrined in legislation a 25% renewable electricity target for 2015 increasing to 40% in 2020. The 25% target will be met by at least 300 GWh/year from independent power producers (IPPS) and at least 100 MW of new installed capacity through the community feed -in tariff (COMFIT) program. Chester has benefitted from both procurement strategies as it is hosting the 102 MW South Canoe Wind Farm, which will generate approximately 320 GWh/year, and has developed its own 2 MW wind facility at Kaizer Meadow through the COMFIT program. These projects will both contribute to Nova Scotia's 25% renewable electricity target for 2015. 4 It is expected that most of the remaining electricity generation needed to achieve the 40% renewable generation target in 2020 will be met by importing hydroelectricity from Newfoundland via the Maritime Link. Future (if Wind Energy ii in Nova NcotIC . Despite the fact that renewable energy targets will be met through existing generation and through imported power from the Maritime Link, the Government is currently developing a Renewable to Retail policy. Renewable to Retail will enable renewable Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to sell electricity generated by a renewable source to retail customers. This approach is unique in Nova Scotia as all other existing renewable energy projects in the province sell power to Nova Scotia Power (NSPI) under a long- term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). In addition, the policy will enable the introduction of new electricity suppliers to the market in Nova Scotia. Renewable to Retail regulations will be developed and approved throughout 2014 to 2016. It has been stated that "the regulations will support domestically produced, low -impact renewable electricity generation such as wind, solar, biomass and tidal energyi'. The Renewable to Retail market will likely be the last opportunity to develop and build wind energy projects in the short and medium terms. The new market will enable IPPs to use Nova Scotia Power's existing transmission and distribution systems to deliver electricity to retail customers. For greater clarity, there are approximately 460,000 retail customers in Nova Scotia. The introduction of the Renewable to Retail program will require a family of tariffs and regulated procedures to accommodate this new level of market transactions. For the past year, the NS Dept. of Energy, the Utility and Review Board, NSPI and interested stakeholders have been engaged in a process that will culminate in a public hearing in late 2015/early 2016, followed by a UARB decision in March, 2016. The rate structure approved by the Utility and Review Board will affect the eventual economics and business case of creating Renewable to Retail projects for Chester. The Renewable to Retail market will be competitive and any opportunities for Chester in that market should be assessed throughout 2015. Municipalities will have an advantage in the Renewable to Retail market given their access to low cost debt financing; enabling the development of projects with competitively priced renewable electricity. Done correctly, the Renewable to Retail program is an opportunity to promote economic development through the sales of competitively priced renewable electricity and through the increase of revenue for the Municipality. In general, Chester has the following options in considering its involvement in the Renewable to Retail market. a) Chester could limit its involvement to solely hosting a project with no equity position. This increases its tax base. The project would be developed, financed and owned by a third party IPP. This would be the same arrangement as is currently in place with the South Canoe Wind Farm. 1 Government of Nova Scotia News Release, November 29th, 2013 b) Chester could build and own an energy project and sell renewable electricity to retail customers within Chester or elsewhere in Nova Scotia. In this case, Chester could receive revenue from power production only as the Municipality would not be required to pay tax on its own turbines. c) Chester could form an inter -municipal partnership to invest in an energy project and sell electricity to customers in multiple municipalities. This option enables a group of municipalities to build a larger wind project. Chester would receive revenue from electricity sales and tax revenue from wind turbines owned by the inter -municipal partnership. Forming an inter -municipal partnership for a project located in the Municipality would likely be the best option in order to maximize benefits from the program. Though the Renewable to Retail program is not prescriptive in which renewable technology is best to adopt, wind has the best economics in most cases. To demonstrate this point, the table below shows the comparison of wind, solar, and biomass pricing assuming municipal financing. Given the high cost per MWh and the lack of a tidal resource in Chester, tidal energy was not considered. Table 1: Cost per MWh by Renewable Technology Technology Capacity (MW) Capital Cost Annual Energy (MWh) Price ($/MWh) Wind 30 MW $60 million 89,000 $70-85 Solar 10 MW $3S million 16,500 $260-$280 Biomass 10 MW $SO million 74,000 $150 - $170 As Table 1(above) suggests, competitively priced renewable energy is achievable with wind. A detailed analysis of Chester's options with regard to the Renewable to Retail program will be provided in section 5 of this report. Policy Suppo rt for n (: r IIII c Dig(�5fi tt VIII g Policy support exists to enable the construction of an anaerobic digestion combined heat and power facility at the Kaizer Meadow Landfill. Chester has COMFIT approval for a 500 kW AD facility. The COMFIT approval is critical as it enables Chester to enter into a PPA with Nova Scotia Power at a premium rate of $175/MWh. The AD opportunity is discussed in detail in section 4 of this report. Considering Chester and Lunenburg County's abundant forest resources, this report would be incomplete without exploring energy opportunities associated with biomass cogeneration. Since the Municipality of District of Chester is not traditionally involved directly in forestry industry activities and that constructing and operating biomass cogeneration is a costly and risky endeavor, focus is placed principally on how Chester can support economic development through the promotion of the biomass supply chain. As a footnote, there is some policy support for biomass cogeneration through the COMFIT program ($175/MWh) but the government has stopped accepting applications for project sizes large enough to provide sound economics. Technically, biomass is eligible for the Renewable to Retail program but the C1 competitive nature of this opportunity suggests that the rate required to pay off a biomass project is too high to justify it for electricity sales in the retail market. Anaerobic Digestion Opporftiny Summary This section summarizes findings from the Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study as submitted to Chester prior to this report. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a system for the production of biogas, from municipal source separated organic (SSO) waste. Chester is exploring the possibility of constructing an AD facility within the existing Kaizer Meadow Environmental Management Centre (Kaizer Meadow) near Sherwood, Nova Scotia. The main objectives of the Project are to treat municipal Source Separated Organics (SSO) and to generate electrical energy and heat from the biogas. The project has the benefit to Chester of creating a new source of revenue and savings for the processing of Chester's SSO. The project has been envisioned as processing either 7,000 or 17,500 tonnes of SSO. The SSO would come from Chester (1500 tonnes), Lunenburg (5500 tonnes), and Valley Waste (10,500 tonnes). The project, if successfully implemented, would create savings and revenue for Chester while reducing costs for both Lunenburg and Valley Waste. The SSO material would be digested anaerobically inside an enclosed facility for approximately four weeks. The output from the AD system is a partially stabilized digestate that can be handled in a variety of methods. Depending on how the digestate is treated it could be used as a landfill cover material, a soil amendment (i.e. fertilizer), or for erosion and sediment control measures. Biogas (60% methane and 40% CO2) will be produced during the digestion process and captured within the digester 2. The gas will then be burned in an internal combustion engine, combined heat and power (CHP) unit, which powers a generator to produce grid -ready electrical energy. In addition to electricity, heat energy will be produced and used for process and space heating within the plant itself and potentially neighboring maintenance buildings. In 2011, the Nova Scotia Department of Energy (NSDOE) began accepting applications for the Nova Scotia Community Feed -In Tariff (COMFIT) program. COMFIT encourages community-based, local renewable energy projects by guaranteeing a rate per megawatt -hour (MWh) for the energy produced. A combined heat and power biomass project pays $175/MWh. The preliminary interconnection request has been approved by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and COMFIT approval has been granted for the Project. SSO samples were taken at Lunenburg, Chester, and Valley Waste. They included feedstock sourced during April (winter samples low in lawn & yard waste) and May (summer samples high in lawn & yard waste). All feedstock was assumed to have approximately 2% inorganic contamination. It was found that the feedstock is well suited to dry AD due to its biochemical methane potential and dry nature. 