Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-03-31_Council_Public Agenda Package MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Thursday,March 31, 2016 at 8:45 a.m. AGENDA 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER. 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 2.1 Council-Thursday,March 10, 2016. 2.2 Public Hearing-Thursday, March 24,2016 3. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 11 Committee of the Whole Meeting-March 24, 2016-Warden Webber a. Copy of Amended Section 3 of the Personnel Policy 3.2 Audit and Budget Committee-March 24,2016-Warden Webber 3.3 Recreation and Parks Committee-March 21, 2016-Councillor Connors 3.4 Any other Committee Reports 4. MATTERS ARISING 4.1 Request for Decision regarding Ten Beaches-Memo dated March 9,2016 from Development Officer. S. CORRESPONDENCE: 5.1 Aquaculture Regulations: a. Appointment-Darrell Tingley-changes to Aquaculture Regulations (9:00 a.m.). b. Appointment-Bruce Hancock,Director of Aquaculture regarding changes to Aquaculture Regulations (9:15 a.m.) 5.2 Presentation/Grant Request from Alicia Van de Sande,Seniors Safety Coordinator regarding Lunenburg County Senior Safety Program (appointment at 9:45 a.m.) 53 Correspondence dated March 21, 2016 from Our Health Centre requesting amendment to the Chester Village Land Use by-Law to permit cupolas to exceed the current maximum height of 10m (33 feet) as well as a request for waiving fees for the amendment as per Policy P-20 Miscellaneous Fees Policy for non-profit organizations. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Variance Appeal- 15 King Street(10:00 a.m.) a. Request for Decision from Development Officer b. Appointment-David Miller C. Written Submissions received: Pagel of L Jill Flinn ii. Gail Fraser iii. Sylvia Moir iv. Robert Helms V. Barbie Nunn-Porter vi. Dr.William Gallacher vii. Stephen and Lynda Flinn viii. David Miller and Nancy Murray ix. Susan Collins X. Duncan McNeill 6.2 Request for Decision-Pre-Budget Approval- Flood Plain Mapping 7. ADJOURNMENT. APPOINTMENTS ARRANGED 9:00 a.m. Darrell Tingley regarding changes to Aquaculture Regulations 9:15 a.m. Bruce Hancock,Director of Aquaculture regarding changes to Aquaculture Regulations 9:45 a.m. Alicia Van de Sande, Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if necessary Page 2 of 2 0 127 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of Meeting of COUNCIL Held in Council Chambers at 151 King Street, Chester, NS On Thursday, March 10, 2016 i i The Meeting was called to order by Warden Webber at 8:48 a.m. ROLL CALL Councillors Warden Allen Webber Deputy Warden Floyd Shatford Councillor Brad Armstrong Councillor Andre Veinotte Councillor Tina Connors Councillor Robert Myra Councillor Sharon Church-Cornelius Staff Tammy Wilson, CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Jennifer Veinotte, Communications Officer Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor Press Jonathan Waddell Public There were approximately 15 people in the public gallery. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 2.1 Council-Thursday, February 25, 2016. 2016-106 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong,SECONDED by Councillor Myra the minutes of the February 25,2016 meeting of Council be approved as circulated. CARRIED. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Committee of the Whole Meeting- March 3, 2016-Warden Webber i The CAO read an email from Jo-Ann Grant dated March 4, 2016 with regard to her disapproval of Council approving the increase employee and Council salaries,as per policy,by the Cost of Living of 0.4%. 2016-107 MOVED by Councillor Myra,SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the recommendations from the March 3,2016 Committee of the Whole be approved as follows: i 2016-097 -APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES COUNCIL(continued) March 10, 2016 128 2016-098-"...authorize the execution of the"Agreement for Snow and Ice Control"for Millennium Drive for the 2015-16 Season,as presented." 2016-099-"...approve the Safety Work Program for 2016 including the pre-budget approval of the additional funds to the baseline budget necessary to implement the same ($15,000)in 2016-17." 2016-100-"...defer a decision on the matter of the grant request from Chester Minor Hockey until the Council grant applications for 2016-17 are reviewed by the Committee as a complete package." 2016-101-"...approve the revised Strategic Priorities Chart as attached,with implementation of the same subject to 2016-17 budget/business plan approval." 2016-102 -"...receive the Fox Point Lake Water Quality Monitoring Report for 2015 and forward the same to the Nova Scotia Department of Environment." 2016-103 -"...approve an adjustment to MODC employee's salaries/salary ranges in an amount equal to the previous year's Consumer Price Index Rate of 0.4%,with the increase to be effective April 1,2016." 2016-104-"...approved the revised timeline for the Plan Review Completion in the spring of 2017,including an extension to the term position as required to complete the Plan Review from August 2016 to March 31, 2017." 2016-105 -ADJOURNMENT CARRIED. 4.2 Audit&Budget Committee- February 25, 2016-Warden Webber The motions resulting from the February 25, 2016 Audit and Budget Committee have been passed by Council previously(pre-budget approvals and carry overs). 2016-108 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford,SECONDED by Councillor Myra that the minutes of the February 25,2016 Audit and Budget Committee be accepted as presented. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Presentation/Video/Grant request- Dawn Harwood-Jones, Musical Friends. i Ms. Harwood-Jones thanked Council for the opportunity to present the Grant Request from Musical Friends and outlined the various projects that Musical Friends is undertaking with participants of all ages -seniors,young children,and toddlers. Two videos were shown as well. COUNCIL (continued) March 10, 2016 129 Councillors thanked Ms. Harwood-Jones for her work and Ms. Harwood-Jones also updated Council on the Starfish Refugee Project indicating that they are ready and waiting for the family to arrive. 2016-109 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong,SECONDED by Councillor Church-Cornelius that the Grant Request from Musical Friends for 2016/17 in the amount of$4,000 be referred to the 2016/17 Grants Process. CARRIED. COMMITTEE REORTS(continued) 4.3 South Shore Housing Action Coalition- Councillor Connors Councillor Connors indicated that a survey is ready for completion and she had posters available for Councillors to distribute in their districts. 4.4 South Canoe CLC -Councillor Connors Councillor Connors updated Council on the following items from the South Canoe CLC meeting: • The Microfund is no longer available;the funds remaining will go to the sponsorship stream ($25,000). • Membership guidelines and terms of reference are being tweaked (Minas is no longer there and NS Power will be included when needed). NEW BUSINESS 6.2 Out and About in My Community- Councillor Connors Councillor Connors updated members on the following in her community: 1. The Woodlot Owners Conference was held in her community recently. 2. Yesterday she and two others representing New Ross had the opportunity to address the Liberal Caucus with regard to the 200th Anniversary and the Ross Farm Museum as well as the strategic plan underway in New Ross. 3. The 200th Anniversary Committee is working on promotional materials such as stand-up banners,brochures, and placemats for children and adults. 6.3 Business Excellence Awards-Warden Webber Warden Webber commended on the business, Cedar Bay,from District 1 which won an export award at the Business Excellence Awards this week. A break was held until 9:45 a.m. 6.1 Request for Decision from Heather Archibald, Development Officer dated February 25, 2016 regarding Our Health Centre Variance Appeal- 3773 Highway 3,Chester (PID 60692639). Tara Maguire, Director of Community Development,and Heather Archibald, Development Officer,were present. There were approximately 15 people in public gallery. COUNCIL (continued) March 10; 2016 130 The Development Officer outlined the request for a variance to exceed the height limit to 43'to allow for a decorative second cupola-for aesthetics. The variance was denied based on the fact that there is no structural requirement showing the building needs to go higher. There is nothing regulatory to support the additional 10'. They have a development permit in place in which the structure meets the height requirements. Syd Dumaresq,Architect,introduced John Carmichael,fellow Architect, for the Our Health Centre building. Mr. Dumaresq congratulated Council on previous smart,but difficult, decisions and indicated that he is asking for another hard decision- despite the pressure regarding height in the Village of Chester. Using a presentation, Mr. Dumaresq outlined the reasons Council should consider granting the variance to allow the cupola to be added to the Our Health Centre Structure. He noted that all guidelines in the Streetscape Plan have been adhered to. He also outlined the requirements/differences between commercial and residential building with regard to height required between floors, etc. He also provided photos of cupolas throughout the Village of Chester. i The CAO indicated that six letters had been received; five in favour of the variance and one opposed. Warden Webber noted that he also received a telephone call in support of the variance. Warden Webber commented that the difficulty is not that he disagrees the structure looks better without it or that it fits in Chester. He has been told that strict adherence to height in the Village is a must-residents do not want a deviation from the height restriction. As much as he would like to approve the variance,there is nothing unique about this structure/location and thus there is no exemption that would allow it. Councillor Armstrong noted that some residents are for and some are against. Height is a contentious issue to the point that people do not want height restrictions to change. This is a decorative element. The Architects have designed a great building and he feels that the cupola would add to it. However, without something unique to this site that would warrant the variance here and not elsewhere in the Village, it is difficult to grant it.When the next variance is heard Council would have to allow that as well. The Public has stated that they feel Council was not adhering to policy because of variances issued. He noted that he would not support the variance because it would set a bad precedent that Council would have to deal with on a regular basis. He is very supportive of the work and the progress on the facility but is not prepared to open the flood gate to height again. He also voiced concern if a fire was to happen on a structure exceeding 33'. Warden Webber referred to Section 235 (3) of the Municipal Government Act that outlines when a variance can/can't be granted-there is no flexibility for Council grant this variance. Councillor Veinotte indicated that he would support the application. He sees no difference between this and a church steeple and indicated that he is willing to take on the risk if the interpretation of the MGA conflicts. The cupola is in keeping with Chester's architecture-and follows spirit of Chester. This will not affect properties in an adverse way. There is nothing magical about 33' other than it is the i COUNCIL (continued) March 10, 2016 131 number written. He will advocate for having this go forward. Council has the opportunity to make a decision but if we are always going to say"this is what the by-law says"then why bring it here for consideration. This is an opportunity to use common sense. The CAO indicated that the by-law clearly does not allow that cupola to be excluded from the height measurement. Council has to decide if this request is unique or common to all of the Village. If Council doesn't agree that it is general to all properties and is unique then it can be granted. The decision can't be appealed to the Utility and Review Board. It could be challenged in court. Deputy Warden Shatford commented that there is probably a way around it. He feels it does add to the building. Is this something that could be added in the future? If it is the will of the people of Chester to allow this then they can change the by-law. In the past the people of the Village have said Council was too lenient. He suggested that residents ask the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee for a change. Councillor Church-Cornelius commented that she appreciated the people's position but she has also heard arguments regarding height. Aesthetically the addition of the cupola would be marvelous but hears concern about height constantly. She suggested that this could be one exemption to be considered. The Solicitor commented that there could be a change in the by-law to create an exemption that could apply for any other buildings unless it defined what type of buildings where this exemption would apply. Councillor Connors indicated that she is in agreement with the majority of Council and looks to the Planning Committee-she has listened to recommendations and decisions from those committees. She indicated that fairness and consistency are important. 2016-110 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong,SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council deny the appeal for a minor variance by Our Health Centre to add a cupola to the structure at 3773 Highway 3 which would exceed the height restriction of 33'. CARRIED. 2016-111 MOVED by Councillor Myra,SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the meeting convene"In Camera"as per Section 22 (2) (a) of the Municipal Government Act-land negotiations. CARRIED. Following a brief meeting held"In Camera"the meeting reconvened with all present. ADJOURNMENT 2016-112 MOVED by Councillor Myra,SECONDED by Councillor Church-Cornelius the meeting adjourn. CARRIED. (10:30 a.m.) Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk 141 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING To amend the Chester Municipal Planning Strategy and the Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy, and to amend the Municipality of Chester Land Use By-law and the Chester Village Area Land Use By-law to be consistent with the adoption of the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Services (CRINS) protocol Held in Council Chambers, 151 King Street, NS On Thursday, March 24, 2016 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. PRESENT Councillors Warden Allen Webber Councillor Robert Myra Councillor Tina Connors Councillor Brad Armstrong Deputy Warden Floyd Shatford Councillor Sharon Church-Cornelius Councillor Andre Veinotte Staff Tammy Wilson,CAO Samuel Lamey,Municipal Solicitor Pamela Myra,Municipal Clerk Heather Archibald,Development Officer Tara Maguire,Director of Community Development There were approximately 10 people present in the public gallery. REPORT OF THE CLERK The Clerk reported on the following: (A) DETAILS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Request from: Council Request date: 14 January 2015 (initial request); 18 February 2015 (new Public Hearing date) Nature of amendments: 1.To repeal Section 9A.0 of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Section 3.9 of the Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy; 2.to substitute these section with text authorizing the Canadian Radiocommunications and Information Notification Service (CRINS)to carry out all public notification and analysis of Radiocommunications facilities in accordance with its Antenna System Siting Review and Consultation Protocol,Reference Issue 3; and Public Hearing- CRINS Protocol March 24. 2016 142 3.to add statements about Radiocommunications facilities in the Land-use By-law. Intended purpose:To ensure that policies in the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy,and associated Land Use By- law provisions,are consistent with the decision of Council to utilize the services of CRINS. This decision was made on 8 October 2015 (2015-420). (B) MEETING DATES ■ 14 January 2016: Council-2016-009; First Reading ■ 18 February 2016: Council-2016-071; new Public Hearing date ■ 7 March 2016: Public Information Meeting (C) DOCUMENTATION ■ 6 January 2016: Staff report with draft text amendments for consideration ■ 10 February 2016: Staff report requesting new Public Hearing date ■ 8 March 2016: Report on the Public Information Meeting ■ 9 March 2016: Staff memo requesting consideration of friendly amendment Advertisements (Progress Bulletin) ■ 3 February 2016: Notice of Public Information Meeting (this meeting cancelled due to weather) ■ 2 March 2016: Re-issue of Notice of Public Information Meeting ■ 9 March 2016: Notice#1 of Public Hearing ■ 16 March: Notice#2 of Public Hearing Other notification: ■ Letters advising of amendments with notification of Public Hearing to: Chester Village Commission, Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Municipality of the County of Kings,Municipality of West Hants,Halifax Regional Municipality. Fees paid: N/A (D)WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ■ One written submission was received from Carol Fennel (forwarded by John Carroll). COMMENTS FROM THE SOLICITOR The Solicitor commented that the matter was properly before Council. OVERVIEW BY THE PLANNER The Planner reviewed the request to use the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Services (CRINS)to process applications for radiocommunications towers. CRINS have provided the information they use for the public consultation process prior to Public Hearing- CRINS Protocol March24, 2016 143 submission toIndustry Canada (new name). The recommendation istoimplement those processes and repeal the two sections ofthe Municipal Planning Strategy and Secondary Planning Strategy (part 9 and 3.9 secondary) and replacing with language provided in the two memos. The CAO also indicated that there is a memo March 9 where Mr.DeGrace refers to a"friendly amendment"which is to replace the wording"Industry Canada"with"federal government"so there iouoneed toamend ifthe department name changes. This would apply toboth sets ofdocuments. Councillor Connors commented that the January 6,2016 memo refers to work program implications and the first paragraph indicates"no public hearing"and this makes her nervous-that there is no public hearing under any circumstance. The Director of Community Development noted that the Municipality has held hearings because of the federal requirement for a letter of concurrence;the Municipality put the process in place as the consultation (the same consultation used for development agreements) in order to issue letters of concurrence). This gives Council a level of comfort that the public has been notified. What that has done_create the perception that Council can approve . Council can either issue a letter of concurrence or not issue a letter of concurrence;however,it is the federal government that approves the radio communications towers-no matter what letter Council has forwarded following a consultation process. CRINS has more criteria,i.e.registered mail and a larger notification area. There is no public hearing. However,there may be a public information meeting if the location of the radio communication tower is rated high. If it is not rated high then the notification goes. The CRINS protocol dictates that the Director of Planning issues the letter;however,if there were any issues she would advise Council and discuss whether the rating is high or not. At the last meeting Council asked whether we could make an amendment to CRINS protocol so all applications would come to Council;however,CRINS has said that would be no longer following the CRINS The question was asked who would rate the application as high and it was indicated that CRINS would make that determination. It was noted that there is the possibility that CRINS could rate the tower as low or medium but residents would feel it is high. It was noted that Council does not have the expertise or authority to deal with this issue and the intent istoput something inplace with people who have expertise and toseparate Council from something ithas nncontrol over. Councillor Veino{teagreed with taking politics out ofthe decision. lfCBlYVSisaneutral party and reviews input from the residents why should the Municipality interfere? Public Hearing- CRINS Protocol March 24. 