HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017-03-02_Council_Public_Agenda Package_Special MeetingPage 1 of 2
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday,March 2, 2017 at 8:45 a.m.
Chester Municipal Council Chambers
151 King Street, Chester, NS
1.MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS.
3.PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (8:45 A.M.–9:00 A.M.)
4.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:(available –March 16, 2017)
5.COMMITTEE REPORTS:
5.1 Other committee reports.
6.MATTERS ARISING:
6.1 Second & Final Reading –Amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS)
and Land Use By-Law: Public Parks on inland waterways (deferred from
November 3, 2016 Public Hearing).
a)Staff Report #2 prepared by Director of Community Development dated
November 1, 2016 regarding Park/Open Space development on land not
owned by MODC.
7.CORRESPONDENCE:
7.1 Presentation by Nancy Green, South Shore Housing Action Coalition regarding
update on (SSHAC) and results of the 2016 Needs Assessment (appointment @
9:00 a.m.)
8.NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 Request for Decision prepared by Senior Planner dated February 17, 2017
regarding Proposed amendments to Regulations under the Heritage Property
Act.
Page 2 of 2
10.ADJOURNMENT.
ARRANGED APPOINTMENTS
9:00 a.m.Nancy Green, South Shore Housing Action Coalition regarding update on SSHAC
and 2016 Housing Needs Assessment.
9.IN CAMERA:
9.1 Contract Negotiations –Sale of Services –Town of Lunenburg (TBC)
9.2 Contract Negotiations –Sherbrooke Lake
Municipality of the District of Chester
A BY-LAW AMENDING THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
MUNICIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND LAND USE BY-LAW
Municipal Planning Strategy Amendments
Be it enacted by the Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester as follows:
1)Amend the Municipal Planning Strategy by adding Sections 2.8, 2.8.1, and 2.8.2 sections as
follows,and renumbering subsequent sections as necessary.
2.8 Land Adjacent to Inland Waterways for public access and use
The Municipality recognizes the importance and many benefits of parks and open space.Within
the Municipality of Chester, parks are developed by the provincial or federal government or by
the Municipality of Chester. However, public spaces can be developed by other public or private
organizations,or by individuals,that may not have the same level of accountability to the
residents of the Municipality of Chester (MODC). Of particular concern is development that
provides public access to inland waterways through the development of parks, open space, or
other recreational lands.
Council is concerned about the environmental impacts of lakefront and waterfront development
as well as the impact on the neighbouring residents.When Municipal Council develops land for
public purposes, it does so for the residents of MODC as well as visitors and there are procedures
in place that ensure consultation with the public, MODC’s recreation committee and Council with
an aim to ensure that the use integrates into to the surrounding community and the environment
with minimal impact.
Council believes that the development of land by interests other than the Municipality of Chester
or the Crown, which provides public access to inland waterways,should be subject to a process
that ensures adequate measures are taken to protect the environment, reduce potential land use
conflicts and engage the public in the process.
In order to ensure that the development and use of land adjacent to inland waterways for public
purposes has a minimal impact on the environment, and the surrounding community,Council
adopts the following policies:
2.8.1 To consider the development of land that provides public access to inland waterways
identified on Schedule A-11,which are not owned by the Crown, or the Municipality of
the District of Chester,only by Development Agreement subject to policies 8.0.4 and
8.0.12.For the purpose of this policy access to inland waterways comprises activities such
Park Development on land not owned by MODC February 24, 2017
as, but not limited to,boat launches, beaches, picnic areas, parking areas and associated
public amenities.
2.8.2 Prior to a development agreement for a development subject to Policy 2.8.1 being
considered by Council or any committee of Council, the developer must hold at least one
public information meeting in the community in which the development is proposed to
receive feedback and input from the community on the design,layout,and use of the
development.