2 Environment Canada. Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing. 2013 7 Potential Biogas Production. Based on test results, the Chester/Lunenburg feedstock has the potential to produce 841,205 m3 of biogas (60% Methane) a year. The combination of the Chester/Lunenburg and Valley feedstock has the potential to produce 2,060,939 m3 of biogas (60% Methane) a year. Table 2: Biogas Production Estimates Chester/Lunenburg SSO Feedstock period Tonnes SSO Methane 3 Production (M) Biogas Production (m3)(60% Methane) Winter Feedstock Dec -Apr (151 Days) 2,225 256,208 427,013 Summer Feedstock May- Nov (214 Days) 4,441 248,515 414,192 Total 6,666 504,723 841,205 Chester/Lunenburg and Valley SSO Feedstock period Tonnes SSO Methane s Production (m) Biogas Production a (m )(60% Methane) Winter Feedstock Dec -Apr (151 Days) 5,988 689,557 1,149,261 Summer Feedstock May- Nov (214 Days) 11,166 547,007 911,678 Total 17,154 1,236,564 2,060,939 Table 3 shows the results from the samples taken of the Chester/Lunenburg and Valley feedstock. The table also shows the estimated electricity production given the sample results. The results suggest that potential biogas and electricity production from the SSO samples are within the high and low estimates from Environment Canada. M Table 3: Biogas and Electricity Production in Relation to Environment Canada Estimates Chester/Lunenburg Waste Stream (6,666 Tonnes Per Year) Biogas / Tonne SSO Annual Biogas Electricity Generation Data Source (M3 /tonne) Production (m3) (MWh) Sample Results (Avg.) 126 841,205 1,682 Environment Canada (Low Estimate) 1005 666,600 1,333 Environment Canada (High 4 Estimate) 150 999,900 2,000 Chester/Lunenburg and Valley Waste Stream (17,154 Tonnes Per Year) Biogas / Tonne SSO Annual Biogas Electricity Generation Data Source (M3 /tonne) Production (m3) (MWh) Sample Results (Avg.) 120 2,060,939 4,122 Environment Canada (Low Estimate) 1004 1,715,400 3,431 Environment Canada (High 4 Estimate) 150 2,573,100 5,146 Based on the biogas production values of the sampled SSO, this feedstock is well suited for anaerobic digestion. 5 4, Anaerobic Digestion Project In order to move the anaerobic digestion project to construction phase the project needs to demonstrate a sound business case and risk profile. It was identified that more due diligence was required in the following areas: • Financial capability of technology providers • Project references • Site visit(s) • Evaluation of individual Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) and maintenance contracts (including performance guarantees) • Determination of environmental regulations with regard to using digestate as landfill cover • Feedstock (SSO) should be secured under long-term contracts (20 years) 3 Biogas assumed to have 60% methane content 4 Electricity generation based on annual biogas production and CHP conversion of 2 kWh/m3Biogas 5 Environment Canada. Technical Documenton Municipal5olid Waste Organics Processing. 2013, Page 4-13. The tipping fee which Kaizer Meadow would be required to charge to operate an AD system and achieve a return of 13% on capital invested was analyzed in detail and provided as part of the Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study. An AD system is a potential opportunity for Chester to reduce existing composting fees (for material originating from Chester that is currently sent to Lunenburg Landfill) and to add new revenue from tipping fees by taking SSO from both Lunenburg Landfill and Valley Waste. The optimal tonnage for a 500 kW facility could be sought by Chester (approximately 10,000 tonnes per year). This would minimize capital costs and improve project economics. Project economics are most sensitive to capital cost variation. 10 S 5 Anaerobic Digestion ProjecL Specific Evaluation Criteria Building a successful AD project requires careful examination and evaluation of the opportunity. The following criteria can help guide Chester's decision making process in relation to building an AD project. Table 4: Anaerobic Digestion Project Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Evaluation CriteriaInfluencin Factors a) Financial Capability 1. Supplier Evaluation b) Project References (Track Record) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. c) Visit Existing Facility a) SSO Quantity 2. Feedstock (SSO) b) SSO Quality c) Certainty of Supply a) Enclosure of receiving area. 3. Odour Handling Considerations b) Proper air handling from enclosures? c) Treatment of exhaust air? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ d) Enclosure of curing area? a) Actual Biogas/Electricity Production 4. System Performance b) CHP Efficiency c) System Energy Consumption a) Investment required S. Capital Cost and Project Economics b) Return on Investment ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ c) Sensitivity Analysis a) Construction Duration 6. Construction b) Supplier Insurance c) EPC Contract .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... VolumeReduction Con.sirnstency of D gestate 7. Digestate Handling c) Curing on-site or off-site d) End use (saleable compost or landfill cover) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. e) Post -processing options a) Environmental 8. Regulatory Compliance b) COMFIT Compliance c) Interconnection Agreement with NS Power a) Previous Incidents 9. Safety b) Operator Safety Training ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ c) Potential for Environmental Impact 10. Future Expansion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ a) Does design enable possible expansion? a) Operating Cost 11. Operations b) Biological Stability c) Operator Expertise ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. d) Suitability to Climate/Environment a) Storage Prior to Entering Digester 12. Feedstock Handling b) Closed tipping area? c) Amount of time to load digester 11 13. Maintenance a) Ease of Maintenance b) Service Contract c) Special Equipment d) Design Life ..........................................................................................................................................................................a.............. ........................14.... Warranties .................................................................................................... ...Warranties Equipment b) Performance Guarantees A risk assessment was undertaken for the Kaizer Meadow AD project. It was determined that further due diligence is required on technology suppliers and/or project delivery companies. The following should be further investigated: • Financial capability • Project references • Site visits • Individual EPC and maintenance contracts (including performance guarantees) Project economics are most sensitive to capital cost variation followed by changes in energy production • Feedstock should be secured under a long-term contract where possible • Permitting risk is negligible for the project • All except one supplier quoted costs in Canadian dollars though prices of equipment may increase based on changes in the exchange rate to US Dollars and Euros. Based on the findings outlined in this report, recommendations are as follows: • Continue to pursue a dry AD system as a method to treat SSO at Kaizer Meadow by addressing and eliminating project risks • Pursue long term contracts to acquire feedstock (20 years) • For the 7,000 tonnes per year (tpy) project concept, evaluate obtaining an additional 3,000 tpyr of SSO to optimize project economics • Determine desired use of digestate • Confirm that digestate can be used as landfill cover with Nova Scotia Environment • Contact project references from technology providers • Conduct site visits of potential system provider's existing projects • Perform detailed analysis of technology supply and maintenance contracts • Perform further due diligence on technology suppliers and project delivery companies • Determine the amount of feedstock that can be secured under a long term contract and with what tipping fee 12 6 District Review, Potential Partnerships and. Economic Development 6 :j.. Future hi Illl[fflergy III)evekqlnlent 611 Baskmr°om.mmmud As mentioned above in Section 3.2, the Renewable to Retail initiative is well underway and Chester's immediate challenge is to find ways to enter the market — a market where renewables must be competitive with traditional energy prices. The obvious vehicle and response to the competitive pricing question is the one offered by low-cost financing from the Municipal Finance Corporation (MFC). Chester can draw on its own financing experience of the Kaizer Meadow Wind Project and that of Antigonish/Berwick/Mahone Bay's Ellershouse wind energy facility. In order to maximize benefits from the Renewable to Retail program Chester should explore hosting a wind energy project, thus earning tax revenue, and also seek an ownership position in the project through an inter -municipal partnership. Municipal ownership in a Renewable to Retail project will likely be the best opportunity for Chester to host another wind project in the Municipality in the short to medium term. For the purposes of this report, analysis of the Renewable to Retail opportunity will be based on a 30 MW wind power project. It is important to note that energy produced by a Chester renewable generator belongs to Chester and can be sold to any customer(s) of choice. If Chester uses the electricity for its own facilities, operating costs will be reduced accordingly. 