2016 144 The CAO indicated that the public will be notified and if there is an issue Councillors we will know about it. That will affect the categorization of that application. CRINS will make contact and the provider is also required to make that contact. The recommendation to write a letter of concurrence will come from CRINS rather than staff or Council. This is an independent body that knows the industry. COMMENTS/PRESENTATION BY THE DEVELOPER N/A PUBLIC COMMENTS Ray Cambria of Central Street,Chester asked for clarification regarding how people would be notified and the Director of Community Development indicated that it is the,intention of CRINS to send notification via registered mail. Mr.Cambria referred to page 16 asking if this was a summation or the actual protocol-he asked that the minutes reflect that the hearing was advised notification to residents would be registered mail. Warden Webber agreed it was Council's understanding from CRINS that notification would be sent via registered mail. Mr.Cambria referred to Section 8.2 regarding notice via signage to be"visible from all roads however there is no indication of how large the sign has to be. There is a difference between pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic and clarity of signage. Staff indicated that the intent is that signage provided will be clearly legible to the public. Mr.Cambria referred to the nature of business he works with indicating that the sign industry has a standardization to ensure legibility-to make this legible the sign would have to be 4'x3'. Mr.Cambria referred to Section 8.1 b (page 16)and height. He noted,for an example,that the height of the sign on the corner of Young and Bloor Streets would be significantly different than height in a very remote rural area of the Municipality-but the distance to inform people is still the same. He is troubled by that. He would have liked to see recognition that every piece of land includes four sides and include in notification anyone whose property touches the boundary of the lot the tower is proposed to be put on. He is concerned that the protocol is written by people living in a congested area. Councillor Veinotte commented that there may not be as much of a hazard if a tower were to be located in the middle of a 90 acre parcel of land. Why would notification be required in that case? Public Hearing- CRINS Protocol March 24. 2016 145 The CAO commented that from a Municipal perspective the concern would be whether the tower fit with the community. Safety is outside the scope of the Municipality. Deputy Warden Shatford commented that Council is trying to improve the process with expertise; if this does not work out Council can always return to the previous process. Warden Webber commented that the residents who took issue with the process for the most recent radiocommunications tower has asked Council to implement the CRINS process. Council and staff do not have the expertise to deal with this issue and,at the end of the day,the Municipality does not have jurisdiction. The purpose is to take the politics out of the decision and allow those who are experts deal with it. WRITTEN SUBMISSION It was noted that an email was forwarded by John Carroll from Carol Fennel which deals with health related issues-the Municipality has no jurisdiction or expertise with regard to health related issues. The Director commented that the correspondence requests that Council consult with residents regarding health. If the Municipality asks GRINS to add those statements they would say it is not part of their protocol and they may not be the best fit for us. The health aspect is outside the scope of the Municipality's jurisdiction. The federal government determines if there is a health related concern. CLOSING REMARKS There were no further comments. DECISION OF COUNCIL 2016-127 MOVED by Councillor Church-Cornelius,SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that Council approve the following amendments: The text amendments reference Industry Canada. With the change of government, Industry Canada is now called Innovation.Science and Economic Development Canada. For greater clarity, and as a friendly amendment, staff recommends DELETING the phrases "and specifically with Industry Canada" and "and specifically by Industry Canada"where they occur in the proposed text amendments. Because the name of this department may further change, staff recommends retaining only the references to "the Federal Government"in the amendments. and A BY-LAW AMENDING THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER MUNICIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND LAND USE BY-LAW Public Hearing- CRINS Protocol March 24. 2016 146 Municipal Planning Strategy Amendments 1. Part 9A.0, RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, is amended by striking out "TOWERS"in the title and substituting"FACILITIES". 2. Sections 9A.0.1 through 9A.0.8 are repealed and substituted with: "Council recognizes that the sole authority for issuing licenses for radiocommunications facilities lies with the Federal Government and specifically with Industry Canada under the Radiocommunications Act. The Municipality is a participating Land Use Authority with the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS). Consequently, the Municipality authorizes CRINS to conduct siting, review and public consultation processes in accordance with the CRINS Antenna System Siting Review and Consultation Protocol, Reference Issue 3[2014] (as amended from time to time)., The role of the Municipality shall be to provide input and comments as part of this Protocol." Land Use By-law Amendment 1. Part 4, GENERAL PROVISIONS, is amended by;adding after Subsection 4.4.9 a new Subsection: "4.4.9A Radiocommunications facilities Nothing in this by-law shall prevent the use of .land for the installation of radiocommunications facilities that have been issued a license by the Federal Government and specifically by Industry Canada,following due process as prescribed in the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS) Antenna System Siting Review and Consultation Protocol, Reference Issue 3 [2014] as amended from time to time." and A BY-LAW AMENDING THE CHESTER VILLAGE AREA REVISED SECONDARY PLANNING STRATEGY AND LAND USE BY-LAW Be it enacted by the Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester as follows: Secondary Planning Strategy Amendments 1. Part 3.9 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, is amended by striking out "TOWERS"in the title and substituting"FACILITIES". 2. Sections 3.9.1 through 3.9.8 are repealed and substituted with: "Council recognizes that the sole authority for issuing licenses for radiocommunications facilities lies with the Federal Government and specifically with Industry Canada under the Radiocommunications Act. The Municipality is a participating Land Use Authority with the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS). Consequently, the Municipality authorizes CRINS to conduct siting, review and public consultation processes in accordance with the CRINS Antenna System Siting Review and Consultation Protocol, Public Hearing- CRINS Protocol March 24. 2016 147 Reference Issue 3[2014] (as amended from time to time). The role of the Municipality shall be to provide input and comments as part of this Protocol." Land Use By-law Amendment 1. Part 4, GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR ALL ZONES, is amended by adding after Subsection 4.4.18 a new Subsection: "4.4.19 Radiocommunications facilities Nothing in this by-law shall prevent the use of land for the installation of radiocommunications facilities that have been issued a license by the Federal Government and specifically by Industry Canada,following due process as prescribed in the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service (CRINS) Antenna System Siting Review and Consultation Protocol, Reference Issue 3 [2014] as amended from time to time." CARRIED. 2016-128 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong,SECONDED by Councillor Myra the meeting adjourn. CARRIED. (9:50 a.m.) Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk MOTIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-MARCH 24,2016 2016-115 APPROVAL OF MARCH 3,2016 AMENDED MINUTES 2016-116 RECEIVE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO MGA MOVED by Councillor Armstrong,SECONDED by Councillor Myra that Council receive the information from the Province with regard to housekeeping amendments to the Municipal Government Act(MGA)as reviewed. CARRIED. 2016-117 RECESS FOR PUBLIC HEARING 2016-118 BUILDING/DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEES WAIVED FOR LIGHTHOUSE FOODBANK MOVED by Councillor Armstrong,SECONDED by Councillor Myra the fees be waived for the Lighthouse Food Bank with regard to Building Permit,Development Permit and Variance Application Fees for 8 Tremont Street as per Policy P-20 Miscellaneous Fees Policy. CARRIED. 2016-119 REFER TO BUDGET PROCESS-SOUTH SHORE TOURISM TEAM FUNDING MOVED by Councillor Myra,SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong the request of Nova Scotia's South Shore Tourism Team for funding of the 2016 Tourism Plan(MODC contribution of$3,323.70)be referred to the Budget Process. CARRIED. 2016-120 ISSUE RFP FOR GOLD RIVER SCHOOL PROPERTY' MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford,SECONDED by Councillor Myra that Council authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal for the Gold River School Property as discussed. CARRIED. 2016-121 REIMBURSE TAXES PAID FOR DUPLICATE ACCOUNT MOVED by Councillor Veinotte,,SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong that Council reimburse Mr. Boutilier for the taxes and interest paid on duplicate account 08207194 from June 1997 to February 2012 in the amount of$694.44. CARRIED. 2016-122 PAY NS POWER INVOICE MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford,SECONDED by Councillor Veinotte that Council authorize the expenditure to NS Power in the amount of$37,224(net HST rebate). CARRIED. 2016-123 GRANT-$400-CHESTER SEASIDE FARMER AND ARTISANS ASSOCIATION MOVED by Councillor Armstrong,SECONDED by Councillor Myra that Council approve a Council Grant in the amount of$400 to Chester Seaside Farmer and Artisans Association. CARRIED. 2016-124 IN CAMERA-PERSONNEL 2016-125 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 3 OF PERSONNEL POLICY MOVED by Councillor Myra,SECONDED by Councillor Church-Cornelius that Council provide notice to staff that effective June 1,2016 changes to the Personnel Policy will occur respecting Overtime Hours Worked,as proposed in Appendix A and authorize the payout of overtime in excess of 40 hours permitted by section 3.8.4 of the Personnel Policy,estimated to be approximately$4,000. CARRIED. 2016-126 ADJOURNMENT Draft-March 26,2016 SECTION 3 -HOURS OF WORK&OVERTIME 3.1 PURPOSE To provide guidelines for the authorization and administration of overtime. 3.2 OBJECTIVES 3.2.1 To establish the normal hours of work for employees. 3.2.2 To determine which employees are eligible for overtime compensation. 3.2.3 To identify the methods of compensation for approved overtime. 3.2.4 To provide definitions to facilitate the administration of the Policy. 3.2.5 To define the process for authorization and approval of overtime. 3.3 POLICY It shall be the policy of the Municipality of the District of Chester to reduce to a minimum the necessity for overtime work and it is expected that all work shall completed,in so far as it is possible,during regular working hours. When overtime work must be scheduled, equal opportunity for participation will be given, within the Department concerned, as fairly as possible, among the employees who are capable of performing the work to be done. It shall be the responsibility of the Department Head, or Supervisor, to ensure that the employees of their Department report for duty at assigned times. 3.4 DEFINITIONS 3.4.1 Administrative Employee - an employee who receives time in lieu for approved overtime worked with the exception of Section 3.8.2.b. 3.4.2 Non-Administrative Employee - an employee who receives payment for approved overtime worked with the exception of Section 3.8.1.b. Included in the job description of each position will be classified as to whether the position is Administrative or Non-Administrative. If duties include both aspects of administrative and non-administrative then the predominant duties would be used for the classification. Notice of Amendment- Page 1 of 6 1St Notice-Amended- 2nd Notice- Effective Date- Section 3 -Hours of Work&Overtime (continued) 3.4.2 a Senior Administrative Officers and Departments Heads - means the Chief Administrative Office and Directors 1 job classifications positions,including,but not limited to (Director of Finance,Director of Engineering and Public Works,Director of Recreation and Parks, Municipal Clerk/Director of Quality Management,Director of Information Services and Director of Solid Waste). 3.4.3 Voluntary Overtime - this is work carried out at the discretion of the employee without prior authorization or approval by the employee's Supervisor, Department Head,or the CAO. 3.4.4 Involuntary Overtime - this is work carried out following the authorization or approval of the employee's Supervisor, Department Head, or the CAO. This excludes summer students. 3.4.5 Call-out-call-out of an employee, not a Department Head, is for unscheduled work that may occur before or after regularly scheduled hours due to an unscheduled event. Employees will be paid either a minimum of three hours, or actual hours worked if more than three hours,for a call-out. 3.5 HOURS OF WORK 3.5.1 The normal regular working hours for Municipal office employees,who are available to the public, is 35 hours per week, exclusive of meal break, Monday to Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Employees may be required to work outside of this schedule, depending on the schedule or demand of the employee's work. Some Municipal Staff in non-office settings may have working schedules that vary from the normal regular Monday to Friday working hours of other employees of the Municipality. 3.5.2 Staff shall be entitled to one hour for lunch and two (2) 15 minute rest breaks. Some employees may be requested to adjust their lunch or rest breaks due to demand or workload. 3.5.3 Senior Administrative Officers and Department Heads have no rigid schedule of working hours. Within reason, these employees are expected to work the hours required to perform the duties and responsibilities of their individual positions,such as attending evening meetings. However, due to the public service nature of the Municipality,these employees are generally expected to be at work during the normal Notice of Amendment- Page 2 of 6 11t Notice-Amended- 2nd Notice- Effective Date- Section 3 -Hours of Work&Overtime (continued) working hours of their Department. 3.6 NORMAL WORKING HOURS The generally accepted days and hours of work for each position will be outlined in the job description for each position; however, the days and hours of work may vary based on workload or demand. 3.7 OVERTIME 3.7.1 Any overtime worked in excess of normal weekly hours of work at the employee's discretion will be considered voluntary and there is no compensation. 3.7.2 Time r-equiFed to tFavel to/fFom a woFk r-elated commitment outside of noFmal tFa time to. a-k will be consideFed as time wo-kc 1 3.7.2 Time required to travel to/from a work-related commitment in which the employee is directed to attend and for which the travel is outside of normal travel time to work will be considered overtime worked. Travel to attend a conference/seminar shall not be eligible to be claimed for overtime worked. 3.7.3 Employees are not to accumulate more than one week of ever-time in their-ever-time b-ank-at-any one time. it is the r-esponsibil"of the DepaFtment 14ead/gupervisoF to 141nr1> .44+14 the employee to deteF, ine a plan to .draw X1.,1.xn An the A erti a han]> 3.8 RATE OF OVERTIME 3.8.1 a. All Non Administrative employees shall be paid at their regular rate of pay fo 14our-s gr-eateF than the 48 hours peF week threshold shall be paid at 1.5 times t employee's FegulaF rate. Notei Sundays are automatic-ally classed as over-time and aFe paid at 1.5 times employee's regular race. This day is excluded from the-4'8 hours per wee 'c 1C-111;+'A c,ccrcazcrcrvir. Refer-to Sect;,,,-, 17.6 6 149li-ays regarding pay foo Holidays..1„1-1>..,.-1 Notice of Amendment- Page 3 of 6 111 Notice-Amended- 2nd Notice- Effective Date- Section 3 -Hours of Work&Overtime (continued) b. Non Administrative employees may Fequest,in writing and upon appFoval by the Department Head/SupeFyise, time off in lie„ of eye,-time pay up to a,Y,-,<,;,,,,,,,, f five.lays in a fiscal yea 3.8.2 a. All AdmiHiStFative employees shall be receive stFaight time of lieu of oveFti worked up to 48 houFs; any eels Time worked in lieu of pay than the 48 hours per eels threshold shall be banke l at 1_5 tures,the employee's,-egulaF Fate Note: Sundays are automatic-ally classed as over-time and aFe paid at 1.5 times employee's 1 t This day 1 th r c�axar Fate. This cxu�is e:icxtil e from the 140uFs per wee€ ealculation. Defer to Leetion 17.6 Holidays regarding ing pay foo Holidays.. oFke l b. Administrative employees may Fequest, in writing and upon approval by the Department Head/Super-visor-, payment of time in lieu of aec-umulated time Hp4q a maximum f fixe clays in fiscal yea 3.8.3 All approved oveFtime, paid as an hourly rate to employees, is to be compensate the pay pe,iod i .which it is e ecl 3.8.1 a. All Non-Administrative and Administrative employees are not accumulate more than one week of overtime (35 or 40hours,`depending on normal work week hours) in their overtime bank at any one time. All Non-Administrative and Administrative employees who reach this threshold shall be compensated at the rate of overtime noted in clause 3.8.2 for overtime hours worked in excess of the threshold at any one time. 3.8.2 Subject to 3.8.1,All Non-Administrative and Administrative staff shall receive either: a) Overtime as straight time in lieu of payment for overtime worked up to 48 hours in any week,and overtime as 15 time in lieu of payment for overtime worked in excess of 48 hours in any week. Sunday's are automatically classed as overtime and are calculated at 1.5 times the employee's regular rate.This day is excluded from the 48 hours per week calculation. Or Notice of Amendment- Page 4 of 6 1St Notice-Amended- 2nd Notice- Effective Date- Section 3 -Hours of Work&Overtime (continued) b) Overtime as payment equal to their regular rate of pay for all overtime worked up to 48 hours in any week, and overtime as payment equal to 1.5 times the employee's regular rate for all overtime worked in excess of 48 hours in any week. Sundays are automatically classed as overtime and are paid at 1.5 times the employee's regular rate.This day is excluded from the 48 hours per week calculation;and c) Refer to Section 17.6 Holiday's regarding pay for Holiday's worked. 3.8.3 Senior Administrative Officers and Department Heads shall not accumulate more than one week(35 hours)of overtime in their overtime bank at any one time.Overtime shall be compensated for overtime hours worked as straight time in lieu of payment for hours worked in excess of 35 hours in any given week,up to a maximum of 35 hours in an overtime bank at any one time. No compensation shall be provided for overtime hours worked that exceed the threshold hold of 35 hours of overtime in an overtime bank at any one time. 3.8.4.4 All approved overtime compensated as time-in-lieu to employees is to be compensated in the pay period in which it is earned. 3.8.4 All approved over-time compensated as time in lieu to employees is to be used pFi0E-+G the year-encl. Approved ever-time eempensated as time in lieu will not be ear-r-ied ever- to anothe n----------- if-,at the encl of the f4seal yeaF,there aFe oveFtime hours in excess of 40 hours theywill eent,-;h„tea to the employee's pension pian. er b aid e„t. E. a plan aeter,ti,;.,ea to„-se the heuFs as peF Sections 3.7.3, 3.8.1 h and 3.8.2--b 3.9 MEETINGS 3.9.1 Due to the public nature of Municipal Government, some employees are required to attend meetings outside of normal working hours as part of the responsibilities of their position with the Municipality. Subject to section 3.8,employees required to return to work after the regular work day has ended to attend such meetings shall be Notice of Amendment- Page 5 of 6 111 Notice-Amended- 2nd Notice- Effective Date- Section 3 -Hours of Work&Overtime (continued) compensated for the actual hours worked or a minimum of three (3)hours,whichever is greater. 