HomeMy Public PortalAbout2018-11-15_Council_Public Agenda Package (Updated - 8.4 added)MOTIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL OF COUNCIL
FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2018 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEEETING
2018-482 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS
2018-483 APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 COW MEETING MINUTES
2018-484 TOURISM/BUDGET
MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Connors that the Committee of the
Whole recommend to Council the following option:
Council approve an 2018-19 unbudgeted expenditure of up to $25,597 to enable the
Tourism Coordinator hours to increase to 35 hours per week for the full fiscal year; and,
further that the 35 hours per week continue up to March 31, 2020 at which time it will be
reassessed.CARRIED.
2018-485 2018-19 -2ND QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND FORECAST
MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Councillor Church that the Committee of the
Whole recommend to Council to receive the receive the 2018-19 -2nd Quarter Financial
Statement and Forecast. CARRIED.
2018-486 In Camera -Section 22(2)(c)–Personnel Matter.
2018-487 Adjournment
MOTIONS FOR COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION FROM
TUESDAY,OCTOBER 23, 2018
MUNICIPAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
2018-479 APPROACH PROPERTY OWNERS’TO REGISTRATION AS HERITAGE PROPERTIESMOVED by Carol Nauss, SECONDED by Councillor Church we recommend that the 5 following propertiesowners 5144, Lighthouse Highway 3, Chester Basin; 123 East Side Martin’s River Road; 5333 Highway #3,Chester Basin; 165 Marriott’s Cove; 5274 Rte. #3, Chester Basin be approached to see if they were interestedin completing the process to have them registration to as Heritage properties. CARRIED.
2018-480 WAVE REGISTRATION FEE ASSOCIATED WITH REGISTERING HERITAGE PROPERTYMOVED by Debbie Reeves, SECONDED by Leslie Taylor be recommended to council that the registration feeassociated with registering their property as Heritage Property for the 5 following properties owners 5144,Lighthouse Highway 3, Chester Basin; 123 East Side Martin’s River Road; 5333 Highway #3, Chester Bas in;165 Marriott’s Cove; 5274 Rte. #3, Chester Basin be absorbed by Council. CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Garth Sturtevant Date October 31, 2018
Reviewed By:Tara Maguire Date November 7, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy Wilson Date November 7, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
Representatives of the Harris Lake Property Owners Association (HLPOA)have approached Council to
request a higher level of land use control on lands around Harris and De Adder Lakes. The stated intent of
the association is to protect the environmental integrity and water quality of Harris and De Adder Lakes
while also protecting property values. This goal is proposed to be accomplished by limiting seasonal use
of Recreational Vehicles, prohibiting campgrounds and implementing new lot standards that would a pply
to future subdivisions.
Council has directed staff to prepare a report discussing the potential to rezone lands around Harris and
De Adder lakes from the proposed General Basic Zone to Single Unit Residential (SU)Zone. Staff
contacted the HLPOA to clarify their request and were advised that while stated in a presentation to
Council, HLPOA is in fact seeking to have the lands rezoned to a newly created zone and do not wish to
be rezoned to the SU Zone. Staff have included analysis on the request (rezone to the SU Zone) and
discussion points on the revised request to have a new zone created for Harris Lake.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend Option 1:Uphold the existing decision made on October 11, 2018 to maintain the
proposed General Basic Zone around Harris Lake with the understanding that the proposed GB Zone will
require a Development Agreement for any new Campgrounds or RV Parks which exceed 20 sites.
BACKGROUND
Members of the HLPOA contacted Council and met with st aff during the summer to discuss their concerns
with existing RV use on adjacent lots as well as the creation of a large RV park or campground being
developed on the opposite side of Harris Lake. The HLPOA wished to prevent the creation of an RV Park
through zoning or other Municipal authority.However, staff determined that the RV Park under
development is legally permitted and it is anticipated that it will be protected as an existing non-
conforming use, should the property be rezoned in the future.
In their letter to Council,the HLPOA expressed their acceptance that the RV Park currently under
development cannot be prevented by the Municipality. Council discussed the request to rezone and
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department
DATE:November 15, 2018
SUBJECT:Rezoning Request for Harris and De
Adder Lakes (District 6)
ORIGIN:Presentation by HLPOA to Council on
October 25, 2018
2 Request For Decision
decided that the proposed General Basic Zone was appropriate for this area with the understanding that a
Development Agreement will be required for new RV Parks or Campgrounds with 21 or more spaces .