6 1 2 Me eoii,6llloggu al Mast Iiiistll mlmrmmm. Chester required a suitable location for its MET mast and to that end Minas Energy conducted an analysis that resulted in two potential locations. Critical factors included: 0 Proximity to transmission lines (< 3 km) 0 Elevation • A suitable wind resource • 1.2 km setback from residences • Land available for development The mapping exercise found 9 areas to be within 3 km of transmission and 1.2 km distance from the residences. The Nova Scotia wind atlas caused most of the 9 locations to be eliminated either because they were too small to host a suitable wind energy project or they lacked a promising wind resource. Chester Council decided that its meteorological mast be installed at the location shown in figure 1. The location has the advantage of being close to the existing South Canoe project's electrical infrastructure and is sizeable enough to host a large wind facility. Wind data have been collected since January, 2015 and will continue to be collected as long as required. Reliable wind resource data and assessment are essential when attracting project financing and building a solid business case for a wind energy project. 13 Figure 1— Location of Card Lake Meteorological (MET) Mast Figure 2 — Installed Meteorological Mast 14 6. 1 3 FloteliiidliW Flsuu is iinellll sKiirps Forging project partnerships with other Municipalities will optimize Chester's wind energy opportunity by: 1) Increasing the size of a potential wind energy project; thus increasing tax revenues 2) Ensuring the Renewable to Retail wind project creates inter -municipal synergies and a reliable customer base Key activities are finding partners and identifying potential customers. On Chester's behalf, Minas Energy has approached a number of municipalities who have all expressed interest in the collaborative approach. This early work should be followed up and expedited in the remaining months of 2015. Potential customers can be found throughout the entire array of current customer categories (i.e. industrial, commercial, institutional and residential). Size, Credit worthiness, stability, and longevity of customers will be a prime concern. 6,A 4 1)ieviieloipiiiillinlilellll.I1„ As demonstrated by the South Canoe facility, wind energy projects create new long-term taxation revenues and, to some extent, create a mix of part and full time employment. For example, a 30 MW wind project would generate annual tax revenues of — $195,000. Construction jobs for a 30 MW wind project could result in approximately 80 person-years of construction employment plus a permanent operating staff of several people. 6,A S 11i oject Busllliiiess ('.'ase A sample financial model is located in Appendix A - provided in a separate document due to its commercially sensitive nature. The model contains assumptions on: • Capital and operating costs • Levels of equity and debt • Gross and net revenues • Return on equity, financial payback • Energy production and prices 6 1 6 Piiroject R slks Many of the project risks associated with the proposed 30 MW project are standard to any wind power project. Chester, through its investment in the Kaizer Meadow wind project, has dealt with many of these risks previously however there are several risks that are unique given that the project is to be developed for sale into the retail market. The Government of Nova Scotia has committed to the development of a retail market for renewable energy; however the regulations that govern the market have yet to be established. As mentioned above in Section 3.2, NS Dept. of Energy is currently engaging stakeholders, including Nova Scotia Power, in sessions that cover the market structure, delivery mechanisms, stranded cost charges, and applicable distribution tariffs. A guiding principle of the Renewable to Retail market is that existing Nova Scotia Power customers should not be negatively impacted as a result of some customers obtaining 15 electricity supply from a renewable entity. The policy and details on tariffs will be firmly established in March, 2016. Withholding investment until the above issues are finalized is recommended to address policy risk. 6A 62 Deve 'opineid .Risk Though there have been many wind projects developed in Nova Scotia, development risk will still be identified and addressed. Mitigating development risks is essential to securing project financing. It provides comfort that there are no hidden unforeseen costs. Development activities include: • Environmental Assessment approval and environmental management plan • Development Permit • Long-term contracts for power sale • Negotiation of turbine supply agreement • NSPI generator interconnection permit • Wind resource assessment • Land Lease Agreement • Construction contracts (roads and interconnection infrastructure) • Safety and security ..' 6 µ3 f'l yr :nei-ship Risk It will be important to form an inter -municipal partnership with a governing agreement that is legally sound and where the obligations of all partners are well understood. Finding a stable customer for power produced is extremely important from the perspective of risk management. Customers who have a long-term horizon should be exclusively considered. Customers will also have to be credit worthy and in healthy financial condition. In addition, customer consumption will have to closely match the amount of annual generation from the wind power project. ..f' 6 5 .6 ircinc-ing Risk Financial risk considers all risks that must be addressed to properly satisfy the investor — in this case, the Municipal Finance Corporation. ..f 6 6 t'-onsf.eriction unif Opei-trtion,s Risk Construction and operations risks apply to any wind project. These risks are managed through negotiating favourable terms in the turbine supply and maintenance agreement and through approved procurement procedures for all other works. Chester's recent experience in navigating through these agreements for the Kaizer Meadow Wind Project prove municipalities have the talents to manage these risks. 6 1 117 Recq) ii tie lel t� 'ii) i We recommend that Chester begin the process of forming partnerships with other municipalities. It will be important, when gauging interest from prospective partners, that appetite and risk tolerance are well understood. Once partners are selected, a business case should be established which is based on the 16 total capital available to finance the project. Once size and project economics are better understood, detailed discussions can begin with potential customers and pricing for the sale of electricity can be determined. 6. 