3.10 RECORD-KEEPING Every employee shall keep a complete and accurate record (either electronic or paper) of hours worked each day. This will include, and is not limited to, approved overtime,time-in- lieu and regular hours. Accordingly, the Department Head shall approve and monitor time recorded by each employee. The approved timesheet will be the official record of all time accumulated by that employee. Notice of Amendment- Page 6 of 6 111 Notice-Amended- 2nd Notice- Effective Date- 14 11 IPALIT7� �wu am+:cr a CHESTER 4 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO Tammy Wilson, CAO SUBMITTED BY Heather Archibald, Development Officer DATE 2016-03-09 SUBJECT Current Status of the Ten Beaches' Drainage and Stormwater Management ORIGIN • 2015-12-16 Letter regarding the Municipality's intent to enforce the Order to Comply for Ten Beaches to provide revised final drainage details along with engineer comments. • 2015-10-15 Order to Comply Issued to Ten Beaches • Site Plan #SP2010-038 • Municipal Land Use By-law CURRENT SITUATION: Staff is of the opinion that the final drainage plan for the Ten Beaches development has not been altered to an extent that would negate the plan nor post-construction to cause an increased impact on neighbouring properties when compared to the pre-development conditions. In January, Ten Beaches Estates Inc. submitted two engineer drawings accompanied by a letter signed by two engineers involved with the 74 unit mini home park development. Drawing STR-01 includes spot elevations from pre-development and from November 2012, contour lines from March 27, 2012 and the pre-development catchment area of run-off from the Ten Beaches site onto the Hannam property. The second drawing, STR-02, details the directional flow of run-off from the Ten Beaches site, the location of the current maintenance shed, the hold tanks, the field beds, the infiltration ditch (French drain), the stormwater management pond, the main interceptor ditch, and spot elevations from pre-development,November 2012, and January 2013. The accompanying letter from Kelly Galloway, P.Eng of Engineering Technologies Canada Ltd. (ETC) and David Roy, P. Eng, of Engineered Liquid Solutions Ltd (ELS) states their professional opinion to be that the stormwater impact and flow onto neighbouring properties has been greatly reduced by the Ten Beaches Development, in comparison to the pre-development condition. Based on their professional calculations the pre-development catchment area for stormwater run-off towards the Hannam property was 18,475 square metres. The post development catchment area has been reduced to only 1637 square metres, which consists of a small area around the holding tanks, below the interceptor ditch and between periwinkle Lane and the field beds for the septic system. Ten Beaches' engineers also state that the changes to the stormwater system design and construction. have significantly reduces the amount of runoff onto the Seaboyer's property and the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructural Renewal's property as the large interceptor ditch diverts a large majority of the runoff from the back of the development to the stormwater management pond. The Municipal Engineer has reviewed the Ten Beaches submission and has stated that the submission seems to have quantified the situation in general keeping of how the Municipal Engineer has explained it previously. Which is to say that the impact of the Ten Beaches development post- construction is less than or equal to the pre-development. The Municipal Engineer is satisfied with Ten Beaches submission. BACKGROUND: CONCERNS Drainage concerns at the site of the Ten Beaches development have been an ongoing issue over the last few years.Neighbouring property owners have raised concerns over run-off and siltation flowing onto their properties from the Ten Beaches site while the site was under construction. Municipal staff have made several site visits over the last year to both the Ten Beaches site and the neighbouring properties. A particular area of concern has been the location around the holding tanks of the septic system that borders onto Mr. &Mrs. Hannam's property. This location is of lower elevation and has been seen to pool water in the past. A large interceptor ditch that runs across a large portion of the development that was put in place during the early part of the construction stage was filled in when the development was moving from their temporary drainage plan to the permanent grading,ditching and drainage. It appears that during the time this large ditch was filled in, the water flowing down the Ten Beaches site was not sufficiently controlled or directed to appropriate locations. Since this large interceptor ditch has been pennanently reinstalled the drainage issues that were impacting the neighbouring properties on the site appear to be under control. During this time period, questions were raised as to whether the original drainage plan had been significantly altered and whether any alteration had caused a worsening condition of the site in comparison to its pre-development stage. The intent of the drainage plan is to avoid any increased negative impact to the neighbouring properties regarding stormwater management in comparison to the pre-development stage. October 15, 2015 Council issued an Order to Comply to Ten Beaches directing them to provide the Municipality with final as-built storm drainage plans for the site referenced with a certificate from a professional nova scotia engineer that the installed storm drainage system will function satisfactorily and at least as well as the storm drainage system shown on the approved site plan. On December 16, 2015 a notice to Ten Beaches was sent informing them that the Municipality intended to enforce the October 15 Order and have a professional engineer examine the installed storm drainage stystem and provide an opinion as to its adequacy. GRADE CHANGES When Ten Beaches submitted their application for a 74-unit mini home park the final grading and drainage plans that were approved had proposed grade elevations along the property boundary in the area where the holding tanks are located between 39.28 to 39.48 metres. The location was originally intended to have a service road with ditching on either side that ran along the property boundary. The existing site conditions prior to the development in this area were shown to be between 36 and 38 metres (36 metres being the edge of the property boundary) based on Drawing C199. The area of the fire pond which was intended to be just north of where the holding tanks area today was shown on the original grading plan to have a proposed lowest grade of 37.80 metres. Prior to the development the fire pond area was indicated to have an elevation grade between 38 to 39 metres. When the septic system design changed Ten Beaches submitted drawings showing changes to select portions of the site, include the area of the hold tanks. The proposed grades at this time for the hold tank area was 37.26 metres. January 2016 Ten Beaches submitted drawings showing the as-built grades around the holding tanks and area that was altered during the change to the septic system. The spot elevations for this area were shown to be between 37.2 metres to 37.9 metres. While the area has lowered in elevation from the original proposed plan, it is still about a metre higher than the pre-development grade. DRAINAGE The original plans showed a fire pond towards the bottom of the development near the Hannam property boundary (it was to be located just north/northwest of where the maintenance shed for the septic system is currently located) and a large interceptor ditch running diagonally across the eastern side of the Ten Beaches property. With the revised plans in 2013 the fire pond was removed in favour of a more stable cistern fire suppression system. The interceptor ditch remained and connects into other ditching in the development until it eventually empties into the storm water management pond. This ditching and drainage system is still there today. The interceptor ditch is a main drainage element that keeps a large portion of the eastern/northeastern side of the development from draining down onto the neighbouring properties. The temporary version of this ditch was infilled when the site was transitioning from its temporary drainage system to its final drainage system and its final grading. It is believed the infill of this ditch was the issue that caused surface water to drain onto neighbouring properties causing concern. Ten Beaches submitted as-built drawings for the stormwater management that indicates what the original catchment area for water draining across the Ten Beaches site (formally a salvage yard) on to neighbouring properties was significantly larger than what is now the catchment area. The current catchment area around the holding tanks is from the east side drainage ditch of Periwinkle Drive, across the southern edge of the interceptor ditch, to the western side of the septic beds across the boundary line dividing the Ten Beaches property from the Hannam property back to the east side ditch of Periwinkle Drive. This area is much smaller than the pre-development catchment area. Additionally the run-off above the interceptor ditch is directed into the ditch and away from the neighbouring properties. RECOMMENDATION: That Municipal Council accept the as-built drawings from Ten Beaches as suitable and that any changes to the grading and drainage from the original plans are non-substantial; and that Council remove the Order to Comply from Ten Beaches. ATTACHMENTS: A. 2016-01-22 Ten Beaches Response to MODC Notice to Comply B. 2016-01-22 Ten Beaches As-Built Stormwater and Drainage drawings C. 2015-12-23 Letter from Development Officer to Owner of Ten Beaches D. 2015-12-16 Letter regarding the Municipality's intent to enforce the Order to Comply for Ten Beaches to provide revised final drainage details along with engineer comments. E. 2015-10-15 Order to Comply to Ten Beaches F. 2010-10-20 Ten Beaches Original Plans:grading and drainage G. 2013-10-10 Ten Beaches Revised Plans: as part of the change to the wastewater treatment system K 2012-06-28 Site Plan Approved by Council with Revised Site layout showing 4 foot chain link.fence OPTIONS: 1. That Municipal Council accept the as-built drawings from Ten Beaches as suitable and that any changes to the grading and drainage from the original plans are non- substantial; and that Council remove the Order to Comply from Ten Beaches. OR 2. That Municipal Council proceed with enforcement of the Order to Comply and direct staff to hire a 3rd party engineer to review the site conditions and material to determine whether the neighbouring properties are being negatively impacted by the site's drainage and grading in comparison to the pre-existing site conditions. Prepared BY Heather Archibald Date 2016-03-09 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Date ATTACHMENT A Engineering 16 Myrtle Street, Unit#1, Stratford Business Park Stratford, PE, Canada, C1B 2W2 echnologies Tel (902)628-1705 Fax(902)628-1703 A'� Toll Free 1-888-747-7645 (SOIL) Canada Ltd. web site www.engtech.ca January 22, 2016 ETC File No. 12162 Municipality of the District of Chester 186 Central Street P O Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ 1J0 Attention: Ms. Heather Archibald, Development Officer RE: Ten Beaches Estates, Simms Settlement,Nova Scotia. Stormwater Management Questions/Requests, MODC File No. 201.0-038 Dear Ms. Archibald: This letter and accompanying drawings have been jointly prepared by Kelly Galloway, P.Eng. of Engineering Technologies Canada Ltd. (ETC) and David Roy, P.Eng., of Engineered Liquid Solutions Ltd. (ELS) at the request of Ten Beaches Estates Inc. (TBE). The purpose of this letter is to address the questions and requests in your letter (December 23, 2015) for information and engineering opinions from a professional engineer(s) about the design and construction of stormwater management systems at TBE. We will address the various questions and items in the order they were put. 1. What was designed for drainage and stormwater management? The stormwater conveyance system designed for the Ten Beaches Project in Simms Settlement was designed initially to consist of a stormwater and erosion and sediment control system (servicing the construction phase of the project) as shown on Able Engineering's (Able) drawing C230. The erosion and control system was essentially a series of strategically placed ditches, sloping to lower grade, to carry stormwater from the site in a controlled way. These temporary ditches were placed in a similar location as the future permanent road and diversion ditches. These ditches incorporated various erosion control methods, such as check dams (both rock and hay bale) and directed the majority of the site runoff to the stormwater management area (dry type retention pond) constructed at the southern boundary of the property. These construction structures were to be integrated into the overall completed drainage plan as shown on: Able's Grading Plan C210 except for areas changed as indicated on ETC's WWTS Grading Plan T 106. Any collected stormwater in the retention area is then drained via an underground 450mm HDPE pipe to the road ditch on Hwy 3 and then through ditches and culverts indirectly to wetlands on the south side of Hwy 3 to the east. The permanent stormwater control system utilizes primarily INNOVATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT&DESIGN#ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINES ING m SOILS.AND SITE ASSESSMENTS To: Ms. Heather Archibald, Development Officer, MODC Jan.22,2016 Re:Ten Beaches Estates, Simms Settlement, NS Page 2 road side ditching as well as a large interceptor trench located at the wastewater treatment site (WWTS) and the design intent was to intercept and divert the vast majority of the surface runoff to the stormwater management area(retention pond) on the eastern side of the property. The small amount of remaining stormwater falling to the southeast of the WWTS interceptor trench drains around the various berms and walls to areas of lower elevation. The portion that would not infiltrate into the ground was intended to flow to the adjacent properties to the south and east, as it had done so pre-development. Figure 1 (attached) shows the catchment area (3092 sq.m) applicable to ETC's original design that would collect surface water which might potentially flow onto Peter Hannam's property during a very large storm event. This catchment area was only 1.7% of the original catchment area of 18,475 sq.m as shown on Drawing STR-01 (Elevations and Contours Pre-Development, attached). The proposed design, as described above, was provided to the MODC in the form of a letter (dated March 15, 2013) and drawings by ETC, plus a combination of Able Engineering drawings. The Able drawings relevant to stormwater management and grading included: C204 and C210 (which contained annotations referring to areas redesigned by ETC) and C215, C220, C230 (which were submitted as-is). These drawings were referred to and formed the basis of the Residential Site flan Approval Memorandum issued by MODC Director of Public Works on April 10, 2013. A final drawing submission package, marked "Approved for Construction", was provided to the MODC Public Works and Community Development Departments via email on June 28, 2013 (Subject: Re: Ten Beaches -Final Approved for Construction Package). 2. What was built for drainage and stormwater management? Essentially what was built is what was planned in Ables' Grading Plan C210 apart from portions of the site which were redesigned or revised as shown on ETC's Plans T106, T106-R1 and R100 (showing a section of Sand Dollar Lane and Periwinkle Drive which was redesigned). The as-built stormwater management systems, grades and drainage flow patterns, are shown in detail on the attached Stormwater Record Drawing STR-02. 3. What, if any, differences are there between what was designed and what was built? a) The fire pond originally proposed by Able Engineering (as shown on their drawing C210) was deleted. However, since this pond would have been designed to be full at all times, it provided no significant equalization of storm flows. Therefore, deletion of the fire pond did not have any negative impact on the overall management of stormwater at the site. b) The road ditch on the south side of Sand Dollar Lane was deleted with the road ditch on the east side of Periwinkle Drive flowing directly into the stormwater pond. This did not have a Engineering Technologies Canada Ltd. www.en tech.ca To: Ms. Heather Archibald, Development Officer, MODC Jan.22,2016 Re:Ten Beaches Estates, Simms Settlement, NS Page 3 negative impact on the functioning of the stormwater management area(retention pond). c) The cul-de-sac, and accompanying ditch at the end of Breeze Circle were deleted. As a result, the ditch on the northwest side of Breeze Circle currently drains across the road through a subsurface rock drain as shown on Drawing STR-02. It recommended that this drain should be replaced with a 450mm culvert that discharges into the ditch at the top of Aqua Close. d) During construction, it was necessary to make a slight change to the orientation of the effluent dispersal beds to better align with the existing site contours and reduce fill discrepancies from one end of the LBEDs to the other. As a result, a small portion of ETC's original approved grading plan was modified as shown on ETC drawing T106-R1. however, there were no changes to the proposed grading which would have resulted in modifications to the originally proposed drainage patterns, or in the size of the catchment area adjacent to the Hannam property. e) During construction, grading between the LBEDs was further changed so that surface runoff would flow in one direction - from south to north. ETC's original proposed grading plans had this area being graded with a high point in the middle of the beds so that approximately half the runoff would flow in a southerly direction toward the low area at the WWTS tanks. f) The WWTS site was landscaped so that there is a ridge between the southern ends of the LBEDs and the low area around the tanks. This ridge (which has been indicated on Drawing STR-02) prevents surface runoff from the southern end of the LBEDs from entering the low area adjacent to the Hannam property. Changes e) and f) above,plus the unplanned addition of some retaining and privacy walls further reduced the stormwater catchment area adjacent to the LBED tanks by approx. 50%. As a result, the final, as-built catchment area adjacent to the northern boundary of PID #60084753 (Hannam property) is only 1,637 sq.m. which is less than 9% of the bre-development catchment area shown on Drawing STR-01. 4. Do the differences relate to drainage, stormwater management and the handling of surface run-off? Yes, with the exception of the changes described in items 3 a), b) and c), the other differences mentioned in 3 d), e) and f) improved drainage, stormwater management and/or the handling of surface run-off. 5. What additional steps have been taken to mitigate any negative changes or impact to the original drainage plan? As a result of concerns expressed by Mr. Hannam (owner of PID# 60084753) in regards to stormwater flowing from Ten Beaches onto his property, changes mentioned in 3 e) and f) above were made to minimize the size of the stormwater catchment area adjacent to his property. To further reduce the potential runoff volume onto Hannam's property, a Surface Infiltration Engineering Technologies Canada Ltd. www.en tech.ca To: Ms. Heather Archibald, Development Officer, MODC Jan.22,2016 Re:Ten Beaches Estates, Simms Settlement, NS Page 4 Trench (aka French Drain) was added between the low tank area and the south east boundary of the TBE property. This infiltration trench was installed with a positive 1% slope extending to the low area at the eastern corner of the site. It was constructed using large drainage rock covered with geotextile and provides an increased stormwater-to-water-table infiltration area. The location of the infiltration trench is shown on Drawing STR-02. 