2)Further amend the Municipal Planning Strategy by adding Section 8.0.12 as follows:
8.0.12 In addition to policy 8.0.4, when approving a development agreement for uses that
provide public access to inland waterways on property that is owned by interests other
than the Municipality of Chester or the Crown, Council shall be satisfied that:
a)neighbouring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of traffic
generation, visual intrusion, hours of operation,noise, or lighting.Council may also
consider the overall impact of the development on all properties which abut the lake.
b)that the proposed development resolves any potential compatibility issues with
nearby land uses resulting from lighting, signage, outdoor display, outdoor storage,
traffic, vehicle headlights, and noise through appropriate site design, landscaping,
buffering and fencing.
c)the development site is suitable in regards to grading, soils, geological conditions,
and susceptibility to man-made or natural hazards.
d)areas used for the purpose of an off-leash dog park shall be fenced with chain link
fencing or a suitable alternative, that is at least four feet high.Preferably, the fence
should be equipped with a double-gated entry to keep dogs from escaping and to
facilitate wheelchair access.
e)sufficient, adequate parking areas are provided and that safe access to the parking
areas has been provided for the public.
f)safe and adequate roadway access is provided.
g)where applicable,adequate measures have been taken to minimize increases in
stormwater runoff from any development in order to diminish flooding,siltation,
non-point source pollution and to minimize any impacts on water quality measures,
and minimize erosion.
h)boat launches shall be limited to those that provide access to non-motorized water-
craft.
i)any structures,such as boat launches, piers or wharves used for fishing or boat
access, are located away from any areas designated as swimming areas.
Park Development on land not owned by MODC February 24, 2017
j)consideration has been given to neighbourhood access and connection, particularly
connectivity to existing park and trail systems.
k)the developer has reasonably demonstrated that they have attempted to address the
concerns that were raised at the public information meeting required under Policy
2.8.2 which are able to be controlled though the development agreement process
according to the Municipal Government Act.
Land Use By-law Amendments
3)The Land Use By-law is amended by adding the following sections and renumbering subsequent
sections as necessary.
4.3.5 Development and use of land adjacent inland waterways for public purposes
Where a development provides public access to inland waterways for public purposes, including
parks, open space, recreational purposes, a development agreement is required in accordance
with Municipal Planning Strategy Polices 2.8.1 and 2.8.2.
4) Further amend the Land Use by-law is amended at Section 6B.1.1 by adding:
b) (v)Developments subject to Section 4.3.5
Clerk’s Annotation for Official By-law Book
Date of First Reading:
Date of Advertisement –Notice of Intention
Date of Second Reading:
Date of Advertisement of Passage of By-law:
Certification and seal:
Municipality of the District of Chester
Community Development Department
Staff Report #2
Prepared for:Warden and Municipal Council
Submitted by:Tara Maguire, Community Development Director
Date:November 1, 2016
Subject:Park/Open Space development on land not owned by MODC
APPLICANT Council Initiated
PROPOSAL Amendments to the MPS and LUB to require development that
provides public access to inland waterways through the
development of parks, open space, or other recreational lands to
be done through a Development Agreement.
LOCATION General amendment –all zones
LOT SIZE n/a
DESIGNATION n/a
ZONE n/a
SURROUNDING USES n/a
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION Notification provided to surrounding municipalities.
Public Information meeting held October 15.
Recommendation
For discussion and decision.
Background
During an in camera discussion on September 8, Council directed staff to prepare amendments to
the MPS and LUB that would address their concerns with the development of parks that allow
public access to inland waterways.A staff report was presented to Council on October 6. Council
gave first reading to proposed amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS)and the
land use by-law (LUB). Notice of first reading was published in the Chronicle Herald on October 7.
A public information meeting was held on the proposed amendments on October 15.
The Municipality recognizes the importance and many benefits of parks and open space.
Normally, within the municipality, parks are developed by the provincial or federal government or
Staff Report #2 Page 2
Park Development on land not owned by MODC February 24, 2017
by the Municipality of Chester (MODC).However, public spaces can be developed by other public
or private organizations, or by individuals, that may not have the same level of accountability to
the residents of the MODC. Of particular concern is development that provides public access to
inland waterways through the development of parks, open space, or other recreational lands.
