HomeMy Public PortalAbout2019-01-10_Council_Agenda Package_Added 6.4 and 8.3_Revised January 8, 2019Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s)
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
AGENDA
Thursday,January 10, 2019
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. to 9:00 a.m.)
4.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
4.1 Council –December 13,2018
5.COMMITTEE REPORTS:
5.1 Committee of the Whole –December 20,2018 –Warden Webber
(approval of motions only)
a)Second/Final Notice –Amend Policy P-09 Remuneration of Warden,
Deputy Warden and Councillors Policy (December 20th COW Meeting -
Notice of Intent/First Notice -Motion –2018-567)
5.2 Committee of the Whole –December 6,2018 –Warden Webber
(receive minutes only)
5.3 Any other Committees.
6.MATTERS ARISING:
6.1 Request for Decision prepared by Solid Waste Department dated January 2, 2019
regarding Kaizer Meadow Environmental Management Centre –Cell 3A Leachate
Valve Issue –Award of Contractor.
6.2 Request for Decision prepared by Community Development Department dated
December 4, 2018 regarding Consideration of the Residential Lakeside Zone.
(Origin -Direction from Council Meeting on November 15, 2018)
6.3 Information Report prepared by Community Development Department dated
December 4, 2018 regarding Rezone Request –219 Victoria Street.
(Origin –Council Meeting on September 13, 2018 –Motion 2018-384)
Page 2 of 2
7.CORRESPONDENCE:
7.1 Letter of thanks on behalf of the Boards of Directors of the Aspotogan Heritage
Trust (ATH) dated December 17, 2018 regarding major capital grant award in
support of the Aspotogan Ridge Golf Club.
7.2 Letter from Village of Chester dated January 3, 2019 regarding Appreciation and
thanks for the work that Council and Staff have done the last two years on
the Village of Chester’s behalf toward the Central Water System.
7.3 For Information -Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM) dated
December 7, 2018 regarding Board Initiatives Report –December 2018.
8.NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 Request for Decision prepared by Engineering and Public Works Department
dated December 18, 2018 regarding MODC-T-2018-009 Supply and Delivery of
two (2) Sport Utility Vehicles Tender Award.
9.IN CAMERA:
9.1 Section 22(2)(e) of the MGA–Contract Negotiations –Waste Collection.
10.ADJOURNMENT.
MOTIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL OF COUNCIL FROM
DECEMBER 20, 2018 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
2018-565 Approval of Agenda and Order of Business as amended.
2018-566 Approval of Minutes of December 6, 2018 Committee of the Whole
2018-567 GIVE NOTICE OF INTENT/FIRST NOTICE –AMEND POLICY P-09
REMUNERATION OF WARDEN, DEPUTY WARDEN and COUNCILLORS TO INCREASE
SALARIES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2019 AND MOVE TO SECOND/FINAL NOTICE.
MOVED by Councillor Connors, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Committee of the
Whole recommend to Council to give Notice of Intention/First Notice to amend Policy P-09
Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors to increase salaries effective January
1, 2019 to maintain the same net income after elimination of the one-third tax fee allowance, as
follows, and move the amendment to second and final notice on January 10, 2019 :
A.The Warden shall be paid a salary of $47,077.64 per annum.
B.The Deputy Warden shall be paid a salary of $24,636.66 per annum.
C.All remaining Councillors shall be paid a salary of $21,557.70 per annum,
and references to the tax-free allowance shall be removed from the policy.
CARRIED.
2018-568 LOOK AT A SALARY REVIEW OF THE WARDEN, DEPUTY WARDEN AND
COUNCILLORS IN COMPARISON TO OTHER MUNICIPAL UNITS
MOVED by Councillor Connors, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse that the Committee of the
Whole recommend to Council to look at a Salary Review of the Warden, Deputy Warden and
Councillors in comparison to other Municipal Units. CARRIED.
2018-569 APPROVAL OF 2019/20 BUDGET OF THE REGION 6 SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT BOARD
MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Committee of the
Whole recommend to Council to approve the 2019/20 budget for the Region 6 Solid Waste
Management Board in the amount of $829,018 (Municipality of the District of Chester portion of
$8,565.04). CARRIED.
2018-570 RESPOND TO NSFM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PILOT PROGRAM TO REMOVE
OR PHASE OUT THE CAPPED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (CAP)
MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the Committee of
the Whole recommend to Council to send a response to the Nova Scotia Federation of
MOTIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL OF COUNCIL FROM
DECEMBER 20, 2018 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
(CONTINUED)
Municipalities indicating that MODC would be interested in being considered for a Pilot
Program to remove or phase out the Capped Assessment Program (CAP). CARRIED.