6. In the professional engineer's opinion directly state whether the site changes have created a worsening condition that will cause a negative impact to the neighbouring properties and whether the existing drainage system, in their professional opinion, will work without causing increase run-off flow onto the neighbouring properties. In our professional opinion, the stormwater impact and flow onto neighbouring properties has been greatly reduced by the Ten Beaches Development, in comparison to the pre-development condition. As shown on the attached plan STR-01, a large catchment area of approximately 18,475 sq.m. originally drained onto Mr. Hannam's property. It should also be noted that much of this area was previously an automotive salvage yard. The post development stormwater catchment area adjacent to the Hannam property (as shown on drawing STR-02) has been reduced to only 1,637 sq.m, which is more than a ten-fold reduction from the pre-development condition. Further, with the addition of the above noted infiltration trench (french drain), cross property stormwater flow onto Mr. Hannam's property should be minimal, and greatly reduced from the pre-development condition. Observations made during a heavy rainfall event on November 19, 2015 by David Roy, P.Eng. indicate that the stormwater management systems appeared to be performing very well and as intended, and that runoff flow onto Mr. Hannam's property, was minimal, if at all. The changes made as a result of the stormwater system design and construction have also significantly reduced the amount of runoff onto the Seaboyer (PID #60084746) and Dept. of Transportation (PID #60410420)properties. This is largely the result of the road ditch system and interceptor ditch at the WWTS which intercepts and diverts the vast majority of runoff from higher elevations to the stormwater management area(retention pond). Also Requested: 1. Confirmation that the elevations and grading of the site, especially around the area that was changed due to the septic system change have met the grading and site elevations that were shown on submitted plans. The attached plan STR-02 (Stormwater Record Drawing) shows elevations and the location of stormwater management systems as collected in January 2016. by Backman Surveys. In our professional opinion, the as-built elevations and grading of the Ten Beaches site meet the general intent and are in general conformance with the original Able and/or the approved ETC designs, as applicable. Engineering Technologies Canada Ltd. www.en tech.ca To: Ms. Heather Archibald, Development Officer, MODC Jan.22,2016 Re:Ten Beaches Estates, Simms Settlement, NS Page 5 2. A plan showing the water run-off direction for the section that was altered due to the change in the septic system. This can be added to the same plan with the grades. Stormwater flow direction arrows showing water run-off direction are indicated on plan STR-02. Able's flow direction arrows from their original Grading Plan (C210) which still apply to the as- built condition, are shown in black. Any as-built changes to water run-off flow direction or to drainage features are shown in red. We trust this letter and attached drawings address your questions and requests. If you require further clarification please let us know. Sincerely, ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERED LIQUID CANADA LTD. SOLUTIONS (ELS) LTD. Kelly Galloway, P.Eng. David Roy, P.Eng. Attachments: Figure 1: Catchment area applicable to ETC's original design Drawings STR-01, Elevations and Contours Pre-Development Drawing STR-02, Stormwater Record Drawing Also re-sending the following drawings for convenience of reference: Able C210 Grading Plan (with ETC's annotations, AFC) ETC T106 Grading Plan (original, AFC) ETC T106-R1 Grading Plan (revised during construction) "¢ Eno:r0 0 copy: Ten Beaches Estates Inc. D TF rh l 0 1 4967 a c Engineering Technologies Canada Ltd. www.engtech.ca .�� s I �� �, ATTACHMENT B U I (N B I I TUI 1 34 1 35 31 32 1 3 3S `4�7 3 24 25 1 1 2 9.5 OU�5 No,) If t,(6�) \ -SAC 4-b BUIL B E E IR LE E CIRCLE 13 E- 47­-"� 65 Al x 14 42 441 6 3 5 —46.5 - 6 T 3 __46— 7 10 6 45,5 —, 62 38 48 44.5 68 1000, 44 4,15 /60 0 For inforfnation only Jan 22, 2016 50 No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISION OR ISSUE 7 70 42-� C Q (59 51 A - DETAIL NUMBER B - LOCATION SHEET NUMBER C - DRAWING SHEET NUMBER 6 41 .5 41 5 5; Engineering Technologies 72 7 3 Canada Ltd. Innovative Wastewater 16 Myrtle St.,Unit#1 Stratford, PE Management&Design 6 9 Environmental Enginee ing Canada C1 B 2W2 Soils&Site Assesment (902)628-1705 TEL (902 28 1 703 FAX 40. Wii � Geographic Information Systems en tech ca 54 x .15 74 40 75 E LSLn4in—eered—Liq—uidsdlutio�s_Ltd- 2 "Spocialli In Liquid Storage I Handling/Disposal" Geothermal Energy Systems 39.5 Sepdc System Design (Q�Rl) 44 First Ave Bedford, NS 134A 1Z9 TEL(902)483-2009 -59 DEpARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: 3B.5 SAN DOLL ANE HIGHWAY 3 3B/ -3B�5 SIMMS SMLEMENT TEN BEACHES ESTATES, PID: 60410420 00 /1-1\ SIMMS SETTLEMENT 113 PID # 60084803 X,, _'A 4, k": + CLIENT: + TEN BEACHES ESTATES INC. + + + SHEET TITLE: + "IR ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS + LEGEND *% V�- + U -DEVELOPMENT + PRE Spot elevations by Able (Pre—Development) + + DATE JOB NO % + % + Nov, 2012 . . ....�pot Elevations by Backman Survey 1 2016 12162 ,+ % X. an 22, 326 HIGHWAY 3 294 HIGHWAY 3 SIMms SETTLEMENT + SIMMS SETTLEMENT DRA"BY CHK DWGNO 308 NGHWAY 3 CHERYL LAUREN WATTS + SIMMS SETTLEMENT MICHAEL SEABOYER Contours by Backman Survey — March 27, 2012 PD: 60084761 ..% CHRISTINE SEABOYER + PETER HANNAM SCR DR/KG 12162-STR-01 PID. 60084746 326 HIGHWAY 3 JUDY HANNAM SIMMS SETTLEMENT PID- 60084753 SCALE SHEET NO CHERYL LAUREN WATTS PID: 60084761 J \iii 1 :500 STR-01j �ww ti r iJ / y n .wn STR-02 ATTACHMENT C NCH LTR MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Q Community Development Department 186 Central.Street • PO Box 369,Chester,NS BOJ 1JO • Facsimile 902-275-2598 Building Sr Fire Inspection Services Planning&Development Services Email:building@chester.ca Email:plaruling@chester.ca Telephone:902-275-3080 Telephone:902-275-2599 Delivered By Email &Regular Mail December 23,2015 Dear Ms. Chatman, I have conferred with our Municipal Engineer regarding exactly what the Municipality needs to be able to do our review regarding drainage at the Ten Beaches Estates Inc. site plan area.We require some form of an as-built plan regarding drainage and stormwater management with an accompanying letter. Specifically we are looking for the following: We require a letter from a professional engineer(s) that details: 1. What was designed for drainage and stormwater management; 2. What was built for drainage and stormwater management; 3. What,if any, differences are there between what was designed and what was built, 4. Do the differences relate to drainage, stormwater management and the handling of surface run-off; 5. What additional steps have been taken to mitigate any negative changes or impact to the original drainage plan; 6. In the professional engineer's opinion directly state whether the site changes have created a worsening condition that will cause a negative impact to the neighbourhi properties and whether the existing drainage system in their professional opinion will work without causing increase run-off flow onto the neighbouring12ro]2erties . We also require: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES Building&Fire Inspection • Planning&Development- Economic Development• Fire Services • Civic Addressing By-law Enforcement• Emergency Management 1. Confirmation that the elevations and grading of the site, especially around the area that was changed due to the septic system change have met the grading and site elevations that were shown on submitted plans. The grades as they have been built to need to be shown on a plan that is signed and dated.If they are manually added with pen,then we also require a written, signed letter confirming the manually added elevations are correct. 2. A plan showing the water run-off direction for the section that was altered due to the change in the septic system. If they are manually added with pen, then we also require a written,signed letter confirming the manually added elevations are correct. This can be added to the same plan with the grades. a. The Municipality understands that a French drain and possibly other changes to the drainage system have been installed. Any such measures should be displayed on the plan as well,even if they are added manually with noted dimensions. The Municipality is closed over the holidays until January 4,2016.When we reopen, the Municipality will be starting the process of hiring a 3rd party engineer to provide the above information.If Ten Beaches Estates Inc. is able to provide the Municipality with a written signed letter before January 6th,2016 confirming that it will be able to provide the Municipality with the above information prior to January 15t1,then we can hold off hiring a 3rd party engineer until the information from Ten Beaches is reviewed. If Ten Beaches Estates Inc. is unable to commit to the above in writing then in the Municipality will need to proceed with hiring a 3rd party engineer, the cost of which shall be charged to Ten Beaches Estates Inc. and if not paid, shall form a first lien upon the property. Yours Truly, Heather Archibald Development Officer ATTACHMENT D j'u6-S MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER 4 4 Community Development Department 186 Central Street 9 PO Box 369,Chester,NS BOJ 1.JO • Facsimile 902-275-2598 Building&Fire Inspection Services Planning&Development Services Email:building@chester.ca Email:plamling@chester.ca Telephone:902-275-3080 Telephone:902-275-2599 December 16,2015 BY REGISTERED MAIL TEN BEACHES ESTATES INC. c/o Mr.Dwayne Chatman,President 27 Kingsmere Court Halifax,Nova Scotia B3M 1G2 Dear Mr. Chatman: RE: ENFORCEMENT OF NOTICE TO COMPLY TO PROVIDE THE FINAL AS-BUILT STORM DRAINAGE PLANS SITE PLAN#2010-038,PID 60084803, SIMMS SETTLEMENT,LUNENBURG COUNTY,NOVA SCOTIA PURSUANT TO SECTION 503(1)OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT TAKE NOTICE that The MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER is in receipt of David Roy's, P.Eng letter, dated November 19, 2015, submitted on behalf of Ten Beaches Estates Inc. as the sole and complete response to the 30 day Order to Comply issued to Ten Beaches Estates Inc. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that The MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER intends to enforce the Order to Comply issued October 15, 2015 to Ten Beaches Estates to provide the final as-built storm drainage plans with a Certificate from a Professional Nova Scotia Engineer that the installed Storm Drainage System will function satisfactorily and at least as well as that Storm Drainage System shown on the approved Site Plan. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 503(1)of the Municipal Government Act, the Municipality intends to enter upon the property and have a Professional Engineer, on its behalf, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES Building&Fire Inspection • Planning&Development- Economic Development* Fire Services • Civic Addressing By-law Enforcement• Emergency Management examine the installed Storm Drainage System and provide an opinion as to its adequacy and conformity within the intent of the approved Site Plan and the cost of so doing shall be charged to you and if not paid, shall form a first lien upon the property. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that if the installed Onsite Storm Drainage System should be inadequate for its intended purpose or not in conformity with the intent of the approved Site Plan, then further action may be taken by the Municipality as authorized under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Government Act and the Land Use Bylaw. DATED at Chester,Nova Scotia this , j day of December, 2015 ( r , Heather Archibald Development Officer for the Municipality of the District of Chester ATTACHMENT E NCH tER MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTED Q Community Development Department 1.86 Central Street • .PO Box 369,Chester,NS B0J 1J0 0 Facsimile 902-275-2598 Building&Fire Inspection Services Planning&Development Services Email:building©chester.ca Email:plancringOchester.ca Telephone:902-275-3080 Telephone:902-275-2599 TEN BEACHES ESTATES INC., c/o Mr.Dwayne Chatman,President 27 Kingmere Court Halifax,NS 133M 1G2 RE: NOTICE TO COMPLY/SITE PLAN#2010-38,PID#60084803/27 SEAGLASS DR., SIMMS SETTLEMENT,LUNENBURG COUNTY,NOVA SCOTIA NOTICE TO COMPLY PURSUANT TO SECTION 265 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT. TAKE NOTICE that based upon information supplied by or on behalf of TEN BEACH ESTATES INC., the storm water drainage system installed at 27 Seaglass Drive, Simms Settlement,Lunenburg County,Nova Scotia does not comply with the approved Site Plan#2010-03 8 upon which a Development Permit was issued and which said system was intended to adequately address drainage on the property with no adverse affects on neighbouring properties. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that you,TEN BEACHES ESTATES INC.,are required within thirty (30) days from the receipt of this Notice to Comply,to provide to the Municipality,the final as built storm drainage plans for the Site referenced herein with a Certificate from a Professional Nova Scotia Engineer that the installed Storm Drainage System will function satisfactorily and at least as well as that Storm Drainage System shown on the approved Site Plan. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that if the requirements as stated herein are not complied with, then pursuant to Section 265(1) of the Municipal Government Act, the Municipality may enter upon the property and have a Professional Engineer, on its behalf, examine the installed Storm Drainage System and provide an opinion as to its adequacy and conformity within the intent of the approved Site Plan and the cost of so doing shall be charged to you and if not paid,shall form a first lien upon the property. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that if the installed Onsite Storm Drainage System should be inadequate for its intended purpose or not in conformity with the intent of the approved Site Plan, then further action may be taken by the Municipality as authorized under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Government Act and the Land Use Bylaw. DATED at Chester,Nova Scotia this 15th day of October,2015 HEATHER ARCHIBALD Development Officer for the Municipality of the District of Chester COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES Building&Fire Inspection • Planning&Development- Economic Development• Fire Services • Civic Addressing By-law Enforcement• Emergency Management +r __ATTACHMENT F ABLE ENGMEEPPNC SCRVIGES INC: - -. -.- 50 OUCEN STREET R.3,SOY 959 CNES"r TE N4vp:5CG'Au.,R'M iJd FR WAY 7 TEL 2?-27J—s9s7 'A"vi9u'2�373 50,7, .. -. - - tng nanr«nQsohte nr.co LECEND PROPOSED -+'4@r v n' Tt r, — i f t I ` " i l E p i d _ y •.l : ..'. .. _ — nW&AI.AUBffiNwui rw„A+noc G LNFS£'btP iUP-. _ a $EY/YA' (.IDK ,. s, i uaa¢dgc;tsw 1 s✓t/ __ _. _ ,._a{ + 4~ I. i � CNrR/F'}P+ES —sem t --d— t N. ``KlfaFl`i4'14 �i 516aFAS-5EfTtEMLN3 +! _ aaaw a waz -krtC t - - 4 t� v stm Br s - F r *o- f h 4 p! 4- -74 v _ r M - w� a { t F : . IDS x t h AkENT OF TRNSPAIGNWY.1 SIMPS SETTLEMENT 342 6uCHWtYY,§ P& 6041D42D SwM5 SETTLEMENT "' - �: ! •'�". VltLLJ41 MQRRAM OONES �, f i } PID SOC6480 3 352 HIGHWAY 3 J „ >7 SISPM5 SCTTLFhSNT -- •LL ' fp. ... _ 1 ALL M ASUAEMENTS SFONN.IN METRIC UNITS Or 4TdTid6,tR MURRAY GOC7LEl4 a /:: �ti: '>,. - - -:.' METREST OR MIUUMLINE ErPS A NOTSD- F1E1, t r i t ^ m n' i0f11/23 16—D FOR i"SFFZ Mf[Na2'RzfaLw - ,' Bia �m8® &wigen be l MCr`® l 1 52E HlutEti4AYt 3 ; CAZRYL LAUftE r a . pip:roc)84751 34$KGHWAY 3 2xd HIGk WXa 3 J! ., GEWAY 3 SJKIM5 SETTLEMENT ' St MS 5 L£'kd CNT SIM&.�SETTI_CuY'ctJt d'ET[R NANN,`.hi MFILH0.EL SE�`.£IOYER f:NER LA[JREN pqa CHRiSAi."c SF,hl3QMER $ JUDY HANNArA. » IC 50410412 PIV 50054745 , TEN BEACHES ESTATES SIMMS SETTLEMENT, NOVA SCOT[A - i, EMSTI G SITE PLAN OCT XB,2070 x�r 5-2"aiRF•^:.E IacX N 1002, y 7,5 �Cht6::Y'Ri ''-° � n'�rMe9r FI4 Kv, �-_,-'—'- .-..".`.-.--_`-•;k... & � Rn�ra'tl Cix=+.e L. 0 12.0m Minimum of 25%of the lots will be landscaped with grassed. I I I I HaeltEl f 14.5m I I ABLE ENGINEERING 50 REENN SERVICES INC. I(NOME 1 1 i QUEEN 2.6m I OBILEI I I VOWLd u P.O.BOX 959 LII yn3 C<1 O-MEI II - 'HOME IrII\•.v • .-.r �r-I1 r!`1-I f rL-II (rI..._� -.-��-6i�•l I -r1-r_1,-,.-.....I-r...8..�...-i.I....._._.�i.....i."..._....._..._...„._..WY..r.r”AY,i --11II 0-3•rI-rI'` �-..rI1i CHESTseEuwnRee9xrr,rmuna/NOVA nnnee9tnnrwxa�0aurNwsCO c v Oea a TxarItrAs wn,Ec.BcOa J 1J0 HOE 3.0 TEL 902-273-3050 FAX.902-273-3072 ......................._..................... LEGEND EASTING — —P�R-O-a.P-C/O--.—Sr e— Er — D 5.0m nlUO/0- .A.- . —Ko UNIT LAYOUT DETAIL ......GRx� 0NTS. ................. .- f 132 SI ....... 27I 171 2 ....... P r"i —R.o-„— Ovtr• I I I tl ............ raOe uµ L J L J I H..........,.......... rn�m srm .. ` I' L ' i•. f I itnfEMul - - • - _ --- 1 - -t- •'� 1 Apt / f ... y"... nnw arecna —Y — — r i' I10fAmd(eq o / ,,. I BrArt! I / ...... PARK..._....... I ,O Q � � r 12----1 / ............. ,........ PARK-......... , �/: O Mos«us a O L=-- '/ .......PARK _ ty _ __ 85 `j / .,64, „._ ..: ,t I 1 I 1 /' !: , Q) I ,,. wxta.+arts fiJ ,O ': � 1T-'� /'. �`�J / .. ••�� `j � .-. .... �\4fi.j ....4461 14'I I '�' P21 1 41 /'2� fU / - %... 66' ` C 63• / 'ALJ LJ LJ L\1,• LJ %�<v /; J C rQ� tw ar srac Fire pond and storm water management area to be fenced. Q o sr. J' 82 `.,\ J / C SIMEM9GS�ERI EMEM Q-\O TtN.QCHES ESTATES INC., % h Jj/ "1 I 084&03' /'7,. a�U O 36 a J i r- All park areas, common areas,fire pond perimeter, storm water mgt area and sewer easement will be landscaped with grass 61 % '� / ,. \ � j / c QO Qt C' J Driveways and road will be surfaced with Class A. ;� CJ DEPARTMENT OF .(Q) TRANSPORTATION LU O O P 5 . % /'� j \ i / .._` v.7GHWAY 3 �......,..., j / C l � ii \� \/ , , OC �� SIMMS SETTLEMENT �`J �`�� I -53 • \ PID. 60410420 J y�X43 342 HIGHWAY 3 pj '� i L___ C ` \ ' SIMMS SETTLEMENT •�' fp ` �� '7 �.. \-' DRIP IRRIGATION FIELD""--•�/ ^rr WILLIAM MURRAY JONES (V ,C I �\Jj / •' \.�) \ _ \ ///`,h2�4, /-r/ JQJ� Q)C `\ PID: 60084803 +'•' r 3.'___ 6�.9 % \ % �>• �.. -` �.. j...//%' / �C,j� C11eR.. f`-----, V4�`j / �•J FIRE � i I /r Q"v� / tU POND 352 HIGHWAY 3 •— ._-_•.—--. SIMMS SETTLEMENT --- _ I` norm to u11aa AV COOLEN L_;� J - - --- --' ' ` ' � J _._,--_._._._ ,t' _!_ . i/ EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON THIS Garbage receptacles will be contained behind a 6'-0"fence BUILDING ONLY. LIGHTING TO, - - - - _ COMPLY WITH INT. DAR SKY Assoc, --- --------- COMPLY Ir / �— / F^i!\.;�/ d • / \„` "` ER NAAG wmt-NFTAR¢Y r / `-'l / ........._ ) y 2 11/07/20 h'SUED FOR MUNICIPAL RENEW / ...� f .:• / - `\ / ...... ......... .. IO/I1/23 ISSUED FOR PREUM11WN RLNEW Na. Del. R.vl.lon w. ria 326 HIGHWAY 3 '� •/ ,i SImm' SETTLEMENT ,CHER?1-LAUREN WATTS t y� \ PID; 60084761 308 HIGHWAY 3 294 HIGHWAY 3 /So/ T2t 2Otr.fYt f GHWAY 3 SIMMS SETTLEMEIIT SIMMS SETTLEMENT SIM SETTLEMENT PETER HANNAM /\ CHRISTINE SR MICHAEL SEA80YE j )FFi• ,�• CHER L LAUREN WA JUDY HANNAM EAR / ID: 60410412 PID: 60084753 PID: 6008474 x `. G, ... ZR- TEN BEACHES ESTATES SIMMS SETTLEMENT, NOVA SCOTIA j� HOME LAYOUT PLAN ^ _ D.t. D.- OCT 20,2010 5.NRPIP Pmja e,100217-00 2 HOME LAYOUT LAN satLE:t:Tsa 1n9 near Plan No. C201 1:750 n .oma n>n ray rsn 1:750 P,KU',D.I'S 0201 �'" Re ergine. Approve Sheat O 0 77 z t a 3 ti I I I I d LU F4 o mc-4 a Ito t� V Q >_ >_ a r''c V J O g o O 4 r t W WO�Q O O c ' a s r Y = W W > tai a g W Z I1 L d ��H '10 N -� (L w a a v zo t �srrr V) 0-) > ¢ w `'� w z m >- F m a s U(� o z z z z n'{ Z o z w o r ¢ w 0 3 z a O V J X N N N p rn r p r p i,� a 5 c> F v h z w o m o w a s W Z to ® Z o '�` a p a c 0 Z _ i.V m I I � (yJ � � m F o x o � w � W � w a w m � < o �+- m � N OW V V (l� � >00 w 0 r � x a m r p p o w o U > > Z m r q W t� W �OO�<n N �l� m a c> w x m m a ow J 3 x o N a W3 o o O �_ M M O w > \.J W Z i W Z m J m p a 3 a o m w ¢ z m a d O O Z o a J X C m o F 3 ii wo v m p m U tr J �f Y � X15 �l a a o Ow Ow O o 0 w�� w O coR z W � m a a p v Z Z ry LU viL Q p a� > Ld LLI m ZJQW N to w 3 Q �W< � W Q O O O OfO _ N� Oofw z O O o 0 77 OOO \ N in o NZZO O Li O 00af z i � O V o w l l M N z c 0 N _l ♦ LO0 V . _ . ;_ Dc• o 1 �d / / \ ♦ ♦ �— Q w d- / wn- Q U o \♦ ♦ X03: 1110 N (n co do ` Cr-r c� I —_ Ty ♦ Qz � UJ Dc r� Iryn / �r ♦ 0 80.b,, I cn F� • I I �. � *4% 5 I N I / - �M M o _ \ ` 00 M o ♦ Fp ! I 0 -.0 I ' I N � 0 dN T- 0- 0 4 .0 ( � n LJ 00 t N I o l .oQ � W0 Lj I _ ,\ I , I I N Wo j N LO LO n, LLj LJ M w U) 0 I .0 I CL / K?\ i d- Q rn {n C \ I 1 ryC 00 N _ — I iW I F 00d- v, v / `V � / � � I I o• to � v \. \ I CN LO _ I 00 , LO f \ \ \ I N NLO \ - i C) \\� p C� e ® I ___ 0 .0 r- I 1 N LO o 1 I N �° N00 CO unq f I CD 1 r^ 00 c— 0 0 0 V W ry 00 00Li Q o \ \ \\ \ CC CL I v LO Ucr.--)Lf) 'v 000 8 .0 ^ .i LO • r I0 8 .0 6 (0\ LO 00 LO N LO LO ` Lo "�v, v / / ry ry V I C)00 V 1 Q l i 1 z CN , t \ \ \ 1 N \ O 0 U-) r� 1 �'r O / / I 1 00 } 1, CN r . CDO - ♦ f v_ / Z 00 / q- N N O Lq LO LO 00 1\ -------------------------------------------------- AALE ENGINEERINI. SERVICES tNC, 54 4t E�N 5'TR E P 4,WX 959 CKESTER,"dVA SC T[k BG} LJO TEL 4q2-273 3050. FAX-902-273-M72 - - mng;nmmeing4obPeSnc eo-: LEGEND 'mSEtJXC PLf6Pa' mriec/+xxrrrxrtr vair4' � a/:am ^� � 7 earaasnra ,w�, -D4 �. m.nn.Arnmu.+.rm,vav - Ykav w,w+:5i (¢#' t- ,✓ �' .`` w =SLL"X�:. � y } tl 4]Nm wANaA%�PPE —n-t}:n-�. e;4s . r: Aa �� v}I �"{ f tlAfci utN x N! r/' t3---`« _.�.,.— •-m�?- -K �9 �... a—,.m m§-—_ - R�� .y. fem .i%N --^ 4 . - $ P Q P ffff E� A HICHWAT p f . �` •" r+ 6/ J S76VMS:SE,LTLEMENT. j x f T • ( ? N aEACN,4;ESTATES W, PID:EW84803ujr c` l `� / {. a N 1 ?" , TRANSPORTATION lee , ef DEPARTMENT OF ,' •+ bHIGNBYAY 3 .. a ,"�• � SiMk55 SETTLEI3th' 342 HIGHWAYS ,:/+ .. _ _ `+7 M .7`,� •` : m� PQ 6041042D � IMMS SETTLEMENT : 1. �j�4" 1 V � '� ��� � Y; 1 � .