Council felt that this planning process is appropriate for that type of development in this area. Council d id
not believe it was appropriate to prohibit RV Parks/Campgrounds and expressed concerns about “spot
zoning” this lake. Further, Council did not wish to set a precedent for creating new unique zones for very
limited parts of the Municipality. Council made a decision not to proceed with creation of a new zone for
lands around Harris Lake and this was disseminated to the HLPOA by staff on October 12, 2018.
At a recent Council
meeting held on October
25th, 2018, members from
the HLPOA presented to
Council and put forward a
revised request to have the
lands around Harris and De
Adder lakes rezoned to the
SU Zone. Members of the
HLPOA made a
presentation to Council
and highlighted other parts
of the Municipality where
the SU Zone has been
applied to specific
communities at the request
of residents. The HLPOA
requested that Council
adhere to the wishes of
their members,who
“control more than 80% of
the land bordering the
lake” and rezone the area
as SU.Staff have received a
membership list and
verified it against property
ownership information
(Figure 1). While exact
percentages will vary based
on how the total area is
calculated, staff agree that
a majority of owners are
part of the HLPOA. Beyond Map 1:Showing Harris Lake,De Adder Lake and surrounding Properties.
3 Request For Decision
that, staff are not able to verify that all members of the HLPO A support the requested changes.
Council directed staff to prepare a report discussing rezoning the lands to the SU Zone.
In earlier discussions with the HLPOA, staff suggested the SU Zone as a possible solution to address the
concerns raised.Staff heard from the HLPOA that the SU Zone did not go far enough to address their
specific concerns (outlined later in this report).The SU Zone does not require environmental protection
and may restrict the use of properties for commercial purposes that may not be the desired outcome for
the HLPOA.Staff are unclear on what types of commercial activity the HLPOA is supportive of. If Council
supports the request to create a new zone to address concerns, further detail will be needed on what
types of commercial uses and at what scale should be permitted.
Due to this uncertainty regarding the current request to Council, s taff contacted Gary Graves, President of
the HLPOA and received clarification by email (Schedule A)that the stated request for the SU Zone was a
misunderstanding and that the HLPOA is again requesting a unique zone to address the items raised with
staff.
DISCUSSION
Given the original direction to prepare a report on the Single Unit Zone, and subsequent clarification that
the HLPOA is requesting a newly created zone,staff have structured this report to analyze applying the SU
Zone in the first part and in the second part to offer consideration to the request of the HLPOA for a new
zone.
Rezone to Single Unit Residential Zone
The Single Unit Residential (SU)Zone has a history of being applied to specific communities, subdivisions,
or areas that have requested Municipal Council implement stringent regulations and controls governing
the use of lands by limiting the number of dwellings per lot and restricting most commercial use s. The
policy goal of the SU Zone within the Draft Municipal Planning Strategy reads “To safeguard the character
and foster the stability of established single-unit residential neighbourhoods, while limiting or prohibiting
other land uses”. This stated intent is primarily aimed at protecting existing community char acter which
constitutes a single unit neighbourhood.
Current policy within the draft Municipal Planning Strategy for the SU Zone:
Policy CC-16 The Single Unit Residential Zone shall be applied only in the Settlement Area and
shall generally be applied to existing residential neighbourhoods primarily
consisting of single-unit dwellings. The extent of the Single Unit Residential Zone
shall be shown on the Zoning Map in the Land Use By -law.
Policy CC-17 The Single-Unit Residential Zone shall:
a) permit single unit dwellings as the primary land use;
b) permit limited types of home-based businesses;
c) regulate the use of Recreational Vehicles;
d) prohibit all other uses including the keeping of farm animals.
4 Request For Decision
This existing policy has not been designed to protect the natural environment or water quality.The SU
Zone is designed to regulate land use and density with the goal of preserving community character. The
SU Zone is intended to be applied to established residential neighbourhoods that request pro tection from
land uses which may not be compatible with the existing character.
Staff conducted an extensive site visit and confirm that many of the lots surrounding Harris Lake contain a
single unit dwelling (home or cottage), other lots contain Recreational Vehicles (RVs) and some lots
contain a single unit dwelling in addition to an RV(s)and/or a second dwelling unit often in the form of a
“Bunkie” built adjacent to the shoreline (Figure 1).As a result,there are a number of properties which
currently would not comply with the provisions of the SU Zone.The proposed language for the SU Zone
will strictly control the use of RVs for human habitation, storage within an RV and storage of an RV on a
lot. If the SU Zone is applied, between 5-8 properties would become existing non-conforming uses. This
status will allow those properties to continue to operate/use the non -conforming use or structure but will
prevent new secondary dwellings on a lot and new RVs would need to comply with all regulations,
including obtaining a Temporary Development Permit each year to use the RV for human habitation .