2 . f ilr a t�gir°q m.i:uiiid Biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP) projects have been increasing in prevalence. In Nova Scotia biomass is considered a renewable low impact form of electricity generation. Biomass refers to low- grade by-products of the forestry industry that are pelletized and then combusted to create heat and electricity. Strictly speaking biomass can be divided into 2 categories: forest biomass and purpose - grown biomass. Forest biomass is the most common form of biomass and there is already an established market for forest biomass in Nova Scotia. The figure below gives an overview of key consumers of biomass (mostly forest biomass) in central Nova Scotia. Figure 3: Map of biomass facilities in Central Nova Scotia Northern Pulp tq �.a�. �w �_ .m. o reen pauses �a + Avon 'Valuer 4CDalhousie ,AC Greenhouses'P a� oirt m�,� D-lantspor K rr, Kentvrllle Hospital DenHaan Greerlhousesu Hefiers 7§C61,1a Atlantic f=orrrreirVy� Lame BiomassUniversr �,�' Birrt,ex �� ` a `�m� � �, aylor Lurrrrheir Small Biomass Ste r9mn li) ewater Hospital) Biomass Processing `cricly rt 40 Proposed Biomass 6 2 2E1inga;7eliniil.elin Sessm lkAilns 6,22 1 Coononuni(y, Engqgeonenl ffetholr Minas Energy hosted two public engagement sessions on behalf of the Municipality of Chester to better understand the level of interest and opposition to renewable energy projects in general and biomass in particular. Specifically, the goals of the sessions were to: Obtain feedback on current and future renewable energy development in the Municipality 17 • Solicit a better understanding of current forestry and biomass activities including perceived barriers and opportunities • Gauge interest in purpose -grown biomass opportunities The first session was held in New Ross on March 9th, 2015 and the second in Canaan on March 10th 2015. A World Cafe format was adopted for each session where community members were divided into three groups which would cycle through three different discussion stations. Each group stayed at a given station for 25 minutes, after which all groups rotated to another discussion station. The three stations each had a facilitator to ensure conversations were orderly and that all participants had a chance to speak. We also used a note taker ("harvester") who recorded the conversation on flipchart paper for all to see (Figure 3). The subject matter and questions posed at each station were the following: Overview of Chester Energy Strategy and residents opinions on renewable energy development o What are your thoughts on current renewable energy initiatives in the Municipality? o What do you see as un -tapped energy opportunities in the Municipality? o How should MODC be involved in facilitating energy project development? • Forest biomass markets and potential for economic development o Are you interested in biomass opportunities? Why or Why Not? o What types of barriers limit you from participating in biomass activities? o Should MODC be involved in facilitating biomass energy development? Why or Why Not? If so, how? Purpose -grown biomass as a potential for economic development o Have you ever or would you ever consider growing purpose -grown biomass? o What factors do you consider when deciding to grow purpose -grown biomass? o Should MODC be involved in facilitating purpose -grown biomass? Why or why not? If so, how? In addition to notes taken during each session, a survey was made available to all in attendance asking more detailed questions on people's interest and opinions related to renewables and biomass in particular. The survey was also made available online using the Survey Monkey platform. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix B. In order to enhance the environment of the meetings, an artist helped capture the discussions by documenting key points on an 'information graphic' canvass (see Figure 4). The canvass will be provided to Chester Council. LKI Figure 4: Flip Chart "Harvest" from Canaan Session Figure 5: Information Graphic of Chester Energy Opportunities 19 Figure 6: Session 1— New Ross 20 Figure 8: Session 2- Canaan 6,22,2 Dh;c v,,dn::Su::: r:: an, The community engagement session in New Ross was attended by 23 people while 12 people attended the session in Canaan. Below is a summary of the participants' comments captured in New Ross and Canaan by the note takers on the flip charts at each discussion station. These comments capture general themes that were commonly expressed at the sessions. To view the flip chart comments from each station and meeting, please see Appendix C. Table 6: Notes from Community Discussion Question Participant Comment Chester Energy Strategy and Current Renewables Station What are your thoughts on current . South Canoe Wind Farm was marketed well to the renewable energy initiatives in the community Municipality? . More resources on renewables — on Muni website? • Like the wind farm but biomass would bring direct benefit to the district • Think distributed biomass facilities would be better than 1 large one • Biomass facility in Chester with biomass supplied from the district • No economics in biomass • Not a lot of material which is suitable for biomass in Chester 21 22 • Biomass relatively inefficient for energy production • Need to do research on what products are acceptable for biomass • Like the concept of electric vehicles but seems to be too expensive to set up • Find the negatives of renewables to be overwhelming o Want to know positives o Trust experts on facts • Don't see drop in electricity costs • Need to better describe how revenue from wind farms is used What do you see as un -tapped • Purpose -grown short rotation biomass energy opportunities in the . Concerns that value added forest products are going to municipality? biomass, other uses are better for wood • Biomass efficiency is low • Concerns about emissions • Willow is more efficient • Electric vehicle charging stations • How can electric generation more directly feed local industry — i.e. to incentivize people to come to Chester • Phase two of South Canoe, take advantage of infrastructure to install more turbines • Need more education on energy provided by: o Chester Municipality o Community meetings like this o Little Red School Days o Municipal newsletter o Flyers in mail • Solar hot water and photovoltaic - Anaerobic digestion • Is it worthwhile to switch to electric vehicles? Cars still expensive but coming • Not enough electric vehicles to merit charging station How should Chester Municipality be . Want leadership from Municipality but not control involved in facilitating energy . Renewable to Retail is #1 on strategy plan for Municipality development? . Provide subsidies on electricity — including residential, industry (new industrial park) • Increased education • More wind turbines • Electric vehicles charging stations —free charging 0 Energy conservation — not currently promoted by Municipality • Lots of opportunity for solar — on roof or in fields, want to know benefits, economic spinoffs • 50 year vision — Lunenburg to be only green, pristine place left in the world 22 23 • Need to have short rotation crops for biomass to work • Need to look at all aspects of sustainability not just energy • Want council to have dedicated person or committee on energy — not too much red tape / bureaucracy, should have council, industry and public members • Education — what is biomass, thermal, biogas, solar, what are air emissions of each? Forest Biomass Station Are you interested in biomass General Comments: opportunities? Why or why not? • There are some unknowns about biomass, need to know more • It is appealing if waste product is used • Some people in New Ross engaged in biomass using discards, pine, spruce • Wood is being buried or landfilled at KM so there must be better ways to use it Concerns: • Feed stock is main issu%oncern • Concern over wood shortage Not interested: • Biomass not terribly appealing • Cost is an issue • Question of how we can make it more valuable? What products could be made? • Environmental concerns, increased CO2, nutrient loss, acid rain, loss of organic matter, increased heat, what about effects from natural decay? • There are better options out there, quick growing crops instead • Rights of other living organisms should be kept in mind, i.e. mushrooms • Biomass is the lowest use of a tree, better as value added i.e. flooring • Not interested in forest biomass SOLELY o Not financially feasible o Don't have enough volume o Economics don't add up o Lack of value added products Ideas: • IDEA= what about pellet mill at Kaizer Meadow? Is this viable? Research needed. What types of barriers limit you • Money, biomass is not profitable from participating in biomass • Trucking costs due to distance from supply Environmental activities? concerns and impact 23 24 • Negative public perceptions which are getting worse • Not enough biomass in this area to supply • Lack of human resources • Inefficiency of burning biomass compared to other sources • Lack of equipment • Lack of understanding of what is biomass -to -energy and what are the industry's impacts? Should Chester Muni be involved in . Should poll public opinion facilitating forest biomass . Municipality should play a role in awareness — info is key, development? Why and why not? If share facts about wood biomass so how? . Kaizer Meadow as an opportunity — there are trees going to landfill now • Municipality should not support high biomass use • Attractive option are fast growing crops • Carbon credits • Need to do it RIGHT but not sure that Municipality can play a role • Provincial and Federal jurisdictions over forests (not Municipality) • NO, the Municipality has a lot of other tasks on their plate • Feasibility — can this be done with a good business case? Municipality should evaluate • The Municipality should engage carefully — complex issue that people need to fully understand, there is a lack of expertise • Some people are already engaged in biomass which they ship overseas, so no need for Municipal involvement • Municipality should ensure most efficient energy producer/technology is used Purpose -Grown Biomass Station Have you or would you ever consider • Need to understand more about biomass growing purpose -grown biomass? . How to harvest alders? • What are the economics? Are there incentives or existing funding for these types of activities? • Consistent energy • What is the land suitability for purpose grown crops? What factors do you consider when • Other uses for land deciding to grow purpose -grown . Will chemicals be used? biomass? . Timing — how long will crop tie up property? a Land size • Crop rotation • Crop type 24 From the verbal discussions at meetings in New Ross and Canaan, there was a general negativity towards biomass opportunities due to a perceived lack of financial viability with this opportunity, negative public perceptions of forest biomass (especially the Port Hawkesbury facility), as well as environmental concerns over the sustainability of the forest biomass sector. There was interest and support for the wind developments in the Municipality as well as interest in future solar and electric vehicle technologies. Meeting attendees voiced more support for purpose grown biomass opportunities though wanted to learn more details. There were varying ideas on the role that the Municipality should play in energy development and in particular biomass development. From the discussions, participants often voiced that they wanted to see more education on current and future energy opportunities come from the Municipality and that there should be dedicated staff or a committee to researching energy issues and opportunities. 