`` � .'•"� WILLIAM HURRAY JONES:. No 60084803 FIRE POND 3 352 HIGHWAY . .� ""._-47�-�EmH-f,li5 �,.,P '' }�� r..., �. e Simms SE[TLEMENa7 ARTHUR MIJRRA4 COOLERS dim / � ,�,,.vwe � "��„ ,,,�'r '•, FID 600840t .``;�-' �--- ,.c I V-3 SIM pA J`Xx CHERYL LAUREN WATTS "Vit PID- kmlf7':6Oc7Tia7el �/,lj `>,� "``,}s., h -.- ,i,� r ,f+�;w• �d, ,o-�t IfrTAF 3 5129# r ` 3 MMS %:TfLEMEyiFiAb5 SETTtEAE.4 PETER ILtNFUA. CH&EL 9FA30ERSFrrL3t1Ni CHER L tAUREN WAI, jUDY HANgAM f,WRISTNE SEABOYEtR G� 654E4Y2 PlO 6OJ9475$ PIG. 6G[84746 } UJTFALL TO tyr �> �.. t,nSTYPSG CLlLt+Ef7P f -,. J TEN BEACHES ESTATES SWVS SETTLEMENT, NOVA SCOTIA DRAINAGE PLAN r' > P+ a Pr*nom w-.-_ _ M1 AFizib Oil 70b 1 5 TUR}'LL 90w 17-00 / sG �.xu 2iNs tC220 MEN-T __ ATTACH _ .._.._ - ------------------------- . -_. ------------ ----- --- ABLE ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. _.___--._-_..--_ __-.w_--_ _____ .._. --_- ---_ ____..__.___--`_ '- -•• .,, 50 QUEEN STREET P.O. BOX 959 CHESTER, NOVA SCOTIA, BOJ 1JO - _ TEL. 902-273-3050 FAX. 902-273-3072 - ----- f _._ -- --- ----- ------- -- engineering®ableinc.ca ------ LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 OjOEaF GATE/BUTTERFLY VALVE ®/®BF STREET SIGN v r 15 16 ,!f`' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 , s I , I` POWER POLE/LIGHT POLE }{ -SR r= X7.14'` q 1 CULVERT ] j CATCHBASI0/0 N 44.22 44.40 44 4 44.18' 46.37 T-T �T 44.96 --� T T5T -� 45 57 45.36 45. 8 44.79 q q 7 44.39 44.22 44 15 158 5 ELEVATION 43.48 T T� 45. 45.77 �TT • TTT 46.14 O O ,r-'' •,� . I .-^� "} HYDRANT �- if PROPERTY BOUNDARY • A / _._._._._---._.--- ._._._._._ OVERHEAD LINE --- ,r i -. - - -- SANITARY MANHOLE & PIPE -SA SA- [� _E-) _ _.------- STORM MANHOLE & PIPE -sr sr- w w WATER MAIN w w-- /' O ! O p/ > w WATER SERVICE 0- w O Q .o OomaON O f FM FORCEMAIN -FM-FU- O O O Sr ._._.SF_ , SILT FENCE SF SF- 3 OAD D pFENCE 0� a- _- ----- ---------- - - �--- FLOW DIRECTION �> - _-_ UNDERGROUND CONDUIT 1TREE O 12 / / �,( '� PARK / CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK 46.64 / PARS V � i �' "� �� CURB AND DRIVEWAY CUT PARD /..`` - SIDEWALK s ° �� STREET LINE � 46.42 / t' j DRAINAGE DIRECTION I 65 44.52 44.32 44. 2. 43.92 43.73 / % " _S_), SWELL FLOW S^� 64 �� � 44.64 ,t`� � - ° } I CONTOUR LINES - i 01/ 46 45 44 ,43 42 41 � ��� /. BOTTOM OF SLOPE --- ----- / 36 TOP OF SLOPE - / ' / 46.18 10 / 66 / 63 / / NOTES: / 44.18 17oCONTOURS 45. ' 43.88 / 47 - - ` g / SHOWN ARE PROPOSED GRADES 37 / CONTOUR INTERVAL-0.5m /6 45. / HIGH WAY 3 - - �- -PROPOSED GRADES ARE CIRCLED .% , 62 ° / SIMMS -E"TT L E M - ENN r T 9 / - / /' / ,r43.78 TEN BEA' HES ESTATES INC. 48 --_._ PID: 60084803 38 1.07 ° 8 :/ �3 _ _... 4 ---- ------------ - - - -- ,.�', 42.93 3.3049 43.11 / / 44.03 60 / Q O 42. 5 7 ® / `���-__. ,.�-�" \ \ l� 40\. , p 43 18 70 O _ 59 \ ' u42.03 ' 6 / 51 / / / , SHEET T106 / ETC NOTES 41.22 �'+ / 42.2 71 58 - ` APR 2 2013 I' � � / I 9, ....... / 41.57 41.89 / / / REFER TO 52 \ GRADES 5 40. 3 / 41.31 72 ETC/MHE SHEET57 / 8100 41 / ! / / ,/ ; 38,34 \ / e FOR REVISED 53 / / - o s \ / ° = J 4 � ° 5 GRADES Q , T � v 0 04 \ \ 73 / 40.39 9 - 8 T.J�4._._ DRIP I R / CTS / ~_ / FIELD 3 v v v v 55 O 39.58 t \ 6 / ' � ~ •- -- ' /� . e 5 13/04/29 ETC Edits r \ \ �/ \ 40.14 4 12/03/20 REVISION FOR MUNICIPAL REVIEW 3 11/10/04 REVISION FOR MUNICIPAL REVIEW 1 39.13 2 11/07/20 ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL REVIEW 39. 5 0 0 0 FIRE \ i \ / / \'\ ji 1 10/11/23 ISSUED FOR PRELIMINARY REVIEW ! / POND 39., / � �� ` ^. No. Date Revision Description Appr'd ° 37.80 / ! ; ;�'�..; DEPARTMENT OF / _..._r 37.13 ` TRANSPORTATION ------ - --- - _ �-., HIGHWAY 3 SIM HENT 2 9 MS SETTLE s._- - �' � -._._. - .v �v `� �.. _�yv � / � ; 60410420 � _ PID: o p \ SER ------ ----------------------------------------------- - _w._._ _. - --- --_ E .t / TEN BEACHES ESTATES9 SIMMS SETTLEMENT, NOVA SCOTIA - - - 38.45 - - �,,,' � 308 HIG AY..-3��.�'7 / SIMMS SET�M STORM WATER ENT o s� �° ` � :\ � CzEMENT AREA / / PETER HANNAH / , �o GRADING PLAN / JUDY HANNAM / 294 HIGHWAY 3 / PID: 60184753 SIMMS SETTLEMENT Date raven S. TURPLE Project 100217-00 OCT 20, 2010 MICHAEL SEABOYER -_ SCALE : 1:50 1:500 P. KUNDZINS C210 326 HIGHWAY 3 / CHRISTINE SEABOYER / Scale Engineer Plan No. / ` ® Min. c n n O n -7A Om 10m 20m 7om 40m 50m Reference Approved Sheet M M M M M M M N N O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N ..F 0 CL o 000'D3 N - ti ti w w r J y C 0 0) N H LL U o O C O N C7 S, N O+•.(n d uj 'W+C6 0rTMP W Co O O� to U � a o a? /. Ww o �Im CU bb� ��.o NF-5 Q) a 3® U) Li N N O O U L co O J �j � o � co ca (D_ c o m o c" Ztom/] H H �`' Fy CO0NO NO N N C 6 N __ co 4 W b1J Cci �/ ,/ cn U a! r o � c o ��,o ui W 'Ly" O W W W Q O�O -c W- d- s—a m as ® C.� o Z x x y ZLU o U o W p ® c� Q cu ota a = (D r o 4 Q Lij co '203 � _ �, la -O c� �' c3 -CS - Q r-1 Q + ° w U)°' °' �cs o °� a = ti �' ��" bA Q i > > E rn s5N CIO m m LU rnX 1t 0 a3 Z 114 M Q -cl�p • • • • E .s H U� i° i b 1 f n � I �4. 4 ' Q0 e a 3= `t E l +° O O( t if O t, 5061 1 _ tl 0 , Y i O t. *� , t t. k {x ,i"= k %YS d'� i l � � \ t l p Y �,�i q y + i 'n �y R x l I $ !" '",� ( }� y p �f ` t e ,6 r Qol� . - -____ - LU rrr t'$f Y it A r r C"jQ "3 O i C o 00 ( Q0 p N1t 5 �- rli + e t rr e' i t , t r i r P` , ;' rx ( I ( O :. Ln( txtx O Qs 010 O � ( � OB O 1 +` f x } CA cQO x x " if ^ f ,r If (p r ( pq If C`7 a x = {t ( 1 r r i { Ooc OO(Oo Q [� t T / I 1� ri ° + ( N X m 1 a t ip � t ( ( ( ( I t ( ( i { p ci C(3 N) 00 coo IN C 17 ' p � AD f p p ( x N( 1t O p( x'60 Q !^ ( -( O( p - ✓ ` O O -p C)-)l o6 Qo( `� `; O i NocI ^., g 106106 106106 ry If (r-•y pI p p ( Q 09 01 J � Q r-1 }� � � �� � �( � Q 71 7 ol cqo Q � ( per a�( �,. 00 x jfff I ( p (oq � - V, 4 -014 D DQ ( ( tiI I Y`t p ,' jos jos 1 1P6 10u 9 p # { � I I ,O oO cjO o oto p d O (X3 ( � ccs ( . t9 tq J - COP p gd p ( 1 R i l ' 1 p ( ( ,r t ( O a o(e , 4 I Q r}` Of tr Q N„ N r I 9 3 f , ggg# ( 6 4 .r 1p 1Li 1 O Q i i� o Qp r ( Ln o z- ct� N 00, o r I c.g( ol } Op N 6 .,.,,r ...,,.- .. . .... & /' t / „a �^� . . _._.a ..... ( *„., /X7j f f✓'� ! X !fJ __...e f/+"� �f /.P f J f1�1 � � 0 IT •<.................... it ryh ,,..., 1 ( •t, : ,�i!f Jr J + f+ p x ++ t` +'t + J+IJ �= I "•i ' k R J t fs y w ( i ..._ QO (: t � Qp d9 . r . gg p V p o t� i f� t Q( t3) I P` R `} dr r t d � 1 _ f { tt ( qw 1 - p i 5 #.. ✓ l's 'c 7 r— It ,s'' j .w. ..d."> ;,p `a(•, @.,_'1 ,d / f"0 �rn�}( i`,rrn TM(DI ../-t j>' i 4. �t" �y ,Ip,.,.f C-,) i/'•`�.`f'`, + �^'L../ ` V^�J9( ,�-�.{#p Ul }), f r"1 ,r`} e., f'{� �/ @•,'-^'. "`^s�,^�- . % #.../' L„I / fir ' '{,f `�,." V ,„,l iJ r der i ff# f t t r _ 1 01 , • ,,.a.l....,,.....n 'b t y Ip C6ir 9' fd Ln co s i t� r X , ( #d J +ir _.d o ' t � ' If� I a.7 O o') p ui t} r t � 0 w. _ ' ..............4 s ' ` 40 .9 pq�� # ✓ ¢ S � 49.A •sem,,.....'"" ,x J," f _,.. i .. .s•+ee CJ h Irl J` �B ` X — v fit: ,t d { jX x, f lF d o )—' E pP Y j V r ty 4 .., .e > > 0 CL 0- Ln Ln f P' d ## ` d� d _ _ L- � 0 d d' r' 4 � i ;6 r r t tLo Ln oo r- / } i ! .._ t..,. � '" '� 1, r' ,.a ,,^d' w. ./j�� ��� f _ v / � r , r P } w � d �x Ql- �. s x J If 6 56 .5 ix- ft _ a . w 1 i S " %t �"'` . �f 1 -56.5B . t 1 � l �w \\ 4„s,��' A j} i ��, f �.,„..,.. r y fes }' is.€ V"^•. �roq cb #R r, 1 d k t f g o�Mil ffi 1E � g a k I '/l_� 4 ggp tATTACHMENT f; THIS SITE PLAN APPROVAL is made in triplicate this day of ��. .D, 2012 BETWEEN: KAREN NEWTON as DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF s CHESTER heresmafter called the"DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Of the One Part And TEN BEACHES ESTATES INC.,a body corporate with Head office at Hammonds Plains, in the Province of Nova Scotia, hereinafter called the"DEVELOPER" Of the Second Part WHEREAS the Developer has applied for site plan approval to construct a mini home dark called Ten Beaches Estates on the property identified as PIIS 60084 03 and sha�vn an the attached Schedule A;and, WTIEREAS In accordance with Section 234 of the Municipal al Governrrent Act,this Site Flan Approval shall continue to apply to the property until discharged by the Development Officer of the Municipality;and WHEREAS Policy$,13.11 of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Sections 4A.10 of the Municipal Land Use By-law of the Municipality of the District of Chester enable the use of site plans for the proposed development. NOW THEREFOR-E the Development Officer of the Municipality by her signature affixed below hereby approves thissite plan attached hereto as Schedule'A' and the Developer undertakes to comply with this site Flan Approval; 1. The Developer,the owner ofthe`property identified as PID 60084803,agrees and undertakes to construct the development in accordance with the itc plant showed in Schedule A being drawings 0201 and C220 prepared by Able Engineering Services Inc, dated October 217,21110 and revised July 213,21311:.. 2. The Developer hereby certifies by the signatures affixed below that Ten Beaches Estates Inc,is the owner uleof�the property shown on the attached Sched "° "' haying received the Warranty Beed from William K, Jones dated May 31,213113 and recorded at the Lunenburg County Land Registration Office on June 01, 2010,under document number 96028908.The Developer further certifies that it has not disposed of any interest in the property arid there are no judgements,mortgages other than that noted in Paragraph#5 or other liens or encumbrances affecting the property;and ;{ 3, All buildings and all other structures,lawns,trees,shrubs,panning areas.,lighting systems and other landscaping elements shall be maintained in a tidy,attractive and usable state free of unkept matter of any kind and the development shall not generate emissions such as noise, dost,radiation,odours,liquids or light to the air,water,or ground so as to create a recognized health or safetu hazard or to create a nuisance to the adjacent properties;and 4. This Site Plan Approval shall ensure to the benefit ofand be binding upon the Developers,their heirs, executors,administrators,and assigns, the owner or owners from time to time of the property described in Schedule°"A",until discharged pursuant to Section 232(5)or Section.234 of the MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT by the Development Officer of the Municipality.The Developer acknowledges that if it does not comply with this Site flan Approval,the Development Officer for the Municipality may a v, take Legal steps to enforce the provisions of this Site Plan Approval, including the obtaining of an Order in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. MORTGAGEE 5. The mortgagee,by virtue of a Mortgage or Mortgages,is the holder of an interest in the property]shown as PID 60084803 subject to this Site Plan lot is the holder of ars interest in the equity of redemption)the Mortgagee is hereby executing this Site Plan approval to give effect thereto and for the purpose of onsuring that the Site Plan approval applies to the property in priority to the moi(gage,PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS the Mortgagee shall not by reason only of their execution of the Site Plan approval,be obligated to fulfil the obligations of the Developer herein.For greaten clarity.the parties agree that the Mortgagee shall be deemed to be an owner of the property which is subject to this Site Plan:approval for t he purposes of Section 232(5)and 234 of the Municipal Govermnew Act,S.N.S 1998 Chapter 18,as amended. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties to this Site Plan Approval leve,hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. IN THE PRESENCE OF: MUNICIPALITY OFTHEDISTRICT 3 OF CHESTER:: 1 Per KARLNNF.WTON n1 Witne a TEN BEACHES. ESTATES INC. Per f`.i'rP Witness Per: ✓��Su./.:,''1"e ,r1n,,to BANK OF MONTREAL, SIINA 91 i 12.Om J r4.9m ro "�,2tr, M-45, r r-� r- 10ME Minimum of 25%of the lots will be landscaped with grassed. I I I I �aeltElONE �� EN50 OUREENN SERVICES INC. 2.6m I O91LE1 EET P.O.BOX 959 HOE 3.Om OME WAY O3 CHESTER,NOVA SCOTIA,BOJ 1J0 I I F, TEL 902-273-3050 FAX.902-273-3072 ........................................... en9lneerin90oble nc.ca ................................................. L \ .............._.................... LEGEND - - - ...... ...... j ............................. ............ . .. E%ISTINC PROPOSED .i '. ............. - - / �.losr wrr/eurmtrur vats a/.er L, 5.0m --!-- .. —-- -- -- ------I-- ,�.--_ / n/o..•. rows rae an rai 0/0- C r1 r ///n/ ,//.•,•. ..�,G�. .... ... wr.xnmnmrxautor wnewna UNIT LAYOUT DETAIL GRASSED ¢ A-ncart,i.xrr we —% 0NTS. r-------- I35 1 311 juj 16 224 �6I iD -��O7.-• w — —.r-o-^— OvtA - - ............ . .. rnru uµ ......... .......... J rmm�ssmxc 4P� � L _ ............� .•\\ L J L� J, L /', I' roarENu1 — i J L J L •. ,. � ,•• �,. , / fM.d1T Q> �`�'---`---- `_'---'—'---'1 `. :� I.mart_ _ •/'. a 12k L ------............�- / %- /'��•85>� / /,>... > ...... PARK .. - acorewas�is.uaaErrowIHEae nrwm fij ,Q r 1T= r\ •�J7 14_.I 144 6N.,,.. rr) '8\ eaTrou a ssE ---_- ./ / 66>> / � \ ) r J ILJ ...,.I J LJ\ LC1„ L �(V / C Q)Q to2 as slraE Fire pond and storm water management �� L- / >J p C C J / NIGHY�gY 3 J P C Q\ area to be fenced. o '' .� 67 .�. �i 62 >) / C SIMMS SEfTLEMEM / / � TENCHES ESTATES INC, h J) Qlsoos4ao3 Q 38 All park areas, common areas,fire pond perimeter, storm water mgt. 3Q' area and sewer easement will be landscaped with grass c°j oo / / >) /� Q / _......... / / r%' / J % J Driveways and road will be su10 rfaced with Class A. o �.Q !U / / /'. �> 71�� % �• 58`•`�> // _ C� %/% \\ \ \��. �/ V DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAN PORT LU O 0) L 5 ... .......... \\ ! r HIGHWAY 3 72 /. /% CID / ......,...-..... ) / +' %. \J %% \' \ %r OC Q� SIMMS SETTLEMENT �> i I 1 C CO / , J >�� I X53 >� ;' \\ .i i =O ```r 'ti PID: 60410420 342 HIGHWAY 3 O '� i L \ 4C. SIMMS SETTLEMENT '� / 79'> ' 'tt' fp v >> '7" 'C \-' DRIP IRRIGATION F,IELD..--•�f ^'r WILLIAM MURRAY JONES (V ,C I >>J) / `�-' �.,�) \ _ \ / h2�tcr /,r/ JQaJ OC >`\ PID: 60094803 +'•, r 3. ___ 6�. % �>J �., �.. y�)...//%' .\\ / % (, Js"T / Q� % \' FIRE i POND I I 352 HIGHWAY 3 ,- r r SIMMS SETTLEMENT / noruuo uilaa AV COOLEN L_;�___J _. ,. \\..\. ______________- 31 ._._,----___ { 't _______ '_ / EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON THIS Garbage receptacles will be contained behind a 6'-0"fence - _---- - BUILDING ONLY. LIGHTING TO, r- -'-_ ---------- 1�-------------- - - - _ COMPLY WITH INT. DARK SKY ASSOC, , ' sTaR TER M WAr / I1 ANAGEhfEN 2 tt/D7 zD SSUm FOR MUNICIPAL RENEW �` / "_��/ f •:� �:' / -' \� / I ....... ...:..... ./ `I ....... 1 to/tt/23 lssum FOR PREuuRwo'RENEW , ,AREA RW,I. D•ecHP, ra 326 HIGHWAY 3 SIMMS SETTLEMENT ,CIiERI'L LAUREN WATTS \ PID: 60084761 308 HIGHWAY 3 294 HIGHWAY 3 /So/ TstxatrYit GHWAY 3 SIMMS SETTLEMENT SIMMS SETTLEMENT SIM SETTLEMENT PETER HANNAM MICHAEL SEABOYE \ CHER L LAUREN WA JUDY HANNAM CHRISTINE SEAS R x / ID: 60410412 PID: 60084753 PID: 6008474 TEN BEACHES ESTATES SIMMS SETTLEMENT, NOVA SCOTIA HOME LAYOUT PLAN ^ _ Cat. am OCT 20,2010 5.TURPLE a x'100217-00 0 cam n9near Plan No, 2 HOME LAYOUT LAN SCALE t:Tsc C201 1:750 n a� .oma n>n rm, rs^, 1:750 P.KUNDZINS 0201 �'" Re ergine. APpmtro Sheat tjq SCHEDULE Alt f f r gyp t ? k IT if 194 Ile 4 to I yr 3 C3 g g UD $ A •���.tl� alibi �lII PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA COUNTY OF LUNENBURG,S.S. ON'I HIS day of army ( 2012,before me,the subscriber personally came and appeared, a subscribing witness to the foregoing Indenture,who having been by me duly sworn,made oath and said that KAREN NEWTON, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,for the Municipality of the District of Chester, one of the parties thereto,duly executed the same in IiiAer presence by affixing thereto its corporate seal identified by the signature of Karen Newton,its Develops ie ffieer,a duly authorized officer in that regard A.GTEPHENGRAHA � SUPREMECOM RTIONEROFTHE OF NOVA SCOTIA A:COMMISS .N ,R OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ...NOVA SCO IA PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA COUNTY OF LUNENBURG, S S ON�THIS,,W day of 4A?1 L^ 2012,before rue,the subscriber personalty came and appeared a subscribmgwitness to the foregoing Indenture,who having been by me duly sword, made oath and said that TEN BEACHES ESTATES ATES INC , one of the parties thereto,drily executed the sante in his/her presence by affixing there,o i.ts corporate seal identified by the signature of duly authorized officers in that regard. ACOMMIS§LONER OF THE SUPRT MECOURT OF NOVA SCOTIA WAYfA'hd rt' � " A$prdeterof the ` coe't of IN., WILLIAM P. FnoMSON A Barrister of the Supreme Court of Nova:Scotia 'i Pam Myra From: Darrell Tingley Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 1:35 PM To: Cindy Hannaford Cc: Pam Myra Subject: Re:Invitation to Council Meeting - March 31, 2016 @ 9:00 a.m. - Presentation from Dept. of Aquaculture re Changes to Aquaculture regulations Ms. Hannaford Thanks for the followup e-mail re March 31, 2016 meeting with council. I trust I will not be regulated to "fly on the wall status" at the meeting. Mr. Hancock was hired from the Aquaculture Association of NS by Darrell Dexter and retained by Minister Colwell. He was kept on as the the new Liberal Government is "adrift on a Dory"when it comes to fin fish feedlot aquaculture. So the meeting will be counter productive if you only hear from the chief spin-doctor. You will not hear about the failures of Cooke Aquaculture...escapes, disease, environmental degradation, tens of thousands of dead fish over the past 2 years, selling sick fish on the market in Atlantic Canada (salmon sick with Infectious salmon anemia , $500,000 fines in both Canada and the USA for killing lobsters because of illegal pesticides used to kill sea lice, the over use of antibiotics in the salmon feed and recommendations from scientists not to eat net pen raised farmed salmon as it is an unhealthy choice. The list goes on, such as, equipment left behind for property owners to clean up , barges sunk and left on the ocean floor,dead zones in the water under the net pens, pristine waters fouled, decreased housing prices and tourism dollars staying away from areas that have feedlot aquaculture. Therefore, based on Mr. Hancock providing"sunny ways"the future for the Cheater Area is not in your best interests. A feedlot free Chester Harbour and area is. Darrell Tingley Coastal Community Advocates Chester, NS -----Original Message----- From: Cindv Hannaford Cc: Pam Myra Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2016 10:19 am Subject: Invitation to Council Meeting- March 31, 2016 @ 9:00 a.m. - Presentation from Dept. of Aquaculture re Changes to Aquaculture regulations Good Morning Mr.Tingley, As per our phone conversation earlier,you are invited to attend the presentation to Council from Bruce Hancock, Department of Aquaculture at 9:00 a.m. regarding changes to the Aquaculture Regulations. We looking forward to seeing you there. Thank you. Cindy Cindy Hannaford Executive Secretary Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King Street, PO Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ 1J0 Phone:(902) 275-3554 1 i .aA;f:.S��i�.C±ILr����.��i.L;l�.•,.,.......?:�'a�3.$\u`Uitl:7xre»m. ittcuiur'.,1 A January 7, 2016 Town Councils Municipality of District of Lunenburg, Lunenburg, Mahone Bay, Chester Re: Open Pen Fin Fish Feedlots: Attached find a letter to the editor in November 2015 re new aquaculture rules for NS. This was following a press release in Lunenburg by Minister Colwell announcing changes to the regulations. Changes that will allow aquaculture companies free access to coastal waters which will have a negative effect on the environment, property values and tourism. In addition, the product produced, be it trout or salmon, is unhealthy, in that, the feed is full of antibiotics.The product is rinsed in chemicals to cleanse the fish from lice and has been sold diseased. The promised jobs have never materialised. I would recommend that this matter be discussed by council as the Premier and Minister Colwell intend to open up coastal waters off Lunenburg County in the near future. Normally these farms are placed on the lee side of islands. Mahone Bay with a thousand islands is prime territory. If you wish to have someone speak to council contact the undersigned and speakers will be available. Sincerely; Darrell Tingley C/ ,Coastal Community Activists Chester, NS Ph: 902-275-8082 email dwtpres acaol.com I�f hthau.4,NOW ProgY6ss'.8ulletliit::Wedn6sdaY, Nov.e, W 4,2015;; A ;fita � l V :VV u cu' I l I e - ' u�e$. ng aY'Ze'��lson's:�`t�o�e o�'1`T�v�t�ave'a� red- on for atlti ;GWtrro"in th :Clctaer 2 ,2, . a e as an e oollent:accou ilt of '-.hat vas saxd:.. by SviM18'er Colvcfe lAll'June"b<sr t is�veeX T� brt natelys .6 is not 1n th0A, W r094 is of xnajox ooncovn to local c0z, 41unitles an.canstitnaers . +i�^si of a11�the nowMU,,a10 oncourage more feodot aquactxlt�txo ti. coastllo oche .w0b,lh bays end haxbours doh as�Glznen burl,lVtahone` ay and chest y,,rC o Mvlrolmonta de radataon to those p tst�n e;a eas Gln b severe. . p7L i,millions of deeeasod trant sr d ssbno 1,wito e left to rot::l�ocean. s for:�ont�s 'tgr from etrame gold telarattros, ttxnIR g camases . 