Figure 2 shows an example of a “Bunkie” serving as a second dwelling unit on a lot. Any existing second
dwelling units will become existing non -conforming if the zoning is changed to the SU Zone.
A second factor to consider when evaluating the merits of applying the SU zone is the necessity to amend
the General Future Land Use Map (GFLUM)(Figure 3), attached to the Municipal Planning Strategy. The
Figure 2: showing an example of an existing second dwelling unit, “Bunkie”,on a lot, built adjacent to Harris
Lake. Inset image showing the interior of the structure (Photo Source: www.viewpoint.ca).
5 Request For Decision
GFLUM is made up of
various Land Use
Designations,each of which
contain various zones that
are applied through the
Land Use By-law and Zoning
Map. Virtually all lands north
of Highway 103 are
currently designated as
Rural Area.The Rural Area is
described as a mix of
wilderness, resource lands
and rural communities
characterized by a low
population density. The
Rural Area supports access
to open space and natural
features while also
supporting traditional
industries and permitting a
wide range of
developments.The only
zone contained within the
Rural Area is the General
Basic Zone, specifically
designed with a low level of
land use control.
The SU Zone may only be
applied within the
Settlement Area, which is
described in the Planning
Strategy as maintaining a
rural feel with more
concentrated settlement
patterns and where steady
growth is likely. If Council
wishes to proceed in
applying the Single Unit
Zone, the GFLUM will be
amended to include lands
Figure 3:showing proposed land use designations as outlined in the draft
Municipal Planning Strategy.
6 Request For Decision
around Harris and De Adder Lakes to be denoted as Settlement Area.
Application of the SU Zone to properties around Harris Lake is unlikely to significantly improve
environmental protection of the lake. The SU Zone is designed to protect community character in specific
areas when requested by residents. The SU Zone does not contain adequate measures to satisfactorily
protect water quality such as minimum lot size, large setbacks or lot coverage provisions. If Council wishes
to assist the HLPOA in developing and maintaining a modern lakefront community composed of single
unit residences which restricts most other types of land use, application of the SU Zone may be
appropriate. Staff wish to emphasize that application of the SU zone for a purpose other than protection
of community character is not appropriate or in keeping with policy statements contained within the draft
Municipal Planning Strategy.
Clarification of HLPOA Request of October 25, 2018 –Create New Zone for Harris Lake
Following Council’s direction that staff prepare a report considering rezoning lands around Harris Lake to
the SU Zone, staff clarified that the HLPOA does not support application of the SU Zone but is requesting
unique zoning around Harris and De Adder Lakes. Council has previously considered this request and,at a
meeting held on October 11, 2018,gave direction to staff to notify both the HLPOA and Developer of
their decision to keep the proposed zoning as General Basic.
Council must decide if it wishes to reopen the debate on creation of a new zone for the lands around
Harris and De Adder Lakes.
Request for Unique Zoning by HLPOA
The following section outlines the request of the HLPOA and p rovides analysis and discussion.
Staff met with representatives of the HLPOA in July 2018 to discuss their request for more stringent
zoning. A “wish list” was provided to staff with the following requests for the new zone:
To have Harris Lake rezoned from General Basic to Rural Resi dential
To have the property on and around Harris Lake to be restricted to personally owned property
Each lot size to be a minimum of 2 acres
Each lot to have a minimum 200 feet of water frontage
Each lot to have a maximum of 1 permanent residential structure building and or 1 RV or cottage
per regulation size building
Each lot to have an approved septic system approval plan
Visiting RV’s or camper may be allowed on a temporary basis
No properties are to be developed for commercial purposes where a co mpany or association or
partnership leases property for the use of travel trailers (This restriction for commercial purposes
does not prevent a person or family from operating a home based business from their personally
owned property residential building,cottage or RVs or from renting their personally owned
property residential building, cottage or RVs to others from time to time).
Only 1 dock per property
7 Request For Decision
Only 1 power boat over 10 mph allowed per property (and maybe even 1 motorized boat under
10 mph as well)
No campgrounds permitted
Only landowners with lake frontage have access to the water.