Staff understand that Council is concerned about the environmental impacts of lakefront and
waterfront development as well as the impact on the neighbouring residents.Concerns include:
traffic generated on the roads that access waterways (which are often private
roads, or rural public roads which often do not meet municipal standards)
noise and pollution from motorized boating
litter and garbage
the impact of increased noise, outdoor display areas, lighting and outdoor storage
areas
environmental impact / environmental integrity of waterway
the use of the park as an off-leash dog park
ensuring adequate parking is provided while also minimizing impacts on nearby
properties
When Municipal Council develops land for public purposes, it does so for the residents of MODC as
well as visitors and there are procedures in place that ensure consultation with the public, MODC’s
recreation committee and Council with an aim to ensure that the use integrates into to the
surrounding community and the environment with minimal impact.
There is a public purpose for requiring that the development of land by interests other than the
Municipality of Chester or the Crown, which provides public access to inland waterways, should
be subject to a process that ensures adequate measures are taken to protect the environment,
reduce potential land use conflicts and engage the public in the process.
Discussion -Considerations
These proposed changes would require a development agreement process to be followed. A
development agreement is contract between council and the developer. Prior to approving a
development agreement, Council must be satisfied that a proposed development is consistent
with Council’s policies. These amendments create the policies that council would need to
consider when approving a development for the development of land by interests other than the
Municipality of Chester or the Crown, which provides public access to inland waterways.
The criteria that can be included in a development agreement are limited by the powers given to
the municipality in the Municipal Government Act (MGA). Council’s jurisdiction over land use
ends at the high water mark.When regulating development that provides access to inland
Staff Report #2 Page 3
Park Development on land not owned by MODC February 24, 2017
waterways, Council can control uses on the land, but their ability to control uses that occur in or
on the water are limited.
There are some criteria already established in the Municipal Planning Strategy that council must
consider when approving development agreements. They are outlined in Policy 8.0.4:
Policy 8.0.4
That when considering amendments to the Land Use By-law and in considering development
agreements, in addition to all other criteria as set out in the various policies of this Planning
Strategy, Council shall be satisfied that:
a) the proposal conforms to the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
b) the proposal conforms to the applicable requirements of all Municipal By-laws, except where the
application is for a development agreement when the Land Use By-law requirements need not be
satisfied.
c) the proposal is not premature or inappropriate due to:
i)financial ability of the Municipality to absorb costs related to the development;
ii)adequacy of Municipal services;
iii)the adequacy of physical site conditions for on-site services;
iv)creation or worsening of a pollution problem including soil erosion and siltation;
v)adequacy of storm drainage and effects of alteration to drainage patterns including potential
for creation of a flooding problem;
vi)adequacy and proximity of school, recreation, emergency services, and other community
facilities;
vii)adequacy of street networks, on-site traffic circulation and site access regarding congestion,
traffic hazards and emergency access,including fire vehicles;
ix)adequacy of on-site water supply for domestic consumption and for fire-fighting purposes;
x)inadequate separation from watercourses or inadequate separation from the ocean shoreline;
xi)proximity to areas of high archeological potential as identified on provincial government
mapping
d) the development site is suitable regarding grades, soils, geological conditions, location of
watercourses, flooding, marshes, bogs, swamps, and susceptibility to natural or man-made hazards.
e) all other matters of planning concern have been addressed.
In creating the criteria and policies that would regulate these developments, consideration was
given to the uses which are most likely to occur in parks or open spaces.
A)Recreational Uses
Public access to inland waterways is commonly done in order to allow the public to enjoy the
many recreational benefits of the lakes and watercourses. Boating, fishing,and swimming are
commonly suggested at activities that are not possible if the waterfront is entirely under private
ownership. Swimming is probably the one activity that is the least intrusive for neighboring
properties and the other property owners around a lake.Council’s ability to regulate where
Staff Report #2 Page 4
Park Development on land not owned by MODC February 24, 2017
swimming happens is limited to the structures associated with a swimming area and ensuring
that they are not located near structures that will be used for fishing or boating.