2018-571 ALLOCATE $10,000 TO COVER EXPENSES FOR FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 SUBJECT TO
COUNCIL APPROVING THE FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT SCOPE OF WORK
MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Connors that the Committee of the
Whole recommend to Council to allocate the $10,000 currently in the Fire Services Budget to
cover expenses for the development of the Fire Risk Assessment scope and completion of any
preliminary actions with the 2018/19 fiscal year and provide pre-budget authorization for
additional funding of not to exceed $50,000 subject to Council approving the Fire Risk
Assessment scope of work.
RECORDED VOTE:
In Favour –Councillor Connors, Councillor Barkhouse, Councillor Assaff, Councillor
Church and Warden Webber.
Against –Councillor Hector and Deputy Warden Shatford.
CARRIED.
2018-572 In Camera -Section 22(2)(c)–Personnel Matters.
2018-573 CREATE HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR/SITE SUPERVISOR POSITION WITH
A CHANGE IN SALARY BAND AND POST POSITION INTERNALLY
MOVED by Councillor Hector, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the Committee of
the Whole recommend to Council the following:
Remove the existing “solid waste working supervisor” duties from the current
Solid Waste Working Supervisor/Wastewater Treatment Operator position.
Include the supervisor duties of one (1) Heavy Equipment Operator (HEO)
position to create a “Heavy Equipment Operator/Site Supervisor” position with a
salary band change to Middle Manager/Coordinator.
Post the Heavy Equipment Operator/Site Supervisor position internally as per
Section 2.4.1. of the Personnel Policy.
CARRIED.
2018-574 Adjournment
Second and Final Notice –Amend Policy P-09
Municipality of the District of Chester
Remuneration of
Warden, Deputy
Warden and
Councillors
Policy P-09
Amended Effective:January 10, 2019 April 1, 2018
Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors Policy P-09
Notice of Intent/First Notice –Committee of the Whole –December 20, 2018 (2018-567)
Second Notice –Council –January 10, 2018 (2018-567/2019-??)
Effective Date –January 10, 2019
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
POLICY P-09
REMUNERATION
WARDEN, DEPUTY WARDEN AND COUNCILLORS
2018/19
BE IT RESOLVED that the remuneration of the Warden and Councillors shall be as follows:
A.The Warden shall be paid a base salary of $47,077.64 $40,306.20 per annum,$26,870.78 as a
taxable stipend and $13,435.39 as an elected official’s tax-free allowance,payable monthly.
B.The Deputy Warden shall be paid a base salary of $24,636.66 $21,860.39 per annum,
$14,573.58 as a taxable stipend and $7,286.79 as an elected official’s tax-free allowance,
payable monthly.
C.All remaining Councillors shall be paid a base salary of $21,557.70 $19,128.40 per annum,
$12,752.26 as a taxable stipend and $6,676.13 as an elected official’s tax-free allowance,
payable monthly.
D.Annually the Municipal Council considers the cost of living increase which has taken place
over the previous year and will approve an increase in the level of compensation which is to
be payable to all employees of the Municipality under Section 5.3.1. The percentage increase
approved for staff will also apply to the remuneration paid to the Warden, Deputy Warden
and Councillors.
E.As provided by the Income Tax Act (Canada)as amended, the amounts provided for payments
to Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors in paragraphs A, B, C and D shall be paid as
follows:
Two-thirds as a taxable stipend; and
One-third as an elected official’s tax-free allowance.
Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors Policy P-09
Notice of Intent/First Notice –Committee of the Whole –December 20, 2018 (2018-567)
Second Notice –Council –January 10, 2018 (2018-567/2019-??)
Effective Date –January 10, 2019
E F.All Councillors, including the Warden and Deputy Warden, in addition to the payments set
forth above, shall be paid an allowance for travel for kilometres travelled once each day for
going to and returning from every daily session of the Council or a Committee or attendance
at every Board Meeting or other function if this attendance is as a representative of Council.
The allowance for travel will be a per km rate reimbursed at the provincial rate.
F G.A Warden or Deputy Warden and Councillors who miss more than three (3) Council or
Committee meetings in any year without leave of Council shall have the sum of $55.00 per
missed meeting deducted from any salary paid to such individual.
H.This Resolution shall take effect on the 10st day of January 2019 April 2018.
Remuneration of Warden, Deputy Warden and Councillors Policy P-09
Notice of Intent/First Notice –Committee of the Whole –December 20, 2018 (2018-567)
Second Notice –Council –January 10, 2018 (2018-567/2019-??)