Several items on this list are beyond the scope or authority of a Municipal Government. The Municipality
cannot impose regulations for property ownership around the lake. Further, the Municipality does not
regulate the use of lakes or have authority to regulate the types or classes of vehicles (boats). This al so
applies to the request to prevent anyone who does not own lakefront property from accessing or using
the lake.
The “wish list” focuses on protecting property values, community character and limiting access to the lake.
Other items such as each lot requiring a septic system,are already addressed and regulated by Nova
Scotia Environment.
The assertion by the HLPOA that the request for stringent zoning is primarily due to environmental
concerns is not supported by the list of requested provisions.Council should thoroughly consider the
desired outcome for the community when determining what zoning or provisions are appropriate for this
rural area.
The draft Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By -law contain existing measures to protect the
water quality of lakes, watercourses and wetlands.Environmental protections, in particular related to
water quality, have been expressed as a priority during public engagement meetings held in the Spring of
2018. The Lakefront Overlay will be created to provide a buffer around all lakes for new dwellings.The
Lakefront Overlay will also limit the percentage of land that can be covered in hard surfaces and will
require development permits for all structures such as boathouses or sheds built within 20m of the high
water mark.In addition, the draft Land Use By-law contains setbacks from all Wetlands, Watercourses and
Waterbodies, which come into effect whenever a Development Permit is required. Larger or more
intensive developments that require Site Plan Appr oval or a Development Agreement may be subject to
further requirements such as maintaining or replacing a vegetated buffer along watercourses and the
submission of stormwater management plans to control and contain runoff.
Earlier versions of the draft Land Use By-law included additional provisions aimed at environmental
protection,such as requiring vegetated buffers for all developments within the Lakefront Overlay. Council
made the decision to remove some of these provisions, aiming to strike a balance between protection of
water quality while still permitting a wide range of development in the rural parts of the Municipality.
A decision to move forward and create unique zoning for Harris Lake, that is not applied more broadly to
other lakes, is not in keeping with previous decisions and direction of Council.If Council feels strongly that
the HLPOA has demonstrated that the area is a good candidate for protecting property values and
community character, the application of the Single Unit Zone may be a ppropriate.Alternatively, Council
may wish to revisit the provisions of the Lakefront Overlay and Wetlands, Watercourses and Waterbodies
8 Request For Decision
setbacks if there is a desire to add more environmental protections that would apply widely across the
Municipality.
A Holistic Environmental Approach
If Council feels that the HLPOA have identified a need for increased protections around lakes and
lakefront development, which should be addressed across the entire Municipality, staff suggest a holistic
approach that will consider a wide range of interrelated factors that impact water quality.These factors
include: the extent of protections surrounding lakes (best practice would see the entire watershed
protected), the uses permitted within the zone proximate to the lake, the intensity (density) of the uses
permitted, setbacks from the water, requirements to maintain vegetated buffers, limits on hard surfaces
and regulations for new private roads.
If Council wishes to pursue more stringent environmental protection for lakes to be applied widely across
the Municipality, staff can research and bring back proposals for additional protections.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Depending on which option is chosen, new or amended policies with the Municipal Planning Strateg y
may be required to facilitate the direction given by Council.
Financial/Budgetary
None identified.
Environmental
Potential to add further protections for water quality. Application of these provisions should be uniform
unless justification is provided detailing why some areas are more deserving of additional protections.
Strategic Plan
Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity.
Work Program Implications
Staff time may vary depending on which option is chosen.
OPTIONS :
Council may direct staff to proceed with the following:
1.Uphold the existing decision made on October 11, 2018 to maintain the proposed General Basic
Zone around Harris Lake with the understanding that the proposed GB Zone will require a
Development Agreement for any new Campgrounds or RV Parks which exceed 20 sites.
2.Direct staff to apply to Single Unit Residential Zone to lands a round Harris and De Adder Lakes
(specify which properties are included)and subsequently update the GFLUM to create a
corresponding Settlement Area around Harris and De Adder Lakes;
3.Direct staff to create a unique zone for Harris and De Adder Lakes to address as many items as
possible from the “wish list” provided by the HLPOA. Apply this new zone to lands around Harris
and De Adder Lakes (specify which properties are included);
4.Direct staff to maintain the proposed General Basic Zoning. In addition, direct staff to research
and bring forward additional environmental protectio ns to be considered as additions to the
9 Request For Decision
Lakefront Overlay or Wetlands, Watercourses and Waterbodies provisions within the draft
Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law.