0re f'lonlad 66 the r606and shor4lttes in cornmunt- tles alangthe Boat, Se padl ; e newxc 'il dons do not look,ilb the feed fo&a ivacult .6 stto� . is is dlstur�tlagr an that f, o PTOV nt d cease. n,, tof that,f ad il8kA.W thts:tndustry inoXudes Dig taals, hael on;'bea s and G11 C1 grans; f It ounds:d g StlVIg,it�S t�o�kle SUet 1�tS WRM' IY1S.AnCI WbMeSl no to;eat any Ocean x lsecl farmed sslmoh� Uetar har�ost,feedlot Mll axe rinsed in a doncoctlon of der o��de and pes�lc�des�o l�a�sora rxae.'�mm�zyl' cordn IVI�n3sterewell, rat foraf cer aclt�dctdt�tre xte In ottr oon axtux�it a,or me,`be aware that,t xs anvl onznont nlgl t are s.on tk e a: - D�A.1�1���)a Chester Staff Directory: Staff Details I novascotia.ca Page 1 of 1 (http://novascotia.ca/) Department of Fisheries&Aqua... ) Staff Directory:Staff Details Fisheries &Aquaculture (/fish/) Staff Directory: Staff Details Staff Directory:Staff Details Name: Bruce Hancock Title: Director Mailing Address: 1575 Lake Road Civic Address:1575 Lake Road Shelburne,Nova Floor 1(NSCC Scotia campus) BOT 1WO Shelburne,Nova Scotia Phone: 902-875-7433 FAX: 902-875-7429 Pager#: Cell#: Email Address: Bruce.Hancock@novascotia.ca (maillo:Bruce.Hancock@novascotia.ca) URL: () Department Name: Fisheries and Aquaculture Branch: Division:Aquaculture Section: SubSection: Back to main(default.asp)I Back to top A http://novascotia.ca/fish/contactus/staffdir/view staff details.asp?employeeID=658 2/11/2016 Aquaculture Regulations NOVA Sd Ji t F i f) 1 4s s r tr � si r f ,yr 3 0�VV ����U|��'[��� [�������'D� Reallocated Sites ' ~~~ ` ` ' ^~~��='~�==' `^� ' `=~~r'~~`�`'' '�� Licences and Leases New legislation allows the Province maintain e registry ofterminated aquaculture sites for potential reallocation The Province ofNova Scotia has recently released a toanother operator. Before asite iaentered into the major modernization ofits regulatory framework for the registry,the site must first undergo aperformance review management and development ofthe aquaculture industry. aodescribed inthe Aquaculture Licence and Lease Akey aspect ofthese reforms has been the development of Regulations. |fthe site passes the review,the site will he onew aquaculture licence and lease application process. entered into the Registry and offered toother operators There will now bethree potential avenues for acquiring through acompetitive Call for Proposals. Proposals will aquaculture lease spaces inNova Scotia: alicence and bejudgedaccording toestablished criteria. Asuccessful lease for amarine site,anapplication for alicence and o proponent will have the exclusive right toapply for the site. lease onareallocated site and anapplication for elicence The site can only beused for the purpose for which i1was for aland based operation. Each process iaunique and io originally approved. described in more detail below, I-and Based Sites Individuals wishing t0conduct aquaculture 0nprivate property only require license from the Province. Applicants must submit acomplete application form and 3 development plan for 3nAdministrative decision.The approval nrrejection oftheapp|inatinninrnadebythe Administrator and will begoverned byadefined process that includes @nopportunity for public comment. Advanced Planning Government recognizes the benefits 0fgreater upfront planning toidentify areas suitable for aquaculture that are compatible with the environment and other users.The New Marine Sites new regulations provide several mechanisms t0promote proactive planning, including creation Toencouragebet�ordia|oguebetweentheproponen�en� ' ' local stakeholders inthe siting and design nfanaquaculture nfanaquaculture development area and determination ofunauitab|eareao TheProvin�eioVpentovvorNngwith project,the Province now requires proponents 10acquire an � interested rnuninipa|iticotoexplore future aquaculture 0ptinnfrnrnthc ��inistcrtopursuc� |caseinade�nedVrea� Arequest for anOption toLease will require the completion opportunities. ofoshort proposal that may besolicited bythe Minister inacompetitive'Ca||for Proposals'process 0rsimply accepted inanunsolicited, non-competitive process. |nboth instances,the acceptance orrejection oftheprop000| wi|| bebased onestablished criteria and the proposed activity's alignment with current provincial policy. Once anOption to Lease has been issued,the proponent will berequired to initiate ascoping exercise that engages local stakeholders and includes o1least one public meeting that will help inform their final application. When the scoping is complete and asite has been identified,the proponent must submit acomplete application package that will include adetailed Al development plan aawell asescoping document.The approval orrejection ofa |easeapp|inationvvi|| begVvorned byadefined process with the decision being made byan Independent Aquaculture Review Board. "` •In addition,a new regulatory advisory committee was established which: �. Includes Mi'kmaw representatives and stakeholders such as municipalities,the aquaculture industry and r1 h , environmental organizations; and tourism,sport fishing per,..4= and the commercial fishing industry; Y3 § Provides advice to the Minister on the implementation of the regulatory framework and will help with the continuing improvement of regulations. A newly created science committee provides a forum for ongoing discussion of the science of aquaculture and includes experts from the fields of oceanography,ecology, aquatic animal health and finfish and shellfish aquaculture. ` f Transparency } £ •The public can be kept-up-to-date on the status of a site by yt, i ti4� m . est ?t ��' � visiting novascotia.ca/fish/aquaculture/public. •More routine and proactive release of information on the aquaculture website for items such as new licences, leases Public Participation and and renewals. Transparency Public notification when an Option for a new lease has been given. We're moving into a new era for how government handles aquaculture development with a modernized approach that is built on the principles of transparency and accountability. These regulations contain new checks and balances to ensure that new aquaculture development happens where it makes sense based on the scientific evidence. There are now more opportunities for public input regarding licence and lease decisions. Nova Scotians will have access to information on fish health,environmental monitoring and decisions on licensing and leasing. For a copy of the regulations go to novascotia.ca/just/regulations. Greater Publlic Participation -The changes will provide a higher level of public input than ever before in aquaculture in Nova Scotia including: ° Public submissions for all licence and lease renewals, assignments,administrative amendments,and �f issuances of reallocated, ° Mandatory scoping sessions (with public meetings)to provide early stage opportunity for public input into new marine sites, ° Time for the general public to speak during adjudicative £ �.., hearings for new marine sites. �����t��� A(����)U����'|'�o ��� ��oreprosperity ��^ ~~~.�~.. rx~~="=. .�~.��///�� ~~. .�� K �����. []�(���[l���'t�/ ^Aquenukureisthe feoieot�lnzwingsource ofanirna| pnz�in ' ` '=^ ~ Prosperity production inthe world today. |norder 1osupport aviable and balanced approach that ^Farmed fish production now exceeds beef production provides for environmentally stable practices and economic g|obaUy growth,the regulations have been overhauled and increased tnaddress significant gaps. This will bring greater clarity -The aquaculture industry was worth more than $5Omillion and improve the process for approvals for businesses who inNova Scotia in2014. want toinvest inNova Scotia.The way weidentify, monitor ^|tdirectly employed 6O0men and women infull-and part- and rnanageriokaiobeingotrengthenedon1haLNova time positions. Scotienscan beconfident that this industry isoperating ^Atpresent,there are l40active aquaculture farms, 7ll inanenvironmentally sustainable and accountable way. shellfish, l3marine finDshand 22land based facilities. Aquaculture inNova Scotia iaanestablished and growing industry that iabecoming enincreasingly important -Aquaculture offers employment opportunities onocean economic contributor torural regions inthe province. farms,freshwater hatcheries, processing plants,offices, The responsible growth nfthe industry will require careful labs,feed mills, net and cage building and maintenance aa consideration for the environment and the important well aosupply and service areas. socioeconomic impacts for residents, businesses and -The aquaculture workforce inyoung,with many ofthe communities. The aquaculture industry has the potential workers under the age of40. toattract economic growth in communities where itmakes sense based onscientific evidence. Enforcement `Independent connp|ianneand enforoennentbythe ������U����|'��/ ' ` �''' ~ Department ofEnvironment separates itfrom the work of ^Greater opportunity for public comment through the developing the industry. licensing process (soopingoeaoiono adjudicative` ' ` ^More comprehensive regulations make expectations clear hearings and nnon''4 . for the industry and the public. ^More routine and proactive release ofinformation onthe ^Compliance iostrengthened with new Summary Offense aquaculture website for information ofinterest tothe Tickets. public atnovoaootia.00/fiah/aquaou|ture. ^Aclear way for the public tnraise concerns through the ^Afocus onfact-based decision-making through an Department ofEnvironment's toll free line etl'877'QENV|RO Independent Aquaculture Review Board that will review and A_O�7_g3O_847h). approve all applications for nnarinesites. ' ' -A modern and clear approach toadministrative decisions such earenewals and reallocating ofexisting sites that will promote transparent and effective decision making. ^Separating responsibility for compliance and enforcement from the work ofdeveloping the industry. `Encouraging businesses Loactively engage with communities and support their social and economic development. 1� NO4� �� �� ������ �� 122 Lakeview Haven Dr. cafec4mnj%ni .t Hebbville, B4V7A9 Phone: 902 543 1871 OM e-mail: paulfynes@eastlink.ca March 9th, 2016 To: Municipality of the District of Chester Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Town of Bridgewater Town of Lunenburg Town of Mahone Bay Subject: Funding Request for Seniors Safety Program Dear Council Members; As follow-up to the presentation South Shore Safe Communities (SSSC) made to your respective councils two years ago, we are pleased to report that the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Advisory Partnership has been active and The Seniors Safety Program is experiencing tremendous growth in Lunenburg County. As a reminder the partnership consists of municipal councilors, Jean-Guy Richard RCMP detachment commander, Chief John Collyer from Bridgewater Police Service, and me, as Chair of SSSC. Together the partners will help guide the future direction and activities of the Seniors Safety Program. In order to meet the terms of the program's primary funder, the Department of Seniors, we are seeking a financial contribution from each municipal unit so we can continue to operate the program on a full-time basis. To achieve this, we are seeking a commitment of funds from your municipality. The cost of providing a full-time Seniors Safety Program to cover all of Lunenburg County is $55,160 per year. Thus far we have secured the maximum grant from the Department of Seniors ($20,000), a contribution of$1,773.55 from the Lunenburg County Community Health Board, and have applied to the United Way for $8,000 (pending). The remainder we hope to make up with funding from the municipal units. The dollar amounts requested from the municipal units are as follows: 1/2 MoDL - $14,195.34 MoDC - $ 5,967.33 Town of Mahone Bay - $ 533 Town of Lunenburg - $ 1,232 Town of Bridgewater - $ 4,690.21 The dollar value apportioned to the respective municipal units is based on a per-capita formula using 2011 statistics. As you know, the number of seniors is increasing every month, and the need for the program services is also dramatically increasing. Without your support, the Seniors Safety Program, as we know it today, would not be sustainable. We appreciate your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Paul Fynes, Chair South Shore Safe Communities On behalf of the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Partnership 2/2 Outline of the Project and Benefits The Seniors Safety Program is a prevention and early intervention program designed to address senior's safety issues, reduce incidences of elder abuse, and promote better communication between seniors and police. Services are offered to seniors in their homes and in the community by one full-time Seniors Safety Coordinator. In most instances,the coordinator visits with seniors in their homes, and helps them resolve difficult issues, all with the goal of trying to keep seniors in their own homes and making their own decisions for as long as possible. To ensure that all seniors can participate in our services, programs are typically offered at low or no cost. With the advice of seniors and our partners,we identify gaps in services and endeavor to fill those gaps with effective programs or awareness campaigns. The total population of Lunenburg County was 47,234 in 2011,with 19.4%of the population aged 65+. The combined senior population in the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg(4,882),Town of Bridgewater(1,980),Town of Lunenburg(718), Municipality of the District of Chester(2,306), and Mahone Bay(300)was 10,186 in 2011. Of the total senior population, approximately 10—12% (at least 1,000 seniors)will experience some type of elder abuse. (Physical, emotional,financial, etc.) An additional 14.9%will suffer from dementia (1,522 seniors). The Department of Seniors instituted the Seniors Safety Program in 2008 as a means to support their elder abuse strategy and to support the growing number of seniors in the province. The peak population growth will occur in 2025,which means we will need more services to support seniors than we have at present. The growth of the program over the past three years has been significant. In 2013, 131 home visits were made to seniors, and in 2014 the coordinators made 189 home visits, an increase of 44%over the previous year. In 2015, a total of 360 home visits were made, an astounding 90% increase from 2014. Additionally,the program reached over 600 seniors through group programs and presentations in 2015. We anticipate that demand for the program will continue to grow in 2016. Funding from the municipality will be used to operate the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program on a full-time basis *Please see attached Annual Report for 2015. south shore safec , mm, n w Seniors Safety Program Senior SafetyPrograms Victoria U�a�}tt Ck4 h' t�4t�t1t I nY{rn{00 f art,}tti�ttil`ia�il,�ttr�, 1rlf i�1'��diis�}1141E���rt�15)}}f4t�i s s{}s{tiff t#Jt��}S (fti{t�f �i'r 71 Richet on f lyy 4}� #fit ti}it 's'" rdiganIch {�4srf{+tt}ritlic..51 Colchc:tcr Picka4 Kin �i4�:�4r44gh �' Hance An napoli: Halifax L4 nenbur Digby Queen: Y++rrnn v`h Shdburnt safec4m niies�, Nova Scotia Demographics * NS & NB are Canada's oldest provinces (2014) 18 . 3% Lunenburg County (2011) 21 . 6% 47,310 total population; 10,219 seniors (65+) Alberta (2014) 11 .4% Statistics Canada and Nova Scotia Finance"Community Counts" safec SeniorsPopulationG o r wth Lunenburg County 16234 10219 Y . ..8. z. .r aaaa----- v..v..v..v..v..v..v..v.........v..v..v..v..v.-- aaaaa--eT------------------------------ ua---- aae.r--------------------------Uev..v..v..v..v..v..v..v..v..v..v..v..v........ �aaa-----e.� 2006 2011 2031 Source: Nova Scotia Department of Seniors:Statistical profile 2009 sa fec M,, ni ies�, .; Seniors Safety Program • Community-based 0 Direct, in-home service programs customized 9 Group presentations for the needs of their and programs area Works collaboratively • Closely affiliated with with local partners RCMP or municipal 0 Receives referrals from police (housed & anyone / anywhere supervised) • Employs coordinator — Has no legislative frontline., civilian authority (voluntary & service focused) Program Goals Address the safety concerns of seniors through : — Education and awareness about crime prevention, senior abuse, personal safety, and health issues — Collaboration with community partners — Direct intervention on behalf of seniors Enhance communication between seniors and police safec. ni sou s Qre What do we do ? Programs & Activities : — Seniors Safety Academy / Living Alone — Presentations — Safe Driving Program & Driving Cessation — Age-friendly / Senior FriendlyT'" — Intergenerational Programs — Via I of Life — Home visits with seniors sa f esou 5 e5" yore Home Visits Follow-upon referrals from variety of sources Offer support and advocacy for seniors to address their concerns and safety issues. Provide information and referrals Help seniors feel safer at home, respected, valued saf e sou s fore. What we believe 1. Seniors have the right to make own decisions — Decide where and how they will live — Choose to accept or reject services or assistance — Freedom of choice to make "bad" decisions 2. The interests of the senior take precedence over those of the senior's family or of other family members 3 . Interventions should focus on the senior, and only with their permission Safe ni Sou S Qre REFERRAL CONCERN Neglect 2% Theft Disaster Relief Trans. 2% ' F �� ' Housing I Mental Health ra�, � r> r 23% � Domestic Violence t�p� l�`kJttl�i,``rs ti tr tt�����tiin�+tf Self-care: 7% Financial Abuse.: 17% Wellness Checks t � s 7% ip u Driving Dementia' and Dementia Cl 1, t ! i } E i 5 i ff�:�1�� s, ✓ g s,°�' to`� � r,.. t � jr'�z F Srttit ���r... s7 {r�J 1 tC,{s�j �t�}lrsst lJ y � t" �ryt���t��g,E ! r��� y 4Zf t 1 r f tf � ttt ft Nf� s rk fid(ft iftfr{syr it f}rtt(r{t. t,?r}2t;�r{�s� t � ,;#t ri}i,i�;t�r t. � i�ft�2}rti�dt�::s�s yl}�l� t4��?t�u�i(��i}t{r�i itfff i?... tt(£���it��;3 ita�f;•f��. �I;fX£�y�j`j��?f. i i ® A 2G S(lY 1 It£}ttJj t�J 3i t�3 t}fif iitt{t Sf tf�'f• r�.,tS£7J'hlf#lt} i �3 tf ftf Questions or comments ? Alicia Van de Sande 902 -543 - 3567 s a f c A?� 5ou,n Ii,ore Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program 2015 Summary Report The Program in Brief Communities Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program is a project of South Shore Safe Communities served in 2015 (SSSC),housed at Bridgewater Police Service(BPS),and governed by an advisory committee made up of BPS,RCMP, SSSC,and four of five municipalities in Lunenburg County.In Octo- ber of 2015 Beth George,one of two half-time coordinators left the program,and the remaining Blockhouse coordinator,Alicia Van de Sande,now staffs the program full—time. Bridgewater The program is funded in part by the municipalities,and receives grants from the United Way Camperdown of Lunenburg County,the Lunenburg Community Health Board,and the Department of Seniors. Chester Chelsea Seniors Population Growth The Need Clearland The senior population in Lunenburg 16234 County continues to grow.By 2031,it's Colpton anticipated over 35%of our citizens will be Conquerall Bank 16219 65 or older. sas Cornwall As our population ages,we anticipate Crescent Beach increased rates for dementia(14.9%),disa- bility(64%age 75+),and elder abuse _._ '� (12%). Dayspring .2006 2011 2031 Dean's Corner Services Forties One of the most important services offered Home Visits Italy Cross through the program are home visits made to 360 speak to seniors about their concerns and safe- Lahave ty issues. Lapland • In 2015,we made 360 home visits,an Lunenburg increase of 90% from 2014. 189 • Since 2010,the program has seen a 407% 131 Mader's Cove increase in home visit referrals. 101 i10 Mahone Bay • In 2015,62%of the seniors served rl Martin's Brook through the program live outside Bridge- Martin's River water. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Middlewood „I am ata loss for words to express the full extent of my gratitude for Alicia,Seniors Safety Coordinator, Newcom bvi lle and the Bridgewater Police Service. My Mom struggles with numerous physical health issues,and my step- New Cumberland father has Alzheimer's Disease. They are still living alone in their home. A situation arose in the home which was of a potentially very dangerous,yet delicate nature. When Alicia was made aware of this con- New Ross cern,she immediately began coordinating a resolution. The issue was handled quickly,and with the utmost Oakhill respect and compassion from all involved. Alicia continues to be in touch with my Mom,and Mom has Oak Island developed a deep trust in her. This all means less anxiety and more peace of mind to me. It means there are others watching out for them and offering assistance when needed. Thank you. Petite Riviere Pleasantville Seniors reached in Group Programs In 2015,over 600 seniors were Riverport 5>3 reached through group programs and 563 516 500 presentations made to seniors Rose Bay Jig ass organizations,residences,fairs,pic- Seffernville nits,and other events. Group pro- Simpson's Corner grams offered in 2015 include: West Dublin 2010 1 2— 2013- _.. • Seniors Police Academy Western Shore • LivingAlone Wileville • Seniors Safe Driving f-EN So ttz Partnerships & Referrals The Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program enhances services by working collaboratively with community partners. We encourage caregivers,volunteers,and the public to become part of the solution and help our limited resources go further. Currently we offer programs and services to all parts of the county by partnering with RCMP,VON,Aspotogan Heritage Trust,Chester Recreation,and other partners. Our primary referring agent is police.We follow up on many police files that might otherwise require expensive police resources. We also work closely with the Seniors Community Health Team, South Shore Health,Alzheimer's Society,NS Housing,Continuing Care,and seniors themselves. Referral Concern In 2015 we received 106 new referrals. The most Neglect Disaster r Relief common concerns referred to Tneff zi Trans. the program for action were Housing related to mental health 3% Domestic Violence (23%) (23%), 6� ,dementia and rtentalHltk �} ;r ' Fra d financial abuse 6% (17%). Self-care 7% Our most common referring agent is police—both BPS and RCMP(41%)-followed #57��I hi����IIi�i�Zft�E�'� mrt4a z{ by community(36%),fol- lowed by referrals from fami- ��� wellnesscnecks ly members(16%)and self- 7% referrals(7%). Funding Report Since its inception in 2009,the program has been funded by the Department of Seniors' Seniors Safety Program grant funding at$20,000 per year. The program is currently funded in part by the various municipalities in Lunen- burg County,and receives grants from the United Way of Lunenburg County,the Lunenburg Community Health Board,and the Department of Seniors. REVENUE EXPENSES Dept.of Seniors 20,000 Salaries 42,000 United Way 10,000 Facility Rental 400 Community Health Board 3,000 Professional Development 800 MOD Lunenburg 10,622 Vehicle Maintenance 2,000 MOD Chester 4,330 Cell Phones 2,000 Mahone Bay 387 Travel 300 Town of Bridgewater 3,191 Hospitality 1,100 TOTAL 51,530 Materials 450 Insurance 1,700 Clothing Allowance 500 Honorariums 100 TOTAL 51,530 � fEeWn"C MM IFS 14uNicIPALiTy CH,iWiR MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER GRANT APPLICATION FORM Council or Tourism Grant Request Name of Organization South Shore Safe Communities Applying Contact Person Paul Fynes Position with Organization Chair Mailing Address 122 Lakeview Haven Dr. Hebbville.Ns 134V 7A9 Incorporation Number with Registry of joint Stocks 3078665 (if applicable) Phone: 902-543-1871 Fax: Email: paulfynes@eastlink.ca Date: February 22nd Type of Grant(see pg 3) Council Grant OR Tourism Grant—N1— Signature of Signing Officer(s) and their position with Organization: Name Signature Position Paul Fynes Chairperson ORGANIZATION AND/OR EVENT INFORMATION: 1. Purpose or objective(s) of your organization (i.e.mission statement): To make the South Shore the safest place in Canada to live,work,and play. 2. For Council Grants -Please provide an outline of the project and its benefits to residents. For Tourism Grants - Please provide an outline of how the project will improve visitor attraction and benefit the local economy in the Municipality(attach separately if insufficient space). Please see attached report. 3. How much money are you requesting? $$5,967.33 4. Budget • Please attach a project budget showing all revenue and expenses. • You must demonstrate fundraising efforts and include a list of financial contributions from all sources. • If your project exceeds$5,000,please include a copy of your most recent yearly financial statement. • If your organization has a reserve account or large amount of savings for a designated project,please note the purpose or intended use of those funds. 5. How do you plan to spend any Council/Tourism Grant funding received? The funds will be used to operate the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program on a full-time basis. 7. Is your grant request time sensitive (for example,an event on a specific date)? No. 8. Is there additional information that may support your grant application? Please attach letters of support,etc. Please see attached. 9. Did your organization receive funds last year from the Municipality of the District of Chester? Yes No If yes,was it a Council Grant _-✓ Recreation Grant Tourism Grant How much was the grant? $4,330 (Please attach a copy of completed report form if not previously submitted) APPLICATION CHECKLIST-DID YOU INCLUDE WITH YOUR APPLICATION: _A written outline of the project and its benefits to residents _Project budget including Revenues and Expenses _Financial Statement(for projects exceeding$5,000) _Incorporation Number(if applicable) List of Directors —Application signed by signing officer(s) _Copy of report regarding previous year's grant(if a grant was received last year) If you require assistance,please contact the Municipal Office at: Phone (902) 275-3490 Fax(902) 275-3630 Emailchau hn chestenca REPORT TO COUNCIL-HOW WAS YOUR EVENT AND HOW WERE THE FUNDS SPENT? Following your event or upon the completion of your project it is requested that you provide a very brief report regarding the project and how the Grant money was spent. If a follow-up report is not received future requests may be affected. Please forward applications and reports to the following: Director of Recreation&Parks "Grants" Municipality of the District of Chester PO Box 369 Chester,NS BOJ 1J0 OFFICE USE ONLY F1 Essential Services -1 Local Non-Profit F1 National/Provincial, -1 Regional Services -1 Community Halls Cultural/Health Services 1 Report Received ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program operates under the direction of an Advisory Committee comprised of councilors from four of the five municipal units, as well as South Shore Safe Communities Chair', RCMP, and Bridgewater Police Service. The following individuals are currently active members of the Luneburg County Seniors Safety Advisory Committee: • Bridgewater Police Service—Chief John Collyer • Municipality of the District of Lunenburg—Councilor Frank Fawson • Municipality of the District of Chester—Councilor Tina Connors • RCMP—St. Sgt. Jean-Guy Richard and Community Policing Officer Cst. Angela MacEachern • Town of Bridgewater—Councilor Jennifer MacDonald • Town of Mahone Bay—Councilor Penny Carver • South Shore Safe Communities—Chair of SSSC Paul Fynes Lunenburg Senior Safety Advisory Partnership/South Shore Safe Communities as at March 31,2015 VARIANCE BUDGET ACTUAL Pos(Neg) REVENUE Province of NS Seniors 20,000 20,250 250 Municipal Contributions 19,350 19,986 636 Other Revenue 13,000 13,000 0 Interest 0 120 120 52,350 53,236 886 EXPENSES Salaries(to Mar 31,2015) 40,000 30,772 9,228 Facility Rentals 400 0 400 Professional Development 800 175 625 Vehicle Maintenance(gas posted to Feb 28,2015) 2,000 1,969 31 Office Equipment 2,500 236 2,264 Travel 3,200 0 3,200 Cell Phones 0 491 -491 Hospitality 1,100 99 1,001 Materials 450 89 361 Insurance 1,300 1,678 -378 Clothing Allowance 500 115 385 Honorariams 100 0 100 52,350 35,623 16,727 NET 0 17,613 17,613 Lunenburg County Senior Safety Advisory Partnership/South Shore Safe Communities Budget 2016/2017 Revenue Budget Province of NS Seniors (confirmed) 20,000 Community Health Board (confirmed) 1,774 United Way(pending) 81000 Municipal Contributions (pending) 25,386 MoDL 14,196 MoDC 5,967 Town of Mahone Bay(confirmed) 533 Town of Bridgewater(cash and in-kind) 4.690 55,160 Expenses Salaries +Benefits 47,110 Facility rentals 400 Professional Development 800 Vehicle Maintenance 2,500 Travel 200 Cell Phones 700 Hospitality 1,100 Materials 450 Insurance 1,800 Honorariums 100 55,160 OUR HEALTH 1410 CENTRE Healthier People-Healthier Communities March 21, 2016 Allen Webber, Warden Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King Street, Chester, NS Dear Allen, Re: Request to Amend Chester Village Land Use By-law to exempt cupolas from maximum height limit I am writing on behalf of Our Health Centre Association to request an amendment to the Chester Village Land Use By-law. Our Health Centre is requesting an exemption that would permit cupolas to exceed the current maximum height limit of 10m (33ft). Section 4.6.12 of the Land Use By-law identifies structures that are exempt from conforming to the height regulations. We propose that cupolas be added to this list of exemptions and the exemption only be allowed within the highway 3 site plan approval area. The reason for this request is to allow construction of the Our Health Centre facility as designed by architect Syd Dumaresq. The cupola proposed for the structure will not include habitable space for employees or patients of the facility. Furthermore, permitting the cupola to extend above the 10m limit will not impact sightlines of neighbouring properties. Our Health Centre Association is a registered Non-profit society and therefore, I am requesting that the application fee ($300.00) and advertising fee ($600.00) be waived for this application. I would be pleased to discuss this request in more detail should you wish it. If you have any questions regarding the request for amendment, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yo.urs truly, C. D. (Kit) McCurd Our Health Centr Association PO Box 74, Chester Nova Scotia, BOJ 1,10 1 (902) 529-5000 1 _www r ealth e tre.c Charitable Registration #82686 9703 RR0001 MUNICJPALITY \Y CHESTER Q MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO Tammy Wilson, CAO SUBMITTED BY Heather Archibald, Development Officer DATE 2016-03-31 SUBJECT Appeal Hearing for Variance to Lot Coverage for 15 King St, Chester (PID 60089943) ORIGIN Chester Village Planning Area Land Use By-law, Secondary Planning Strategy and the MGA CURRENT SITUATION: The appeal hearing for an approved variance.At an appeal hearing for a variance,Council is the deciding body. Once the decision is made no further appeals will be heard.The property owner, Mr. Larry Pringle, of 15 King St, Chester requested a variance to exceed the lot coverage limit by 1.76% (total area of 16.1 sq.m./173.5 sq.ft.) for the purpose of enabling a subdivision that will divide the property into two lots allowing for a development permit to be issued to change the use to the garage into a single unit dwelling. The property is located in the Central Village Residential zone. During the appeal period 10 letters/emails of correspondence were received from the 23 assessed property owners than were notified. Of the 10 replies, 8 were opposed and 2 had no objection. RECOMMENDATION: That Council uphold development officer's decision to approve of the variance to the lot coverage limit for 15 King Street, Chester. BACKGROUND: In 2015 the property owner began the process of applying to change the existing detached garage into a single unit dwelling. Variances Variances are enabled by section 235(2) of the Municipal Government Act. and in the Chester Village Planning Area Land Use by-law under section 4.5.14. What can be granted a variance from a land use by-law is specified under this section. Specifically 4.5.14 (b) states a Development Officer may grant a variance from the requirements of this by-law for the percentage of land that may be built upon,size or other requirements relating to yards,lot area, and lot frontage. i A variance itself does not go against the by-law, as it is the by-law that permits the variance to begin with. The granting of a variance does not disregard the land use by-law as the ability to grant a variance is held within the land use by-law itself. Planning StrateRV Under the Secondary Planning Strategy for the Chester Village Planning Area the preamble for part 4.1 states concerns about water supply and water quality in the older, central part of the village lying between the Front Harbour and Back Harbour have led to the creation of a new Central Village Residential designation which will include strict control on development density. New policies for this area will limit density through percentage lot coverage requirements, larger yard and building separation requirements than previously allowed, and a reduction of residential conversion privileges from four dwelling units to two dwelling units maximum. Larger conversions,which were previously allowed by development agreement,will no longer be permitted. The minimum lot size for this area will be set at half the original lot sizes laid out on the 1903 MacCallum Plan of Chester, so as to conserve the traditional urban form and open and spacious character of the village. Land Use by-law The planning strategy clearly states the desire to limit density through lot coverage limits, larger yards and building separation requirements.As such the Central Village Residential zone contains lot coverage limitations for all lots.The size of the lot dictates the limit of lot coverage as shown in the below chart: Central Village Residential Zone Lot Coverage Limits Lot Size Full Lot or Full Lot to half Half Lot to Smaller than Larger Lot Quarter Lot Quarter Lot Square 1Vlettles Over 1533* 743 to 1618* 372 to 743 Under 372 s .ren, Square Feet Over 16501.07* 7997.59 to 4004.17 to Under 4004.17 s ft. 17416.01* 7997.59 Lot Coverage 150,,,o 20% 30% 40% Limit *note the inconsistent numbers between full&larger lots and half to full lots. One ends at 1618 sq.m.and the other begins at 1533 sq.m. Leaving an overlap of 85 sq.m. or 914.932 sq.ft. On the surface these ratios look practical and in keeping with the planning strategy to control density with lot coverage based on how large a lot you have. One is not looking to see lots covered mostly with buildings,thus limiting the airflow,views and green vegetation that Chester is known for and what makes up part of the defining character of Chester,which in part is a small residential area,where structures are close to each other but not so close as to limit the green space between the homes. However when the above lot coverage limits are examined closer it quickly becomes apparent that the coverage limits as set forth in the land use by-law themselves are in conflict with the i planning strategy and the goal of controlling density within the core village area.As shown by the chart below one can quickly see that lots that are significantly smaller than the minimum lot size for the Central Village Residential are permitted to have a much larger density than larger lots that meet or exceed the lot size. A lot that meets the minimum requirement for lot area (7997.59 sq.ft) can only build a structure as large as a lot that is half its size (4000 sq.ft.). A lot that is only 7400 square feet can build a structure slightly larger than what could be built on a lot of 11,000 square feet. Sample Coverage Limits Lot Size (sq.ft.) Lot Coverage Limit (sq.%) Permitted Lot Coverage Percenta a (% 20,000 3000 15% 16,OQQ 3200 20% 15 000 3000 20% 11,00 2200 20% lO;oO 2000 20% 91000 1800 20% "Od0 1600 20% 7997.59 " 1599.5 20% 7j409, , 2220 30% 7,190 2190 30% 7,,000 2100 30% 5,000 , 1500 30% 4 000 1600 40% Existing Garage The former detached garage that had been in existence on the property for decades, was demolished and replaced by the current structure. A development permit for the current garage was issued in 2003 and again in 2006.The current garage was built in the same.location as the previous garage and is approximately 2.6 feet from the rear property line. A replaced structure is permitted to be rebuilt in the same location with the same yard setback. As an accessory structure this building conforms to the rear yard setback requirement of 0.6 metres (2 feet) for any rear or side lot line where the structure does not have any perforations (doors or windows). Within the Central Village Residential zone the yard setback for all lot lines for a main building is 3 metres (9.85 feet). Section 4.5.10 of the LUB states: "Where a structure which is not a sign has been erected on or before the effective date of this by-law, or subsequently in accordance with a development permit,with less than the minimum front yard,flankage yard,side yard,rear yard or any other open space required by this by-law, or on a lot having less than the minimum area or frontage, the structure may be used as permitted in the zone in which the structure is situated; and provided that the application for a development permit is supported by a location certificate or survey plan showing the location of the structure in relation to the boundaries of the property,the structure may be: i) Enlarged, reconstructed, repaired, renovated, or replaced by a new structure, provided that the structure shall not thereby be permitted to extend or increase any existing encroachment into the minimum front, flankage,side or rear yard required in that zone except by the operations of subsection 4.5.14 (variance) The existing detached garage was legally allowed to be demolished and rebuilt and the current rebuilt garage is permitted to be used for any use that is currently permitted within the zone regardless of its setbacks. The limiting criteria to allowing the garage to change its use to a single unit dwelling is not whether or not the setbacks can be met, the structure is exempt from this under the above mentioned section 4.5.10. The property owner needs to either subdivide the lot into two parcels or prove that a subdivision could occur even if it is never formally created. Mr. Pringle has elected to formally subdivide the property into two lots. Private Right-of-Way The portion of the property subject to a private right-of-way on the south property line is part of the property itself.The only limiting impact the right-of-way has from a development control perspective is that structures are not permitted to be built onto the right of way.However there is no requirement for a setback from the right-of-way.The property owner could build right up to the right-of-way should they wish to. While it is a civil matter,generally speaking a private right-of-way for access can not be blocked off in such a way that would prohibit the other party from being able to use and access the right-of-way. This would in my mind include any land alterations that would limit access. However as noted above this would be a civil matter between property owners and not something the municipality has the authority to administer.I also note,as with all private right- of-ways should all parties be in agreement a right-of-way can be removed if so desired. That decision would be up to the parties involved and not the Municipality. MGA and Subdivision of Undersized Lots Section 279 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) states where a subdivision by-law or a land use by-law specifies minimum lot dimensions or lot area and the subdivision by-law so provides,the development officer may approve a plan of subdivision that shows not more than two lots that do not meet these requirements, provided that the lot dimensions and area are not less than ninety per cent of the required minimums. The Municipal Subdivision by-law under section 10 permits this provision of the MGA for all lots within the Municipality. The MGA does not require notification nor have criteria for an appeal to this section. This is a different section of the MGA than the part that permits variances to the land use by-law requirements. Both contain allowances for lot area.Within a land use by-law certain uses can require a particular size of lot before the use is permitted.A variance to lot area related to a use but not to the change of a boundary line would require notification through section 235-237 of the MGA. i f i Lot Configuration The Municipality currently does not impose any control over lot configuration beyond the minimum lot area and lot frontage (width of the property boundary that borders the road) requirements.While lot 10A is of an unusual shape,the shape of a lot is not controlled beyond the above mentioned requirements and the provincial limitation of lot lines not being permitted to be less than 6 metres (19.685 feet approximately). There are a wide range of lot configurations within the Village and the Municipality as a whole. The Property and its Development 15 King St, Chester Fah'Ahl-9Cl r °ex11110t. Existing Lot Size 17348 sq.ft. (1611.7 sq.m.) Existing Lot Coverage Limit:20% (3469.6 sq.ft.) (322.3 sq.m.) Existing Footprint: 2769 sq.ft. (257.2 sq.m.) Existing Lot Coverage: 16 % (including the stairs that are proposed to be removed) Remaining Lot Coverage which could be used: 4% (693.9 sq.ft.) (69.3 sq.m.) r .5 Lots*Note the notification letter c.,ontained the or4linal plan dimensions(Intl lot:' coveragefigur es fear lot 1OB, but they site sketch plan that was attached to the letter is the amended plan, the number's on the plan are slightly c qfi.