Fishing can occur either from a boat, or from the shoreline. The concerns with fishing from a
shoreline would mainly revolve around the location of such activities and how they would impact
potential swimming areas.It would be difficult for council to address these concerns under a
development agreement. The MGA has specific criteria that can be considered by development
agreement. Land uses are able to be controlled, however, this is not the same as saying that
activities on the land can be controlled. If fishing was a land use, council could retain some
control, however, it is an activity and therefore it is difficult to control where and when fishing can
occur.In addition, the Angling Act “…permits people who are engaged in recreational fishing
passage on foot along the banks of watercourses, across uncultivated land and across Crown
lands” (CBCL, 2008, p.143).If a structure were constructed to provide a place for people to fish, the
structure would be a land use that would then fall under municipal jurisdiction. Council could
review the location and details of the structure to ensure it is located away from areas which
would pose safety concerns.
One of the biggest concerns with public access to inland waterways, is the presence of boats.
Generally, passive recreational use of the lake does not pose too many concerns with regard to
environmental impact, nor do they create significant amounts of noise that could create a
nuisance for the nearby properties. The issues become more complex for motorized boats which
are generally larger,noisier, and have a greater environmental impact than non-motorized boats.
When it comes to regulating the size or types of boats or the engine size there are a number of
questions that should be considered:
What is the goal of the regulation?
Why is this a reasonable and rational purpose?
How will the regulation accomplish the goal?
Why are certain boats singled out for regulation?
Does the regulation apply equally to all properties?
In this case, it is a reasonable public purpose to protect residents who own property on the
waterway who might be affected by the introduction of additional of boats and to control
motorboat access to the waterway. However, consideration should also be given to the fact that
other properties on the waterway do not have restrictions regarding the type or size of boats they
use on the waterway, nor the engine size. If the public purpose is to prevent or control motorboats,
the courts may expect that the same restriction would apply to all property owners.
There is concern over the perception that Council is attempting to control the use or activities on
a waterway which is not under their jurisdiction.As stated earlier in this report, the MGA limits
what can be regulated through a development agreement. Land uses and structures are clearly
Staff Report #2 Page 5
Park Development on land not owned by MODC February 24, 2017
items that can be regulated by a development agreement. It is clear that a wharf or ramp is a type
of land use, however, it is less clear if this means that a development agreement can regulate how
the ramps is used. Council does not have the ability to regulate the dimensions or a structure,
unless they do this as a proportion of lot dimensions or frontage. Such an approach would not
guarantee small structures that limit they type of boats that could be used, since it would be
relative to the lot size.Council can control land uses, which may include a wharf, ramp or other
structure that meets the shore. It is not as clear how, or if, their authority extends beyond the high
water mark.
Another major concern with boats is the environmental impact on water quality. While council
has some authority to control factors such as stormwater runoff, and sedimentation that are a
result of development or land use, environmental protection of the lake remains the jurisdiction of
the province.
B)Off Leash Dog Park
Increasingly, public parks are including areas for off leash dog parks. The parks often raise a
number of concerns for the surrounding community. Noise, safety, conflicts with other park users,
unsafe access, a lack of adequate fencing, are all issues that may make these parks unwelcome
neighbors. Given the growing trend towards providing a space for dogs to socialize and run off their
leash, it would be reasonable to regulate this type of land use. In terms of regulating this use though
development agreement the main issue is ensuring that the boundaries of the area are identified
and that adequate fencing is provided. The American Kennel Club (www.akc.org) suggests a four-
to six-foot high chain-link fence. Preferably, the fence should be equipped with a double-gated entry
to keep dogs from escaping and to facilitate wheelchair access.
C)Traffic, Parking and Road Access
As previously mentioned, many of the properties are adjacent to inland waterways are located on
private or rural roads that may not be constructed to a municipal standard. While council could
give consideration to a requiring the property to have roads constructed to municipal
specifications, this cannot be extended to the roads that access the property. The development
agreement only applies to the property on which the development is occurring. Council can give
consideration to the road and adjacent properties on the access road, including: safety concerns;
and impact of increased traffic. Likewise, council can include criteria to ensure sufficient parking
to serve the development, suffice lighting of the parking area, and safe access from the parking
area to the rest of the development.