ATTACHMENTS
Schedule A –Email from Gary Graves titled “Re: HLPOA Zoning Update” dated October 26, 2018
Schedule B –Draft Single Unit Residential Zone
10 Request For Decision
SCHEDULE A -EMAIL FROM GARY GRAV ES TITLED “RE: HLPOA ZONING UPDATE” DATE D
OCTOBER 26, 2018
11 Request For Decision
12 Request For Decision
SCHEDULE B –DRAFT S INGLE UNIT RESIDENTI AL ZONE
6.2 Single Unit Residential Zone
6.2.1 Permitted Uses and Developments
The following uses are permitted in the Single Unit Residential (SU)zone subject to the
specified approval process and standards:
Approval
Process
Min. Front
Yard
Min. Side
Yard
Min. Rear
Yard
Max.
Height of
Structure
Residential
Detached dwelling up to
1 per lot DP 1.5 m 1.5 m 1.5 m 10 m
Home-based Businesses DP Subject to section 6.2.7
Other
Waterfront Parks not
owned by the
Municipality
DA
6.2.2 Prohibited Uses and Developments
The following uses and developments are expressly prohibited in the Single Unit Residential
(SU)zone:
a)Manufactured homes;
b)Shipping containers;
c)The rearing, breeding, boarding, sheltering and keeping of any Farm Animal.
6.2.3 Special Requirements: Habitation of Vehicles
Within the Single Unit Residential (SU)zone, no automobile, truck, bus, coach, rail car,
recreational vehicle or other vehicle, or part thereof, with or without wheels, shall be used for
human habitation, except that a recreational vehicle may be used for temporary human
habitation for a maximum of sixty (60) days in any calendar year provided that such use:
a)has received a temporary development permit for the sixty (60) day period of habitation;
b)is carried out in a recreational vehicle bearing a valid motor vehicle registration and
inspection;
c)is limited to one (1)recreational vehicle on a lot at any one time;
d)meets all minimum yard requirements for residential uses in the zone in which the
recreational vehicle is located;
e)shall not be connected to a wastewater system;
6.2.4 Special Requirements Short-Term Habitation of Vehicles SU
13 Request For Decision
Notwithstanding 6.2.3, nothing shall prevent the temporary habitation of recreational vehicles
within the Single Unit Residential (SU)zone, up to a maximum of fourteen (14) days in any
calendar year without the requirement for a temporary development permit or a development
permit.
6.2.5 Special Requirements: Storage of Recreational Vehicles
Within the Single Unit Residential (SU)zone, storage of a recreational vehicle is only
permitted on lots that also contain a dwelling.
6.2.6 Special Requirements: Storage in Vehicles
No automobile, truck, bus, coach, streetcar,recreational vehicle, camper or other motor vehicle
or part thereof, with or without wheels, no mobile home, container, shall be used for the
storage or shelter of goods of any description.
6.2.7 Special Requirements -Home Based Business
A residential dwelling may be used for a home-based business provided that:
a)The dwelling is occupied as the place of primary residence by the operator of the business;
b)No more than 25% of the floor area of the main dwelling, or a maximum of fifty (50) m² of
floor area, whichever is less, is devoted to the business use;
c)Home-based businesses shall fall within one of the following:
i)Professional services;
ii)Craft workshops;
iii)Studios for the practice or instruction of fine arts or crafts.
d)Retail sales shall be limited to the sale of products, made, assembled, refinished or repaired
on the premises;
e)One (1) on-site parking space, in addition to that required for the dwelling, is provided;
f)Outdoor display associated with the business shall not be permitted;
g)Outdoor storage associated with the business shall be permitted in the rear yard only and
shall be required to be screened from view by a fence, no le ss than two (2) m in height.
h)The external appearance of the building shall not be changed by the home-based business;
j)No signs shall be permitted on the lot related to the home-based business.SU
1
Cindy Hannaford
Subject:FW: PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK BETWEEN NSFM ANDDMA--Action Required: For Information PurposesAttachments:image001.png; ATT00001.htm; Progress Report - October 30 2018.pdf; ATT00002.htm;SIGNED Partnership Agreement - Spring 2018.pdf; ATT00003.htm
From:NSFM Info <Info@nsfm.ca>
Date:November 5, 2018 at 9:43:59 PM AST
To:Tracy Verbeke <TVerbeke@nsfm.ca>
Subject:PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK BETWEEN NSFM AND DMA --Action Required:For
Information Purposes
TO:Mayors/Wardens, Councillors, All Units
CC:Chief Administrative Officers/Clerk-Treasurers, All Units
FR:Deputy Mayor Geoff Stewart, President, NSFM
RE:PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK BETWEEN
NSFM AND DMA
Dear Members,
Please find attached the most recent progress report on the Partnership Framework signed in May
between NSFM and the Department of Municipal Affairs.The Partnership Framework is also
attached.