6,22 µt Survey ti"esul'ts In total there were 24 respondents to the survey. The data was analyzed using Survey Monkey and the following results were found. 25 • Emissions • Economic benefit to landowner, lease rate • Land suitability • Invasiveness of the crop • Government involvement • Uncertainty of crop effects • Climate change effects on land • Hard work • What happens after lease Should Chester Muni be involved in • This should be up to individual land owner facilitating purpose grown biomass • Yes, a tool for economic development development? Why and why not? If • This could keep people here — bring people in so how? • Municipality should facilitate research on purpose grown biomass • Land use bylaw, policy • Funding through which Federal department? • Municipality should always be looking for options • Waste at landfill — use what we have now • Municipality should have a vision From the verbal discussions at meetings in New Ross and Canaan, there was a general negativity towards biomass opportunities due to a perceived lack of financial viability with this opportunity, negative public perceptions of forest biomass (especially the Port Hawkesbury facility), as well as environmental concerns over the sustainability of the forest biomass sector. There was interest and support for the wind developments in the Municipality as well as interest in future solar and electric vehicle technologies. Meeting attendees voiced more support for purpose grown biomass opportunities though wanted to learn more details. There were varying ideas on the role that the Municipality should play in energy development and in particular biomass development. From the discussions, participants often voiced that they wanted to see more education on current and future energy opportunities come from the Municipality and that there should be dedicated staff or a committee to researching energy issues and opportunities. 6,22 µt Survey ti"esul'ts In total there were 24 respondents to the survey. The data was analyzed using Survey Monkey and the following results were found. 25 Question 1: How are you currently engaged in Forestry? Answer Choices Responses WoOdICA Owner 79.17% 1 Christmas tree farm operator 16.67% h. Harvesting com-aclor �L`17% Trucking ing corai acAoi 0.00% Forestry COIISLIftallt 0.00% f) Seasonal worker 12.50% 3 NcA involved 25.00% Other (1.aIease s:aecify) 16.67% h. Total Respondeift: 24 Question 2: Are you interested in forest biomass to energy opportunities? LM 56.52% 43.48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% E3 0 % 70% 80% 90% 100% Question 3: Since you've said "yes", what biomass opportunities interest you most? Answer Choices Forest residuals for use in a biomass facility Wood Convelled into fuel (i.e. gas, diesel) C Aler (J."Aease sl'.aecify) Total 26 Responses 80.00% 8 10.00% 10.00% 10 Question 4: Are you currently harvesting forest biomass? Answer Choices Responses w7"cs 0.00% 4:D No 100.00% n 8 Trental "18 Question 7: Are you currently seeking employment in forest biomass or purpose -grown biomass sectors? Answer Choices Responses w7"cs 0.00% 4:D Trental 20 Question 8: Which statement applies to you? Please choose one. Answer Choices Responses I am ii-Aeressfecl in collecling a reiTtal fee from the use ofmy lad for I:wi I wse-grcrwn biomass 21.43% 3 aclii°;vftie s. I am iiteressfecl in I:m-o aucing a I)ur1:wse-grown biomascrop) on my lad and would manage the harvesting and gale of the crol:a myself. I am ii-Aeressfecl in renting lad from a landowner for growing, managing, and selling pwrl:mse- grcrwn biomass crol.m. I am not hTteressfecl in I.milicil.mting in pwrl:mse-grown biomass ac1ivfties in any way. Total 27 Question 9: Please select from the following purpose -grown crops that you would be interested in growing on your land for use as biomass? 100 80 60.00 60% ''40% r 10'00 0% Slwert I Otation miscanthus Hot interestecl Other (please woody crcalwS (elephant grass specify (i.e. alclens, agricultul al willow) crcal)) Question 11: Would you consider yourself a supporter of renewable energy opportunities in the Municipality? Answer Choices Responses "r°es 87.50% l 4 110 6.25% Please exl:alain your answer. 6.25% n Total 16 Question 12: From the list below, please select the types of renewable energy that you believe represent an untapped opportunity for your municipality? 100% 80% 68.75% so W Question 13: How should the Municipality of the District of Chester be involved in facilitating an energy development in the area? Please select all that apply. 100% 80% 53.33% 33.33% Policy Specific Seed fun cling Should not d thel encoul aging Zoning fear encoul aging be involved (Please energy energy use energy pec" development I)rraject... Of those who responded to the survey, most were already involved in forestry as a woodlot owner (79.17%) though none replied that they were currently harvesting forest biomass nor seeking employment in the field of forest or purpose -grown biomass. 56.52% said that they were interested in forest biomass opportunities, notably with regard to forest residuals for use in a biomass facility. As it relates to purpose -grown biomass, most (64.29%) said that they were not interested in participating in purpose -grown biomass activities in any way followed by 24.13% who said that they were interested in collecting a rental fee for the use of their land for purpose -grown biomass activities. Again, when asked specifically about the types of purpose -grown biomass crops that would be of interest, most (60%) were not interested in this at all, while 20% were interested in short rotation woody crops and 20% were interested in the Miscanthus crop. Of notable interest was that 87.5% of respondents said that they considered themselves a supporter of renewable energy opportunities in the Municipality. The most commonly cited un -tapped energy sources were solar (93.75%) and wind (68.75%), followed by waste -to -energy (43.75%). When asked how the municipality should be involved in facilitating energy develop ment,there were varying responses with the most popular response being that the Municipality should adopt policies that encourage energy development (53.33%), followed by those who wanted to see specific zoning for energy use (46.67%) The existence of the Sustane Project at Kaizer Meadow may help the Municipality acquire market intelligence with respect to biomass and enable Chester to identify future economic development in the sector. 29 6 2 �3 1,"Icoiiiil suuiui.iiiic l)eveloliuur�ui. iiiiit Land -use in Chester is primarily forestry related there may be a chance in the future for Chester to promote the forestry industry in general and the biomass supply market in particular. At present, the economics related to the biomass supply chain are not good enough to warrant any immediate municipal involvement in biomass specifically. As previously stated, Chester's involvement in the Sustane project will increase the Municipality's market knowledge of biomass which may help form any future opportunities. 6 t 4 Fliroject Busfiaess ill[.'ase Without a clear role and the lack of widespread support for municipal involvement in the conventional biomass supply chain, there is no clear investment opportunity for Chester at this time. However, Chester should continue to be open to initiatives related to biomass CHP and those similar to Sustane. 6 2.S Recq)uuimuurm.euulrl t� liii)uiiis It is not recommended at this time for Chester to own a biomass CHP facility and there is no clear role for the municipality to support the supply chain for conventional biomass. Chester should keep seeking potential opportunities for purpose -grown crops but keep in mind that agricultural land is limited in the municipality. 