D)Public Consultaiton
One of council’s concerns with development that provides public access to inland waterways
when the property is not owned by either the Crown or the Municipality of Chester, is the level of
accountability to the public and the need to involve the community as early in development
Staff Report #2 Page 6
Park Development on land not owned by MODC February 24, 2017
argument process as possible. The draft criteria outlined in Appendix A include a requirement for
the developer to hold at least one public information meeting in the community in which the
development is proposed. The intention of this meeting is for the developer to hear the concerns
of the neighbours and residents in the community and to allow them an opportunity to influence
the design and features of the development. It is recognized that not all issues may be able to be
addressed by the developer, however, council will need to give consideration if the developer has
reasonably demonstrated that they have attempted to address concerns. If a concern is outside of
the control of the developer, or is an unfair expectation to place on the developer, council will have
the ability to use their discretion in making this determination.
E)Other Concerns
In considering development agreement criteria for the development of property that allow public
access to inland waterways the following concerns have been addressed:
•where applicable, adequate measures have been taken to minimize increases in
stormwater runoff from any development in order to diminish flooding,siltation,non-point
source pollution and to minimize any impacts on water quality measures, and minimize
erosion;
•consideration has been given to neighbourhood access and connection, particularly
connectivity to existing park and trail systems;
•potential compatibility issues with nearby land uses resulting from lighting, signage,
outdoor display, outdoor storage, traffic, vehicle headlights, and noise through appropriate
site design, landscaping, buffering and fencing;
•neighbouring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of traffic generation,
visual intrusion, hours of operation,noise, or lighting.Council may also consider the
overall impact of the development on all properties which abut the lake.
Options
1.That Council give second reading to the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy
amendments as outlined in Appendix A.
2.That Council defer second reading to the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning
Strategy amendments as outlined in Appendix A.
3.That Council decide not to amend the Land Use By-law and Municipal Planning Strategy.
References
CBCL Limited.“Our Coast. Live. Work. Play. Protect: The 2009 State of Nova Scotia’s Coast Technical Report”.
2009. Province of Nova Scotia. http://novascotia.ca/coast/state-of-the-coast.asp
SOUTH SHORE HOUSING
ACTION COALITION
NANCY GREEN
DATE: MARCH 2, 2017
Housing in Municipality of the District of
Chester
Housing Assessment Highlights
Healthy, affordable housing options for
all, at every stage of life
CURRENT COALITION MEMBERS
•Second Story Women’s Centre
•South Shore Transition House
Association
•Aspotogan Heritage Trust
•South Shore District Health
Authority
•Western Regional Housing
Authority
•Lunenburg County Community
Health Board
•Town of Bridgewater
•Municipality of the District of
Lunenburg
•Municipality of the District of
Chester
•Region of Queens Municipality
•Town of Lunenburg
•Town of Mahone Bay
•Nova Scotia Health Authority
•Community members
EmergencyShelters TransitionalHousing SocialHousing
AffordableRentalHousing
AffordableHomeOwnership
AffordableRentalHousing
AffordableHome
Ownership
Government Subsidized Housing Non-Market Housing Market Housing
WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
SSHAC
PlanningBegins
2013
2014 -2015
Housing NSFunding
Letters of
Support from
Municipal Units
CMHC fundingConsultants hired
2016
Data Collection
SurveyMunicipalMeetingsCommunityMeetingsFocus Groups
2016Summer
Report
Completed
Housing NeedsAssessment
Focus
Groups
Surveys
Municipal
Focus
Groups Community
Meetings
Statistical
Data
Collection
15
14
10
7
6
5
4
5
Weak local
economies/unemployment
Property taxes
Development costs
Financig barriers
Needs are more specialized
Weak demand
Lack of land
Planning regulations
What issues do you see facing the housing sector in the community
where your business interests are located? N=23 respondents
MUNICIPAL PROFILE HIGHLIGHTS
National Household Survey: Average Shelter Costs
2011
National Household Survey: Average Shelter Costs
2011
$702
rental shelter
costs**
$704
ownership
shelter costs**
•$654
Median Shelter Costs
•30%
Cannot afford MedianRental Shelter Costs •20%
Cannot afford MedianOwner Shelter Costs
1 in 6
Core Housing Need
TENANTS HOME OWNERS
35 %12 %
IDEA BANK
Promotion of HousingNS programs
Flexibility in Zone Rules
Municipal Role in Assisted Living
Housing Supports through Social Enterprise
Raising Awareness of Residential Tenancies
Home Value Program
Supportive Housing
OUR ASK
The South Shore Housing Action Coalition requests that council direct
staff to review the Housing Needs Assessment and consider what
opportunities exist for the municipality to take action.