Included in the Progress report is a description of the work undertaken and completed over the last
year.Many of the items in the Framework stem from our 2017 Resolutions.The report shows that
there is progress being made, however many of these are long -standing, complex issues that will take
time.The Ministers Roundtable with NSFM Executive on November 30 th provided an opportunity
to review this progress and to commit to continuing to push for completion. Three commitments
have been completed.
Included in this report is a list of 15 legislative amendments or new bills passed since 2015 by the
provincial government.
REQUEST FOR D IRECTION
Prepared By:Chad Haughn Date November 1,2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder)Wilson, CAO Date November 1, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
The Municipality of Chester provided an opportunity for not-for-profit organizations to submit
proposals for the community use of the Fox Point Community Centre property and building.
The deadline for the Expression of Interest submissions was October 5, 2018 and no proposals
were received.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council give staff direction on the future of the Fox Point Community
Centre property and building.
BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2018 Council directed staff to issue an Expression of Interest for the community
use of the Fox Point Community Centre.Before making a final decision on the Centre, Council
wanted to provide the community with one last opportunity for a group to present a plan for
the use of the building with a condition that the use would benefit the community. An
Expression of Interest procedure was created,and advertising was done through various means
(Explore Life, newspaper, social media and community newsletters).
During the advertising period staff did not receive any inquiries, no one attended the
mandatory site visit and no proposals were received.
DISCUSSION
Since there was no interest from organizations to use the community centre for a community
purpose, Council must now decide what to do with the property and building.There are
several options that Council could considered for the Fox Point Community Centre:
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Chad Haughn,Recreation & Parks
Department
DATE:November 15, 2018
SUBJECT:Future of the Fox Point Community
Centre
ORIGIN:Expression of Interest
2 Request For Direction
1.Municipal Use
A)Mothball the building.Presently,there is no Municipal demand for the type of
space available at the Community Centre.Council could decide to keep the building
for some future use, minimal maintenance would be done to keep the building from
deteriorating significantly.
B)Demolish the building and keep the property. If it is determined that the building is
not suitable for any Municipal purpose, it could be demolished and the land retained
for some other future use.
2.Sale of Property
The property could be sold to the private sector.The Municipality would gain the
revenue from the sale but would lose the ability to provide direct input into the use of
the building or property.For the sale of the building, staff would source a local broker
and develop a plan to advertise the sale.
Note –The Municipality owns a small parcel of land on the opposite side of highway 329 from
the Community Centre. This should be kept in mind when decisions are being made.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
The Municipal Government Act (Sections 50 & 51) allows the Muni cipality to sell land at market
value when it is no longer required for municipal purposes. The Act also gives the Municipality
the ability to sell or lease land to a not-for-profit organization for less than market value.
Financial/Budgetary
Since May 2018 the Municipality has been doing routine inspections and maintenance on the
building. The annual operating cost is expected to be approximately $6,000 plus staff time plus
any repair costs.Costs will continue to be incurred as long as the Municipality is responsible for
the building.
Note –there are outstanding work orders related to a recent fire inspection. This work will
need to be completed prior to any new use of the facility.
Environmental
NA
Strategic Plan
Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources
Work Program Implications
Now that the building is owned by the Municipality, Public Works staff have an increased work
load to complete regular inspections of the facility for insurance purposes and to ensure the
building is maintained and not deteriorating .
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Chad Haughn Date November 7, 2018
Reviewed By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, CAO Date November 8, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder)Wilson, CAO Date November 8, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
As part of the Municipal Grants Program, the second deadline for Council & Tourism Grants has
passed (October 31st)and several applications were received. A District Council Grant was also
received.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council review the applications received and determine funding levels.
DISCUSSION
Council Grants
Five Council Grant Applications were received:1.CAMS: Well Fed Students Project $4,0002.Chester Theatre Council: Sound Equipment Upgrade $7,7343.Chester United Baptist Church: Wheelchair Ramp Replacement $8,0004.Royal Canadian Sea Cadets:Mini Storage Barn $1,0005.Western Shore & Area Improvement: Heat Pumps, Kitchen Upgrades $7,800
Total Requests $28,534
Total Council Grant Funds Available $12,800
Tourism Grants
Three Tourism Grant Applications were received:1.Permanent Vacation Society: Mini Web /TV Series $5,0002.Rural Roots Market:Workshops, Advertising, Amenities $2,5283.Hike NS: Hike Summit 2019 (Oak Island Resort)$2,500
Total Requests $10,028
Total Tourism Grant Funds Available $7,000
District Council Grant
One District Grant Application was received:1.CAMS: Memory Garden $523
District 3 Grant Funds Available $1,250
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Chad Haughn,Recreation & Parks Dept.