-rent than what is in the letter, ,r . . Lot Size 7493 sq.ft. (696.1 sq.m.) Lot Coverage Limit: 30%(2247.9 sq.ft.) (208.8 sq.m.) Existing Footprint: 468 sq.ft. (43.5 sq.m.) —excluding the removed deck (25 sq.ft) and stairs (45 sq.ft.),which are required to complete the subdivision. Existing Lot Coverage: 6.2 % Remaining Lot Coverage which could be used: 23.8 % (1783.3 sq.ft.) (165.7 sq.m.)* *While the overall remaining lot coverage is high, any additions would need to meet the yard setbacks and not be built on the private right-of-way (for as long as it is in existence) that is present on the property. In a practical sense this leaves only the front yard area that the existing garage could be expanded into. Small accessory structures could potentially be constructed in the back yard provided they met the yard setbacks.As the lot sits today, accessory structures up to the remaining lot coverage could potentially be constructed in the existing rear yard as well. LOLLOBI i Lot Size 9855 sq.ft. (915.6 sq.m.)* The original letter indicated Lot 10B to be 10140 sq.ft. Lot Coverage Limit: 20% (1971 sq.ft.) (183.1 sq.m.) Existing Footprint: 2144.5 sq.ft. (202.8 sq.m.) — excluding the removed stairs (48 sq.ft.) and the corner of the deck* (38.5 sq.ft.),which are required to complete the subdivision. *This measurement was not included in the original letter, hence the reduction from 2183 sq.ft, to 2144.5 sq.ft. Proposed Lot Coverage: 21.76 % (173.5 sq.ft. over the limit) (16.1 sq.m. over the limit) *The original letter indicated a proposed lot coverage of 21.5% at an additional 155 sq.ft, Remaining Lot Coverage which could be used: 0 % Minimum Lot Width 6 m (19.69 ft) Minimum Lot Area: 744 sq.m. (8008.35 sq.ft.) 10% maximum undersized lot (subject to section 279 of the MGA) is: 669.6 sq.m. / 7207.515 sq.ft. The existing property technically has enough area and road frontage to be subdivided into two lots as the existing lot is more than 16,000 square feet and more than 20 feet in width.Whether the property should be allowed to subdivide is a moot,point. If the owner meets the criteria they will be able to subdivide.As shown on the plan that was attached to the notification letter, Lot 10A with the garage is proposed as an undersized lot which is permitted by section 10 of the Subdivision by-law and section 279 of the MGA.This also leaves a greater than required lot area with the main dwelling which is larger and more substantial in size than the garage. A smaller lot with a smaller building and a larger lot with a larger building is in keeping with the planning strategy and the desire to control the density within the Village. The garage or dwelling could be expanded as the lot current exists as it has not reached its maximum lot coverage of 20%yet. The development of changing the garage to a single unit dwelling is permitted within the land use by-law,it is a legally permitted occurrence.The property owner has advised that he intends to proceed whether the variance is granted or not. So it is a matter of what is the best way to allow the development to happen. Alterative Options for the Property Owner: 1. Removal of an additional portion of the deck from the main dwelling to make up the difference in lot coverage limits. 2. Apply for an undersized lot approval for Lot 1013 (with the main dwelling),which would permit the structure without the need of a variance to lot coverage and would allow for further expansion on an even smaller lot with a larger dwelling that Lot 10A could ever have. IIS i i 3. Removal of an additional portion of the deck from the main dwelling to make up the difference in lot coverage limits and to allow for both lots to be approved with neither being undersized. Chester Water Supply Specific concern over the Chester Village water supply is not directly controlled through the land use by-law however a general concern about the water supply is noted through the planning strategy and the land use by-law as a whole has been developed with consideration to the water supply.A land use by-law does not work by a single section alone. The existing garage already has plumbing and running water. There is no additional connections to the municipal sewer or to the water supply of the Village. Development Officer's Decision For this variance request to exceed the lot coverage limit by 1.76% for Lot 1013. I found the variance would be in keeping with the overall intent of the existing secondary planning strategy to keep larger developments on larger lots and that the lot coverage limits as they are set in the current land use by-law are in contradiction to the planning strategy's goal of controlling development density in the Central Village Residential zone. I also believe that granting the variance of 1.76% to the lot coverage is the better solution to the development process while being reasonable to development, particularly given that both structures have been in existence as they are for the past 10 years or more and have become part of the existing character of the Village. The variance allows for lot 10B to be of a larger than required size by the by-law, while the garage lot as requested approval as a lot that is undersized by 6.4%, which is less than the 10% that is permitted. Again keeping the larger structure on a larger more appropriate lot and a smaller structure on a smaller lot but still well within the lot coverage limit for the smaller lot. Appeal Hearing A total of 8 appeals have been filed from the assessed property owners within the notification boundary. With that, the appeal hearing has been set and the decision to either uphold the Development Officer's decision to grant the variance or to overturn the decision and deny the variance now rests with the Municipal Council. i DISCUSSION: IMPLICATIONS: Please provide general overview of implications in this cell. 1 Policy: Please provide policy implications in this cell. 2 Financial/Budgetary: Please provide financial/budgetary implications in this cell. 3 Environmental: Please provide environmental implications in this cell. 4 Strategic Plan: Please provide Strategic Plan reference/implications in this cell. 5 Work Program Implications Please provide implications in this cell. ATTACHMENTS: List attachments here. OPTIONS: 1. That Council uphold development officer's decision to approve of the variance to the lot coverage limit for 15 King Street, Chester. 2. Overturn the development officer's decision and direct the development officer to deny the variance to allow for the lot coverage limit to be exceeded by 1.76%.for 15 King Street, Chester. 3. Request more information and postpone the decision Prepared BY Heather Archibald Date 2016-03-18 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Date c ( TO; MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME Tg- ,3:vrfflLrf-ycopy to .� u P.O. BOX 369 Date, AR 0 9 2016 CHESTER, N.S. BOJ 1J0 odglnalto u C ' zo/ 10313/ Reviewed by_ Scanoed I AM APPOSED TO THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FILE CM- MV-2016-002 REQUESTED FOR 15 KING STREET. THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE CHESTER VILLAGE LAND USE BY-LAW. JILL FLINN CHESTER,NS BOJ 1 .10 MARCH 8, 2016 15 March 2016 MUNICIPAI ITY OF TfflDISTRICTOF CHESTER fON11,'11IR,W11)1,''r:`'`:'N1:1t:)0j.111 [)i_I?t\fiNJllaa(" Ms. Heather Archibald MAR 15 7016 Development Officer Municipality of the District of Chester , 186 Central Street � '� � '' ' J A i PO Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ1J0 Dear Ms. Archibald, RE: Variance File CM_MV_2016-002 for 15 King Street, Chester, NS. am writing to appeal the above Variance Request in the Chester Village Residential Zone. I base my appeal on the precedence it sets, not only in this zone but also within the entire Chester Village Planning Area. It has been my experience over the years in Chester, as one variance is allowed the next one comes sooner, and pushes the envelope just a bit further. History indicates that a1.5% allowance today can quickly morph into a 3.5% variance tomorrow. In addition to stating Zoning and Land Use By-Laws, as you have done in your letter addressed to: Assessed Property Owner, I believe that it is also incumbent on Development Officers to consider Planning Strategies, whose purpose it is to add colour, life, meaning and substance to Land Use By-Laws. Note: Planning Strategy Vision - 2.1 bullet 7 "The residential character of Chester is its greatest asset. Planning policies should be weighted to protect that asset." When a lot containing a single architecturally compatible home, built on a well balanced, well designed and landscaped lot in the CVR Zone is so crudely and unnaturally subdivided so as to accommodate a subdivision with no apparent thought as to street scape, restricted water and sewage infrastructure or density, I believe we are not taking the Planning Strategies into consideration. For the above reasons I appeal and request that Variance CM—MV-2016-002 for 15 King Street, Chester, not be granted. Yours truly, i GailFraser CC: Municipal Clerk, Municipality of the District of Chester MARlVEN7- Chester Nova Scotia copy Chester Municipal Council P[> Box 309 151 King Street MAR 0 2016 Chester Nova Scotia Original to Reviewed by March 2. 2O1G For the Attention ofCouncil Re: Variance File CK8_y0\/_2O1G-0O2for 15King Street, Chester I am writing to oppose the granting of a variance for the above property for the following reasons: I am not interested in increasing the density of this part of the Village to the extent we are living cheek by jowl. Until such time mothere is a Municipal water system in place, | do not believe it is prudent to add additional strain onanalready taxed water supply. The maximum lot coverage has been established at 20%. This percentage was not arrived at arbitrarily. Exceeding the limit of coverage by 1.5% is not a large amount but how do you plan to deal with other requests for variances?Where does the line get drawn? 5%? 10%?The line has been drawn and it is 20%. | question how living quarters were ever permitted above the garage. I wonder if a subdivision like this will be allowed in the new MPS for the CVR area. Probably not, so why now? | truot this letter of objection will be sufficient to quash the request for subdivision. If not, please advise as to any further action required prior toMarch 31. 2U18. Sincerely, ~ S'� � '| Sylvia Moir Copy: Heather Archibald Heather Archibald From: Robert P Helms _ _ ,..._... Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:06 AM To: Heather Archibald Subject: Re:Variance request for 15 King St- Notification Dear Heather, As you probably heard, my neighbor portrayed the situation as one of eminent domain where we were at risk of losing our house and well. While that did not make much sense to us (we could not think of a situation where that would be necessary in the public good),we were alarmed and wanted to get a more reliable understanding of the situation immediately. The Pringles are friends of ours and we discussed their plans with them in September of last year and we are happy for you to approve their plans. Sincerely yours, Robert Helms On 3 Mar 2016, at 14:51, Heather Archibald<harchibaldy chester,ca>wrote: Morning Robert, I was forwarded an email from you regarding a variance.After talking to our public works department I gather there was a lot of misinformation on what the original letter I sent was saying, For clarity,the owner of 151(ing Street has applied for a variance to their lot coverage limit.As per requirements of the land use by-law,you and all assessed property owners within 6o metres of said property have been mailed a letter notifying you of the variance request. There is a formal appeal period where any assessed owner that is within the notification boundary can submit an appeal to the variance request to the Municipal Cleric, Pain Myra (pmrP chester.ca).The appeal period ends March 17, 2016.If the variance is appealed,a hearing is held in front of Council who will then make the final decision. A letter has been mailed to you to the address we have on file for,you which is: PIAZZA PERUZZI 4 , FLORENCE ITALY 50122. I have also attached a copy of the letter to this email.Should you wish to appeal the decision to grant a variance for lot coverage to 15 Ing St please submit a signed letter to the Municipal Cleric prior to the end of the appeal period.Given,your location,an email with an attached scan or image of a signed letter of appeal would be sufficient. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me, I appreciate your patience and sincerely apologies that the letter your neighbour received appears to have caused some upset and confusion. Kindly, i 11 eater ArchO aU Development Officer 1 i I i Chester NS March 3, 2016 Pam Myra Municipal Clerk, Municipality of the District of Chester, PO Box 369, Chester, NS Re:Appeal to Variance Request for 15 King St, Chester, NS Dear Ms Myra, I own the neighbouring property at King St, Chester and yesterday I received notification that 15 King St Chester has been granted a variance. I also own property at 18 Queen St and 80 Central St along with a vacant lot on Central St in Chester, all within a block of 15 King St. My husband Tim Harris owns a commercial building at 5 Pleasant St in Chester, around the corner from 15 King St. Please accept my appeal on this variance for the following reasons: 1. The maximum 20% of lot coverage must be respected. To allow a variance to increase this coverage only invites other variance applications to request an increase in this percentage of lot coverage,gradually increasing such. 2. The proposed new lot will be 7,493 sq ft, 507 sq ft smaller than the required lot sizes of 8,000 sq ft in this neighbourhood. 3. The current garage that is to be on the new Lot 10A, is set back 2.6-- 2.7 ft from the boundary line, 7.2 ft short of the 9.85 set back required in this neighbourhood. When the existing two storey garage was built several years ago, it replaced a single level garage. The new structure includes living accommodation,yet the 9.85 set back was not enforced at the time, as it was considered an accessory building. Can this please be clarified as to why this was allowed? This block of King St has been my family's neighbourhood since 1991. We value the older homes and the well maintained properties and we do not feel that permitting this variance for 15 King St is in keeping with the spirit of our neighbourhood. Thank you. Sincerely, Barbie Nunn-Porter i i . C��> Dr. Williani Gallacher r mulalr(PA TY O i i H. March r) 2016 rc�t~l�rdiu, MA Ms, I leather Archibald 1 h 2016 Dcvelopmcut.Officer t �' l Municipality of the District of Chcstcrl w1 _._ 186 Cental Street, PO Box 369 Chester,NS Bol 1,10 Dcar Ms.Archibald Thank you for your letter of 20"February informing me of the decision concerning variance file CM—MV-2016-002 for 15 Icing St. Chester. For the following reasons I am appealing this variance. The revised secondary planning strategy and land use by-law effective from January 28 2004,section 2.0 states that.the vision and objectives of die Municipality are to"protect the existing character of Chester", Further subdivision will tend to change the existing character in this part of the old village, especially Wan extension of tic structure already existing on lot 10A follows. i Secondly, section 4.0 of die same document:concerning land use refers to the goal of protecting water supply and water qualityin die older central )art of(lie village I am concerned drat increasingdie densit of tl)c dwellings in this part of die ' I ' 1',' y , 1' I old village might have adverse effects. Thirdly,an extension of die structure on lot I OA is part of die ultimate plaii and landscaping around it may have consequences for my property with respect,to water run-off. My understanding is dint it is intended to place fill on die right of way to die old Dayton property as part.of landscaping around the structure on lot 10A.Section 4.11 of die already quoted Land Use lay-law states taint.such alteratiOnS in land level to accommodate a ne-vi,house can be regulated by die Municipality. I think that would apply in this case, since die structure currently on Lot 10A is described as a detached accessory garage and not a house. Sincerely, Co. 9,00 -. William Gallacher i i Heather Archibald From: Stephen Flinn Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:39 AM To: Heather Archibald Cc: Lynda Flinn Subject: 15 King St, Chester Good Morning Heather, I'm writing this note in response to the letter sent to Lynda and I regarding the granting of a variance for 15 King Street. Lynda and I strongly disagree with this request.The land use by laws were put in place for a reason and I don't believe they should be disregarded. I am also concerned with the precedence this decision could have on future requests. Regards Stephen and Lynda Flinn a i i 1 i i i V CHESTER, LUN. Co. N.S. BOJ 170 March 11, 2016 Chester Municipal Council c/o Pam Myra, Municipal Clerk Box 369 King Street Chester NS BOJ 1 J Dear Sirs/Mesdames Re; Variance File CM-MV 2016-002 for 15 King Street, Chester Owner: Lawrence Pringle Zoning: Central Village Residential Re: Variance Request to exceed the lot coverage limit by 158 square feet for proposed lot 1013 (remainder) We acknowledge receipt of Heather Archibald's letter dated February 29, 2016 with enclosures concerning the above-noted matter. We hereby appeal Ms. Archibald's decision to grant the requested variance. It is our intention to attend the hearing of the appeal. As such, please advise in a timely manner if there is any change from the tentative date, March 31, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. MUNICIPAi.RY OF THE DIST ICr OF: �ire ; ;R Yours truly, I r David Miller 5 1 ! i",it,1 a f S Nancy Murray VarlanceAppealLtr160311,wpd Heather Archibald From: Susan Collins Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 10:26 AM To: harchibald @chester.ca Subject: Pringle plans To whom.it may concern: My name is Susan Collins.I own the property at 29 King Street and I have no objection to the plan to subdivide m,King Street. Thank you. Susan Collins Sent from my iPhone i i i i I 1 I i K Heather Archibald From: James McNeill Sent: Wednesday, March 16,2016 10:33 AM To: Heather Archibald Subject: Fwd:Variance File CM-MV-2016-002 for 15 King St, Chester, Hi Heather, The attached went out to Pam Myra yesterday. Many thanks for your assistance in helping me understand the ins and outs of the zoning regulations. Z also understand that the enforcement of these regulations isnot always easyl I Duncan McNeill ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: James McNeill Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:32 PM Subject: Re Variance File CM_MV_2016-002 for 15 King St. Chester. To: Pam Myra<pmyra cr,chester.ca> Municipal Cleric,Municipality of the District of Chester. Dear Ms. Myra, I understand that the above variance has been granted to Lawrence Pringle. i This variance allows new Lot 1 OB, which has area 10140 square feet(and is thus allowed a maximum lot coverage of 2028 square feet)to increase this lot coverage to 2183 square feet, i.e.by an additional 155 square feet, which appears to be a trivial amount. To allow the variance seems at first sight to be entirely reasonable. However, and much more importantly,this variance allows old Lot 10 (a lot of normal size and shape)to now be subdivided into two ridiculously complex parcels with an extremely awkward boundary dividing them, a practice that both flies in the face of good municipal planning and will undoubtedly be a problem for new owners for years to come. i i i Many years ago, during the last Five Year Review of the Municipality of the District of Chester Planning Strategy and Land-Use Bylaw, a group of dedicated individuals spent a huge amount of time, effort, patience and goodwill to review and modify all aspects of the previous document so as to make it a fair and reasonable template for guidance and use by reasonable people. This variance fails miserably to fulfill the promise of that document. A stricter standard of basic planning principles must be adhered to in interpreting the Five Year Review, otherwise even more ridiculous lot configurations will certainly shortly present themselves. What is the point of devoting all that time and energy to community planning if such a simple matter as the current variance is able to so effortlessly subvert it completely? I appeal and request that Variance CM—MV-2016-002 for King St. Chester not be granted. Duncan McNeill 38 Central St., Chester,NS BOJ 1Jo 2