Thank-You
sshousingaction@gmail.com
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Bill DeGrace Date:February 17, 2017
Reviewed By:Date:
Authorized By:Date:
CURRENT SITUATION
Bill 118, an Act to amend the Heritage Property Act (HPA), received Royal Assent in December 2015.
Regulations under the HPA will undergo their own amendments prior to proclamation of the Act. The
Co-ordinator of the Nova Scotia Heritage Property Program,on behalf of the Minister of Communities,
Culture and Heritage, Hon. Tony Ince, has requested input from municipalities on proposed
amendments to the Regulations for Heritage Conservation Districts.A response is requested by March
27, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council provide written concurrence with the proposed amendments to the
Regulations for Heritage Conservation Districts.
BACKGROUND
In the spring of 2015, prior to the creation of Bill 118,municipalities were requested to review proposed
changes to the Heritage Property Act and Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations.There were ten
amendment topics. Seven topics were considered by Council to be administrative or procedural in
nature,and Council concurred with them.1
Council’s comments on three other topics had to do with (1)the definition of the term “substantial
alteration”,(2)criteria for de-registration of municipal heritage property, and (3)cultural landscapes. Of
particular interest to Council was de-registration because of a series of requests in recent years. Staff
understands that feedback on these matters is being advanced to government with the expectation that
regulations would be drafted.
1 They included (1) a municipal registry requirement; (2) the composition of the Heritage Advisory Committee; (3) the scope of
registration; (4) deregistration advice by the Heritage Advisory Committee; (5) timelines for considering heritage conservation
districts; (6) public notification for the establishment of heritage conservation districts, and (7) approval procedures.
REPORT TO:Council
SUBMITTED BY:Bill DeGrace, Senior Planner
DATE:March 2, 2017
SUBJECT:Proposed amendments to Regulations under
the Heritage Property Act
ORIGIN:E-mail request for input from Province of
Nova Scotia
2
request for decision
During the debate on Bill 118, a number of additional matters surfaced, resulting in a proposal that
certain sections of the Heritage Property Act be repealed, and their contents lifted from the Act and
placed in revised Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations. They include:
1)Section 19C,regarding the scope of design guidelines for buildings in heritage conservation
districts;
2)Section 19E (2) to (6),which has to do with the issuance of heritage certificates and
development permits under a conservation by-law; and
3)Section 19G (2) to (5), which concerns the duties of a heritage officer when there is a heritage
conservation district.
Because these sections describe processes,the NS Government believes they are more properly placed
in the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations as opposed to the Act.
Three additional amendments to the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations are proposed:
4)That a new section requiring a reasonable timeline to complete the development and approval
of a heritage conservation plan and by-law be prepared (up to three years following
completion of background studies; currently there is no timeline);
5)That a new section requiring a timeline for the Minister to consider approval of a heritage
conservation plan and by-law be prepared (to align with the Ministerial approval timeline in the
Municipal Government Act);and
6)That regulations for cultural landscapes be prepared along the same lines as those for heritage
conservation districts.
DISCUSSION
None of these measures affects Chester Municipality at this time.The Municipality does not contain any
heritage conservation districts,and there is no heritage conservation district plan and by-law. From
time to time,individuals have expressed interest in district designation, but there does not appear to
have been a critical mass of public support to warrant the initiative.Nevertheless, to accommodate the
possibility, the draft Municipal Planning Strategy contains a policy allowing for consideration of building,
district and cultural landscape designation for places of importance to communities, through
collaboration with property owners and heritage organizations.
Staff regards the above-described amendments (1), (2), (3),(5) and (6)to be administrative/procedural
in nature and have no concerns.
Amendment (4) is the only one that would directly impact Council and staff given that it imposes a
timeline (three years to develop and approve a conservation plan and by-law following background
study).A timeline would vary depending on the size and complexity of the proposed district, but staff
consider the three-year window to be acceptable provided that it is exclusive of required background
studies, as proposed.