7 Conclusions and Recorn.r.n.endations This report presents an analysis of three opportunities selected on the basis of Nova Scotia's current regulatory environment, combined with our understanding of the Chester's mindset and priorities. Chester's interest in developing opportunities related to renewable energy is consistent with the Municipality's sustainability objectives and we firmly believe the initiatives that Chester has chosen should be applauded — especially when considering the struggles that Nova Scotia's rural communities face. 17 1 Opportunity It I Amaerobic Digestion Project Chester has received COMFIT approval for an anaerobic digestion facility that can convert source separated organics into electricity. Early economic indicators of the project appear to be favourable but, in light of known (and unknown) technology risks previously discussed in this report, further investigative analyses should be pursued to identify and minimize risks to Chester. Additional development activities should be performed before a commitment to the project is made. These include: • Pursue long term contracts to acquire feedstock • Determine desired use of digestate • Confirm that digestate can be used as landfill cover with Nova Scotia Environment • Contact project references from technology providers • Conduct site visits of potential system provider's existing projects • Perform detailed analysis of technology supply and maintenance contracts • Perform further due diligence on technology suppliers and project delivery companies • Determine the amount of feedstock that can be secured under a long term contract and with what tipping fee 30 The Renewable to Retail program presents Chester with an opportunity to host and co -develop a wind energy project whose owners can sell renewable electricity to retail customers. We envision the project would be located in the District of Chester and would include like-minded municipal partners. We recommend that Chester begin the process of forming partnerships with other municipalities. When gauging interest from prospective partners, it is vital potential partners understand and define their respective risk tolerances. Once partners commit in principle, a business case can quickly establish capital requirements and a range of financing options. After project size and economics are determined, discussions can begin with potential customers. We also recommend that until partnerships are formed and risks addressed, Chester should exercise caution about spending significant monies on activities such as environmental studies, grid interconnection applications, and community engagement. In the meantime, Chester should continue to collect data from the meteorological mast. We found a lack of public interest and financial support for biomass CHP and, at this time, there is no clear role for the municipality to support a supply chain for non -conventional biomass. However, we do encourage Chester to maintain a general awareness of market activates that may occur with purpose -grown biomass. 31 Appendix A (Redacted) 32 Appendix B 33 Survey Exploring Energy Opportunities in the Municipal District of Chester Forest Biomass 4. What barriers (i.e. financial, environmental) I. How are you currently engaged in forestry? limit you from participating in any sort of biomass Please check any that apply. activities? ❑ Woodlot owner ❑ Christmas tree farm operator ❑ Harvesting contractor ❑ Trucking contractor ❑ Forestry consultant ❑ Seasonal worker ❑ Other ❑ Not involved 2. Are you interested in forest biomass to energy 5. What kind of role should your Municipality play in addressing the barriers you listed? opportunities? ❑Yes ❑ No If YES, please check the biomass opportunities that interest you most? ❑ Forest residuals for use in a biomass facility ❑ Wood converted into fuel (i.e. diesel, gas) ❑ Other If NO, why? 6. Are you currently looking for employment in the 3. Are you currently harvesting forest biomass? field of forestry or purpose grown biomass? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑No Purpose -Grown Biomass I. Please place a checkmark beside the statement 2. Please place a checkmark beside the following that most applies to you. purpose -grown crops that you would be interested in growing on your land for use as biomass. ❑ I am interested in collecting a rental fee from the use of my land for purpose -grown biomass activities. ❑ I am interested in growing a purpose -grown biomass crop on my land and would manage the harvesting and sale of the crop myself ❑ I am interested in renting land from a landowner for growing, managing and selling purpose - grown biomass crops. ❑ I am not interested in participating in purpose - grown biomass activities in any way. ❑ Short rotation woody crops (i.e. alders, willow) ❑ Miscanthus (elephant grass agricultural crop) ❑ Not interested ❑ Other Please elaborate on your reasons for being interested (or not interested) in the crops listed above. Chester Municipal Energy Strategy I. Would you consider yourself a supporter of renewable energy opportunities in the Municipality? F-1 Yes ❑No Please explain your answer. 2. From the list below, please place a checkmark beside the types of renewable energy that you believe present an un -tapped opportunity for your municipality. ❑ Wind ❑ Biomass ❑ Waste -to -energy ❑ Solar ❑ Hydro ❑ Other 3. How should Chester Municipality be involved in facilitating energy development of any kind in the area? Please check all that apply. ❑ Policy encouraging energy development ❑ Specific zoning for energy use ❑ Seed funding encouraging energy project development ❑ Should not be involved ❑ Other Thank you for filling out our survey. Name: Address: Phone #: Email address: 4. What are your thoughts on future renewable energy developments in the Municipality of Chester? S. Are there any exciting partnerships that you suggest the Municipality of Chester explore for future renewable energy developments? 6. Do you have any other comments? Minu-sEnEDNrigg POSITIVE SOLUTIONS Appendix C 34 New Ross Session — March 9, 2015 Energy Strategy Station 1. What are your thoughts on current renewable energy initiatives in the Municipality? • SC was marketed well to the community • Transparency, liked newsletters and open houses • Suggested SC look -off at Mike Keddy's wood lot • Muni would like to develop sustainability tourism • More resources on renewables — on Muni website? • Like the wind farm but biomass would bring direct benefit to the district • Biomass to energy feasibility • 400-500 private land owners in New Ross mostly small • Biomass to energy started with mill waste • Think distributed biomass facilities would be better than 1 large one • Don't consider South Canoe to be a Muni initiative — don't seem to be energy initiatives, just revenue based initiatives • Biomass facility in Chester w/biomass supplied from the district • Feeling of being taken advantage of in the community • No sense of sustainability • No economics in biomass • Not a lot of material which is suitable for biomass in Chester • Forests cut on 35 yr rotation • Biomass relatively inefficient for energy production • Need to do research on what products are acceptable for biomass 2. What do you see as un -tapped energy opportunities in the municipality? • PG short rotation biomass • Similar mtg in Antigonish — concerns that value added forest products are going to biomass • Biomass efficiency is low • 50% more carbon emitted in biomass than coal • Concerns about emissions • Willow is more efficient • Other uses are better for wood • Applied for 4 electric vehicle charging stations • $83,000 in Feb from Kaizer Meadow • How can electric generation more directly feed local industry — i.e. to incentivize people to come to Chester • Think it would be more worthwhile to subsidize electricity to bring industry to Muni • Bigger sector than wind — prices are down, tech is improving • Would like to subsidize to install solar PV • Role of the muni to attract industry • But not gvt 'in business' • Want 24 more turbines — phase 2 SC, take advantage of infrastructure • Back from Alberta to work at SC as safety consultant 3. How should Chester Muni be involved in facilitating energy devt? • Cheaper energy to attract industry • Want leadership from Muni but not control • No 'energy committee'! • Would be open to community involvement • Energy is in the strategic plan (top 5) • Renewable to retail is #1 on strategy plan for Muni • Discussion re: industrial park with subsidized electricity • Munis asked Minas to get involved • Solar panels at South Canoe • Land in between Hwy 12 and 14 for solar • Muni should take leadership on sustainability • Provide subsidies on electricity — including residential • Increased education • Need holistic approach to sustainability — not just energy • More wind turbines • Electric vehicles charging stations —free charging • Energy conservation — not currently promoted by Muni • Lots of opportunity for solar P. V — on roof or in fields, want to know