DATE:November 15, 2018
SUBJECT:Council, Tourism & District Grant
Requests
ORIGIN:Municipal Grants Program
2 Request For Decision /Direction
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Financial/Budgetary
Upon review of applications, Council will determine the total amount of grant funds to be
allocated.Council grants budget is $54,500 with $12,800 remaining, the Tourism grants budget
is $18,000 with $7,000 remaining and the District Council Budget for District 3 is $2,500 with
$1,250 remaining.
Environmental
Strategic Plan
Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources
Work Program Implications
ATTACHEMENTS1.Copies of all grant applications.
REQUEST FOR DECISION /DIRECTION
Prepared By:Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng Date November 5, 2018
Reviewed By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date November 7, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date November 7, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
On May 11th, 2018, Municipal Council approved the 2018-2019 Capital and Operating Budget.
Included in the Capital Budget was a decommissioning evaluation of the Mill Cove Fire Protection
System.The budget for this project was estimated at $20,000, Net HST.A Request for Proposals
(RFP) for a Decommissioning Evaluation was issued in the spring, with the work awarded to CBCL
Ltd at an estimated cost of $9,800 plus HST;and their report is the subject of this Request for
Decision/Direction (RFD).
RECOMMENDATION
This matter is for discussion and direction from Council is required to determine the next steps
forward as it relates to the Mill Cove Fire Protection Services.
BACKGROUND
In May 2010, the Municipality made application to the UARB for the abandonment of the Mill
Cove Park Water Utility. On March 28th, 2011, the UARB approved the decommission ing of the
Utility, subject to three (3) conditions.To date,the Municipality has met two (2) of the conditions
through previous capital projects;the installation of private wells and a signed MOA for the
supply of water with the owners of the elementary school.
The third condition,as per the UARB decision, clause 63a)requires “The fire protection system,
which consists of the existing system of the Utility that is regarded as useful with significant
capital costs, is maintained”. Staff have investigated the implications of this condition and
understand that it has a greater financial impact to the Municipality than originally anticipated.
In 2015, Staff retained SNC Lavalin Inc. (SNC) to provide an assessment of the suitability and
condition of the existing fire protection system. The report was to be accompanied with
improvement options and costs to extend the life of the system in order to co ntinue the provision
of fire protection to the area. The components that were included in the assessment were the
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Engineering & Public Works Department
DATE:November 15, 2018
SUBJECT:Mill Cove Fire Protection System –
Decommissioning Evaluation
ORIGIN:2018-2019 Capital Budget
2 Request For Decision
Fire Hydrants, Distribution Piping, Diesel Fire Pump and components, Sprinklered Properties, the
Water Reservoirs and Supply well, and the existing Fire Pump House.
After completing their assessment, SNC provided three (3) costing optio ns for a range of
improvements.The costs range from $ 493,275 -$ 697,675, and it should be noted that these
costs are Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) which could vary greatly (+/-50 %)from the actual cost
of construction. Further design would be required to refine the costs however, it is expected
based on experience that the actual cost of construction for each option would be much higher.
A fourth (4th)option would be to potentially discontinue centralized fire protection services
within the service area, which is the subject of this RFD.To provide the time necessary to
investigate this option as well as to complete the work with any selected option, th e fire pump
was replaced to ensure fire protection service could continue at its current service level. This
work was completed last August at a cost of approximately $140,000 plus HST.
DISCUSSION
The objective of the study was to evaluate if the potentia l exists to decentralize fire protection,
and if so what are the costs relative to maintaining the existing centralized system , which is to
ensure that whichever option selected,has the greatest net benefit to the Municipality and its
residents.