3
request for decision
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
n/a
Financial/Budgetary
n/a
Environmental
n/a
Strategic Plan
Goal #4:Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources.
Work Program Implications
No staff resources implicated with these Regulation amendments.
OPTIONS
a)Council to provide written concurrence with the proposed amendments to the Regulations for
Heritage Conservation Districts;
b)Council to refer the matter to the Municipal Area Advisory Committee and to the Village Area
Advisory Committee for comments before responding;
c)Council to provide an alternate response based on its deliberations.
1
Cindy Hannaford
Subject:FW: [CAO] FW: Proposed amendments to the regulations for Heritage conservationDistricts- Comments due March 27
From:CAO [mailto:cao-bounces@municipal-website-venture.com]On Behalf Of Andrea Jeffs
Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 10:35 AM
To:cao@municipal-website-venture.com
Subject:[CAO] FW: Proposed amendments to the regulations for Heritage conservation Districts-Comments due March
27
Dear CAO/Clerk:
On behalf of Minister Ince, Communities, Culture and Heritage, I am requesting input from your municipality on proposedamendments to the Regulations for Heritage Conservation Districts in association with Bill 118.
The amendments have been developed based on input from stakeholders during the debate of Bill 118.With Royal Ascentprovided on December 18, 2015, government has moved sections of the Heritage Property Act associated with establishing
a municipal heritage conservation district to regulations, specifically:
1.Section 19C of the Act is repealed and the following Section substituted:
19C Design guidelines included in a conservation by-law must be prescribed by the regulations.
It will be recommended to government that a new section of the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations beinserted to address design guidelines.It is suggested that the wording repealed from Section 19C of the Act bemoved to regulations.
2.Subsections 19E(2) to (6) of the Act are repealed and the following subsection substituted:
19E(2) A certificate referred to in subsection (1) is subject to the conditions prescribed by the regulations.
It will be recommended to government that a new section of the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations beinserted to address certificates.It is suggested that the wording repealed from Subsections 19E(2) to (6) of the Act bemoved to regulations.
3.Subsections 19G(2) to (5) of the Act are repealed and the following subsection substituted:
19G(2) The responsibilities of the heritage officer under subsection (1) are as prescribed by the regulations.
It will be recommended to government that a new section of the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations beinserted to address the responsibilities of the heritage officer.It is suggested that the wording repealed fromSubsections 19G(2) to (5) of the Act be moved to regulations.
In addition, based on feedback provided to inform Bill 118, the following amendments to the Regulations will also beconsidered by government:
4.Timeline to consider municipal heritage conservation districts
It will be recommended to government that a new section of the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations be
inserted to address a reasonable timeline to prepare and process an application for a new heritage conservationdistrict by a municipality.
2
It is suggested once the background studies have been accepted by Minister in compliance with Section 7 of theHeritage Conservation District Regulations, the municipality will have up to 3 years to complete the development andapproval of the conservation plan and bylaws associated with the district.
5.Approval procedures
It will be recommended to government that a new section of the Heritage Conservation Districts Regulations beinserted to provide timeline for Minister to consider the approval of a conservation plan and by-law in Section 9.Ifsupported, it will align with timelines prescribed within the Municipal Government Act.
In addition, it will be recommended that the notification requirements prescribed in Section 8 of the HeritageConservation Districts Regulations be amended to better align with the Municipal Government Act.If supported,municipalities would be required to publish notice of its intention to adopt a conservation plan and by-law in anewspaper circulating in the area of the district.
Finally, it will be recommended that regulations be prepared to support cultural landscapes.If supported, these newregulations will compliment with those supporting municipal heritage conservation districts.
To ensure your municipality and its heritage staff have the opportunity to review these proposed amendments, pleaseprovide a written response to my office by March 27, 2017.
Heritage Property ProgramCulture and Heritage DevelopmentDepartment of Communities, Culture and Heritage1741 Brunswick StreetP. O. Box 456, Halifax, NS B3J 2R5.
Should you or your staff have any questions, I can be reached directly at 902-424-6396 or kevin.barrett@novascotia.ca.
Sincerely,
Kevin BarrettCoordinator, Heritage Property Program