benefits • $4k for solar hot water setup • Liked idea of solar city in Halifax • Feel that solar has economic spinoffs • 50 yr vision — Lunenburg to be only green, pristine place left in the world • Have to watch for Halifax's urban sprawl • Big air emissions — NS Power, Pulp Mills, Halifax Muni, clean air now reliant on forests • Lunenburg's forests supply Halifax's clean air — Muni of Chester should receive clean air tax from Halifax • People focus on Halifax too much, need to remember importance of rural environment • Need to have short rotation crops for biomass to work • Need to educate urbanites about rural importance • Would like newsletter update on report conclusions • Intergenerational understanding of importance of the enviro around us • Land grants from King George to grow hemp and flax • Lots of land passed down over centuries • Need to look at all aspects of sustainability not just energy Biomass Station 1. Are you interested in biomass opportunities? Why or why not? • Biomass fact of life — but not terribly appealing o $ for labour, cost is an issue o Question of how we can make it more valuable? What products could be made? • Is there an opportunity here? Waste products? Economic devt? Consortium? • There are some unknowns about biomass and need to know more • It is appealing if waste product is used • Feed stock is main issue/concern • Some people in New Ross engaged in biomass (using discards, pine, spruce) • Muni supplies C&D waste to Brooklyn but is just giving it away • NOT = enviro concerns, not supportive of whole tree harvesting which is done in Europe, nutrient loss there • NOT = better options out there, quick growing crops instead, rather something re -seeds • NOT = rights of other living organisms should be kept in mind, i.e. mushrooms • MAYBE = questions still, size of plant? Viability? What options out there? • NOT = biomass is the lowest use of a tree, better as value added i.e. flooring • Round wood used for biomass — looks like this is being burned and there is a hardwood flooring shortage, Wagner is BAD, biomass used to come from Elliot Lumber in New Ross • Not interested in forest biomass SOLELY o Not $ feasible o Don't have enough volume o Economics don't add up o Lack of value added products • No — enviro concerns, increased CO2, nutrient loss, acid rain, loss of organic matter, increased heat, what about effects from natural decay? 2. What types of barriers limit you from participating in biomass activities? • $ money, can't make money from it, need to make it more profitable • Trucking costs due to distance from supply — closer is better • Enviro concerns — clearcutting • Negative public perceptions o Perceptions are getting worse o Using wood for other uses, taking otherwise good land o Tensions between Landusers vs. landowners o Clearcutting negative perceptions • $ money — a lot of variables go into price • Sustainability of forest resource • Environmental impact • Point Tupper and negative perceptions • Questions on how many trees translate into energy produced? • Question on WHAT IS BIOMASS? Types trees, size? Ralph Surette article • Not enough biomass in this area to supply • Common sense — long term use of land (Meister's do this) • Human resources • Volume of trees • $ economics — biomass doesn't work on its own • Perception of sorting and separation of forest products is bad — is this being tracked? Should be better • Those in the field are sorting and using forest products to ensure that they make the most $ 3. Should Chester Muni be involved in facilitating forest biomass devt? Why and why not? If so how? • Yes • Should poll public opinion • Muni should play a role in awareness — info is key, share facts about wood biomass • Kaizer Meadow as an opportunity — there are trees going to landfill now, SUSTAIN project would make pellets and biodiesel • Muni should not support high biomass use • Attractive option is fact growing crop • Waste in local forest resource but some examples of its use in facilities • Fresh air concerns • Carbon credits • Need to do it RIGHT but not sure that Muni can play a role • Prov and Fed jurisdictions over forests (not Muni) • NO = muni has a lot of other tasks on their plate • Muni may eventually get involved • Feasibility — can this be done with a good business case? Muni to evaluate • Carefully — complex issue that people need to fully understand, there is a lack of expertise • Some people are already engaged in biomass which they ship overseas, so no need for Muni involvement Purpose Grown Biomass Station 1. Have you or would you ever consider growing purpose -grown biomass? • Need to understand more about biomass • How to harvest alders • Economics? • Incentives/funding? • Consistent energy • Land suitability • Less farmers, bigger farmers 2. What factors do you consider when deciding to grow purpose -grown biomass? • Other uses for land • Want to contribute to habitat • Chemicals? • Pass on land? • Designated use • Timing—tying up property • Land size • Term • Land replication • Crop rotation • Crop type • Emissions • Particulates • Economics • Community • Proximity to plant • Change of landuse? — policies • $ money • Land suitability • Invasiveness? 3. Should Chester Muni be involved in facilitating purpose grown biomass devt? Why and why not? If so how? • Economic devt • Up to individual land owner • Hemp as a crop? • Is land suitable? • What crop is best? • Economic devt • It is makes sense • Keep people here — bring people in • Facilitate, search out • Solar resource • Need understanding • Hemp? — what are the uses? • Research • Land use bylaw, policy • Micro climate • Funding through which Fed dept? Canaan Session - March 10, 2015 Energy Strategy Station 1. What are your thoughts on current renewable energy initiatives in the Municipality? • What is the process to determine what renewables are implemented? • Like the concept of EV but seems to be too expensive to get set up • Find the negatives of renewables to the overwhelming o Want to know positives o Trust experts on facts • Aesthetically pleasing turbines, but cut down view planes • Sprawl across land • Don't see drop in electricity costs • Need to better describe how revenue is used 2. What do you see as un -tapped energy opportunities in the municipality? • Solar • More turbines • More info on energy • Need more edu in order to give opinions on energy o Provided by Muni o Community meetings like this o Lil Red School Days o Muni newsletter o Flyers in mail • Appreciate charity work as a result of South Canoe • Solar hot water and PV - Muni should look at this • Like the thought of AD • Is it worthwhile to switch to EV — cars still expensive but coming • Not enough EV to merit charging station 3. How should Chester Muni be involved in facilitating energy devt? • Want council to have dedicated person or committee on energy — not too much red tape / bureaucracy • Evaluate other energy options • High power bills currently • Cut residential power rates • Electric vehicles are for the birds • Education — what is biomass, thermal, biogas, solar, what are air emissions of each? • Surprised Muni doesn't have an energy or sustainability committee — should have council, industry and public members Biomass Station 1. Are you interested in biomass opportunities? Why or why not? • Questions? o How do you gather biomass? o What types of products? Pellets, logs o How does it work? Sell directly to facilities • Issues — waste in the forest after harvest — nutrients should be kept in forest, what to do with waste? Leave it or use it? • YES = Wood is being buried or landfilled at KM so there must be better ways to use it • IDEA = what about pellet mill at KM? Is this viable? Research needed. • It is not right to ship wood away — focus on local job creation and $ spinoffs • Concern over wood shortage 2. What types of barriers limit you from participating in biomass activities? • Perceptions o It's not being done properly, better mtg needed o Using good hardwood for biomass where there are better uses for this o Value added products better • Lack of info o How are forests managed? o Need to understand more about enviro impacts o Generally need to know more o Lack of nutrients left? • Efficiency of burning biomass compared to others • Repurposing clear cut materials — what are the best uses? • Idea that other uses for wood are better • Equipment — do I need chipper? How to drag out the wood? • Transportation distance from markets • Efficiency of burning wood compared to others —for personal use considering wood stove over pellet stove • Enviro and landuse issues o Are there better ways to use land? o Air pollution concerns o Enviro standards • Questions still, lack of understanding, what is biomass -to -energy? 