When determining the potential to decentralize, we had to consult with the Utility and Review
Board (UARB)to clarify clause 63a)of the decision.It was confirmed that the Mill Cove Fire
Protection System does not fall under the jurisdiction of the UARB.The Municipality governs fire
protection service charges or capital cost expenditures for the system and the interpretation of
“significant capital costs” for maintaining the Fire Protection System falls to the discretion of the
Municipality. Furthermore, their interpretation of adequate fire protection is not li mited to the
Mill Cove Fire Protection System as we are currently operating today. While we cannot simply
abandon the service, since the community relies on it;how the service is provided and to what
level it is provided is at the sole discretion of the Municipality. The potential does exist to
decentralize the services, and all UARB requests is that we notify them of a decision to
decentralize the service.
Similar to the 2015 SNC report, the options to rehabilitate the existing system to extend the life
of the system remain. Option 1 can be summarized as upgrading the existing fire protection
system, mainly the building, reservoirs, replacing a portion of the distribution system and
hydrants.
3 Request For Decision
There would be further upgrades to the distribution system required, but they would be
completed at a later date, could be phased and at a much lower capital cost.The opinion of
probable costs (OPC)for this option is $650,000 (excludes engineering and HST).However,it is
recommended to complete further assessments of the reservoirs,building and distribution
system since previous reports suggested repairs that were never completed,or there are known
issues or deficiencies. There is a valid concern that this OPC is not accurate and lower than
estimated. Furthermore, there would be some compromises or deviations from the NFPA code
necessary to proceed with this option.
Option 2 can be summarized as replacing the fire protection system, meaning the constructio n
of a new building and reservoir meeting all applicable codes and conforming to NFPA code, as
well as replacing a portion of the distribution system and hydrants.There would be further
upgrades to the distribution system required but,they would be completed at a later date,and
could be phased at a much lower capital cost.The OPC for this option is $1,800,000 (excludes
engineering and HST).
Option 3 can be summarized as installing a decentralized system with an individual fire protection
system for each of the four (4) sprinklered buildings, the Annex and residential dwellings. Each
of the four (4) sprinklered buildings are assumed to have an on -site fire and water storage and
pumping system that conforms to NFPA code. The annex and residential dwellings are assumed
to be serviced fire water storage (concrete storage tanks) within 300 m, that utilizes the existing
distribution system as a dry hydrant system. The OPC for this option is $4 ,800,000 (excludes
engineering and HST).It is recommended that Fire Underwriter Survey (FUS) be engaged to
evaluate the decentralize option, which may influence the fire protection grading, ultimately
impacting both commercial and residential insurance rates. We would also need to engage the
local Fire Departments to align water supply and storage with firefighting capacity. There may be
the potential that some of the buildings do not require sprinkler systems, but this would have to
be further evaluated. Since they have been relying on this service for some time and removing
the system would impact insurance rates, it is f elt that this it is an unlikely option. There is also
an option to reinstate the supply line from Mill Cove Big Lake,as an Alternative water supply or
to supplement the decentralized option. Thi s would require the access road that meets NFPA
code.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
N/A
4 Request For Decision
Financial/Budgetary
Summary of Net Present Values –25-year horizon
Option -Option 1 -
Rehabilitate
-Option 2 -
Replacement
-Option 3 -
Decentralize
Municipality
Capital $650,000 $1,800,000 $4,800,000
O&M $270,000 $270,000 $30,000
Private
O&M $980,000
Total $920,000 $2,100,000 $5,810,000
The follow assumptions are made to provide the summary of net present values1.The cost to rehabilitate would be as estimated2.The cost of O&M for the rehabilitated option equals that of replacement option3.The cost of O&M for decentralized option is borne by the customers themselves and MODCwould have not involvement in the execution of this work4.Inflation has been factored into the O&M costs5.The costs to not include the recommended assessments for each option, engineering or HST
If the decentralized option is selected,the Municipality would have higher capital costs but lower
operating costs.It would take 12 years to recover the additional capital costs through operational
savings but, place a considerable financial burden,additional O&M costs,on the occupants of the
Park.
The Municipality currently collects area rates from the Mill Cove Park for providing both f ire
protection (i.e. Hydrants, $.28/$100) and fire department coverage ($0.105/$100). Depending
on the option selected, a review of the rates assessed is recommended.
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with munici pal services;
3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
5 Request For Decision
Work Program Implications
The current capital work program for FY 18-19 includes the decommissioning evaluation
($20,000) as well as repairs to the distribution system ($35,000). Repairs to the distribution
system have not been initiated so those funds could be made available to initiate design on a
selected option.
OPTIONS
1.Complete the Fire System Improvements, choosing one (1) of the three listed options;
2.Direct staff to investigate further the option of decentralizing Fire Protection Services and
bring findings back to Council.
3.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as
identified by Council
ATTACHMENTS