3. Should Chester Muni be involved in facilitating forest biomass devt? Why and why not? If so how? • There needs to be improved reforestation — DNR has done poorjob • Jurisdiction? Province over Muni — what powers does the Muni even have here? • Muni should ensure most efficient energy producer/tech is used • Prov sets standards — muni should do better and lead by example • Forest resource — make sure that harvest is sustainable, muni should weigh in here • Muni to evaluate supply in Canaan area — is it feasible here, is there enough supply for facility here?, not use value added hardwood Purpose Grown Biomass Station 1. Have you or would you ever consider growing purpose -grown biomass? • Have planted spruce • Invasive? • What type of willow? • Characteristics of species? • Emissions? • Toxins/particulates? • What return? • What benefit? • Marginal land • Old farms • What rotation? • Lease rate 2. What factors do you consider when deciding to grow purpose -grown biomass? • Need land • Gvt involvement • Uncertainty of crop effects • How long to grow product • Climate change effects on land • $ value • Keeping land un useable state • Hard work • What happens after lease • Price 3. Should Chester Muni be involved in facilitating purpose grown biomass devt? Why and why not? If so how? • Economic devt • Budget • Need return on investment • Other PG crops — non biomass • Should be clean energy • Muni should stay current • No land destruction • Information sharing • Collect interest • Always looking for options • Waste at landfill — use what we have • Vision MUNICIPALITY OF THE 6.1b) DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO Warden Allen Webber and Municipal Council Members SUBMITTED BY Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer DATE June 4, 2015 SUBJECT Energy Strategy - Next Steps- Renewable to Retail ; Biomass Comfit Approval and Anaerobic Digestion ORIGIN Energy Strategy CURRENT SITUATION: In 2014 Municipal Council engaged Minas Basin to complete an Energy Strategy for the Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) that provides options for MODC to pursue with respects to renewable energy. Two recommendations have emerged: 1) That MODC host and seek a partnership role in a Renewable to Retail Wind Energy Project 2) That MODC pursue an anaerobic digestion project for the processing of Source Separated Organics (SSO) and do so under the Biomass Comfit Approval recently obtained for 500 kW at Kiazer Meadows A decision is required from Council has to whether they wish to proceed with one or both of the recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: That Municipal Council direct staff is issue a Proposal Call for Project Feasibility, Development, Implementation and Management of a Wind Energy Project under a Renewable to Retail Wind Energy Project in the District of Chester; and Project Development, Implementation and Management of a Anaerobic Digester Project; and That award of the same be subject to confirmation from the Department of Municipal Affairs that the revenue generating aspects of these projects enables the borrowing for these projects to not impact MODC's debt service ratio. BACKGROUND: In 2014 MODC engaged Minas Basin to complete an Energy Strategy for MODC. This Strategy identified three avenues for MODC 1) Wind Energy Project under a Renewable to Retail Program (regulations pending); 2) a Biomass Renewable Energy Project under the COMFIT program and utilizing Source Separated Organics (SSO's) and 3) Specially Grown Biomass opportunities. A Biomass COMFIT approval was obtained, and feasibility study on Anaerobic Digestion was completed. The feasibility study identified that volumes are a key component in the feasibility of this process: volumes beyond what is generated by MODC residents. To ensure the feasibility of this process approximately 17,500 tonnes per year of SSO's are required. In 2013 the Province of Nova Scotia introduced legislation that would enable renewable energy to be produced and sold directly to the consumer (Renewable to Retail). Regulations are required to be approved by the Province prior to any applications / approvals under this legislation. The Energy Strategy recommends that MODC host a Wind Energy Project under this program and seek partners in the development of the same. DISCUSSION: Direction is required from Council in order to move forward with any or all of the recommendations. The COMFIT approval is good for four years, meaning that MODC will need to have identified a process and commissioned the same within four years from the approval date (Feb 2019). Under the Renewable to Retail Program, there will be a finite amount of renewable energy that can be produced and sold under the program as such, it can be anticipated that the sooner an application is made, the better. To be ready to make an application MODC would need to have a site, wind data to support a project, partners identified, contracts/agreements in place for the same, and identified customers. While it there is no certainty as to when the regulations will be approved, it is anticipated that this will occur this fall or next spring. The steps to move forward involve: 1. Business Development and Analysis for both projects 2. Obtaining applicable regulatory approvals 3. Technology Assessments, Technical specifications; Contract negotiations for technology supply agreements, municipal waste streams, construction activities etc, including tender preparation ,evaluation, and project management 4. Partnership Agreements / Inter -Municipal Agreements for SSO process and or Wind Energy Projects S. Land lease arrangements (Renewable to Retail) 6. Transmission interconnection and power purchase agreements 7. Power Sale Agreements (Renewable to Retail) 8. Site Wind Resource Assessments 9. Community Engagement 10. Project development, Project Commissioning 11. Financing 12. Operating and maintaining energy assets The obvious first steps involve the business case development and analysis to ensure there is a business case that supports moving to the next steps of assessing technology, determining technical specifications, technology supply agreements, regulatory approvals, process agreements, etc. This work will require expertise and resources beyond what MODC's has and thus to move forward it is recommended that Council direct staff to issue a Proposal Call for these services. The proposal call shall be written in such a way was to ensure that milestones are identified at which Council may evaluate its desire to continue to move forward or not, without any financial obligation beyond what work has been completed. Given the nature of the project it is anticipated that any consulting agreement would be a multi-year contract. The present 2015/16 budget does not contain funds for this consulting work and as such funds would have to be taken from the forecasted surplus, reserves, borrowed or a combination thereof. The anaerobic digestion project is estimated at 10 Million Dollars; the Renewable to Retail wind energy project would be subject to scale. Each 3MW turbine is estimated at $6 Million Dollars. The Engineering / Project Development / Management services would be estimated at 10-15%, thus approximately $1.6 Million, if all of the capital is completed by MODC. The objective of these projects is to generate non -tax revenue and thus lessen the reliance on property taxes and strengthening MODC`s financial positon. The Wind Energy project is estimated to have an annual net rate of return of 10%, thus for every million invested, MODC would have a net profit of $100,000 $50,000 per annum. Preliminary financial analysis for the anaerobic digestion project suggest a net profit of $455,000 in year one, increasing every year to $658,000 in year 20. These figures are subject to further refinement and analysis, which would be undertaken as part of the business case development. IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: Site locations for Wind Energy Project would be subject to the Municipal Planning Strategy 2 Financial/Budgetary: 2015/16- Estimated $100,000 in Consulting Costs (assumes regulatory changes in the fall for Renewable to Retail). No funds have been provided in the 2015/16 fiscal year. This would have to be taken from reserve or a combination of reserve and surplus; or borrowed. The objective of both projects is to generate non -tax revenue options for MODC. Confirmation from Department of Municipal Affairs respecting the impact to MODC's Debt Service Ratio's are pending. 3 Environmental: All Environmental Approvals would be required to be obtained for both projects 4 Strategic Plan: Maintain a high level offiscal responsibility Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity. 5 Work Program Implications This is identified as a top priority for MODC Council in the Strategic Priorities Chart ATTACHMENTS: OPTIONS: The options for consideration are: 1.. Issue of Proposal call for further development and possibility implementation of both the Anaerobic Digestion project and the Renewable to Retail Project; 2. Issue a Proposal call foronly the Renewable to Retail Wind Project or only theAnaerobic Digester Project 3. Not proceed with either project at this time. Prepared BY Tammy Wilson Date June 4, 2015 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Date