Effective Date –January 10, 2019
RECORD OF ADOPTION/AMENDMENTS
Effective Date Reason for Adoption/Amendment
March 16, 2017 2017-135 –Approval of Cost of Living (CPI) of 1.2% approved by Council
on March 16, 2017.
July 31, 2017 Amendment to change all policies with mileage references to reflect use
of provincial mileage rate.
April 1, 2018 2018-105/111 -Approval of Cost of Living (CPI)of 1.1% approved by
Council on March 8, 2018.
January 10, 2019 2018-567/2019-??-Approval of increase effective January 1, 2019 to
maintain same net income after elimination of the one-third tax free
allowance.
Annotation for Official Policy Book
Date of First Notice March 1, 2018 (2018-105)
December 20, 2018 (2018-567)
Date of Second Notice March 8, 2018 (2018-105/111)
January 10, 2019 (2018-567/2019-??)
Effective Date April 1, 2018
January 10,2019
I certify that this Policy was adopted by Council as indicated above.
_______________________________________March 12, 2018
Pamela M. Myra, Municipal Clerk Date
REQUEST FOR D ECISION
Prepared By:Christa Rafuse, P.Eng.Date January 2, 2019
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Malcolm Pitman, Acting CAO Date January 3, 2019
CURRENT SITUATION
Presently the last isolation valve in the leachate collection system is closed in Cell 3A. It’s been confirmed
by consultants and our staff that we cannot safely locate and access the closed valve. The valve is garbage
covered and the leachate volume in the landfill Cell is relatively high. The Cell 3A pipe network is connected
to Cell 4A and to allow leachate to flow properly without backing up into Cell 4A we need to redirect the
leachate away from the closed valve.
On October 3, 2018, Council approved CBCLs recommende d option to provide gravity drainage for the
recently constructed Cell 4A to allow landfilling within Cell 4A before Spring and to expediate the process
via CBCL Ltd.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the work go to the contractor with the lowest quote,Brycon Construction in the
amount of $113,600.00 plus HST.
BACKGROUND
In mid-November, CBCL Ltd provided MODC with drawings and specifications to complete the
recommended design to redirect the leachate and allow landfilling within Cell 4A within the next few
months. The estimated cost range was $50, 000 to $60, 000 and three quotes were requested by MODC.
We must proceed with the recommended
option to move forward and to drain Cell 4A
leachate, dispose of waste in Cell 4A and to
operate within our NSE approval permit
requirements.
The piping connection from Cell 4A to 3A is a
crucial part of our leachate treatment system.
REPORT TO:CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY:Solid Waste Department
DATE:January 10, 2019
SUBJECT:KMEMC Landfill –Cell 3A Leachate Valve
Issue –Award to Contractor
ORIGIN:Council, October 3, 2018
2 Request for Direction
DISCUSSION
CBCL Ltd received two quotes on MODC’s behalf from the following contractors, pricing below.
Contractor Pricing (plus HST)
Brycon Construction Limited $113,600.00
Howard Little Excavating Limited $130,800.00
*as per the drawings and specifications provided.
A procurement practice was used as outlined in the Procurement Policy P -04 due to the urgency that exists
for the Cell 3A issue effecting the use of Cell 4A. Council initially approved low value procurement as
requested (quotes required)but with the incoming quotes being much higher than anticipated its now
considered high value procurement (exceeds $100,000) for construction services .
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Procurement Policy P-04
This is a high value alternative procurement practice because of the unforese eable situation and urgency to
complete prior to entering Cell 4A to meet all NSE permit requirements.
Financial/Budgetary
The proposed project is not currently part of the 2018-19 budget.We had anticipated the cost to be in the
order of $70,000 (revised amount $123,600 plus HST)to complete the repair to properly utilize Cell 4A
before Winter.However, the quotes were substantially higher than the consultants estimated cost.
CBCL to design and tender -$7,500 to $10,000 (original cost as is)
Site work (capital cost)-$50 –$60, 000 (revised amount of $113,600 plus HST)
This is an unbudgeted project, it is recommended that the capital come from our revenue and be
identified as an item that is shared with Valley Waste.It is forecasted that the tipping fees for the current
year will produce a surplus, therefore the funds could come from the surplus. Long term borrowing is not
recommended by finance as the amount is small.We are also not able to use the closure reserve as the
expense is related to landfill operations and not closure.
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan1.Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;2.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;3.Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
2 Request for Direction
OPTIONS1.Status quo and risk jeopardizing our NSE permit to operate.2.Accept staff’s recommendation and move forward in order to open Cell 4A.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Garth Sturtevant, Planner Date December 4, 2018
Reviewed By:Tara Maguire, Director Date December 4, 2018
Authorized By:Malcolm Pitman, Acting CAO Date January 3, 2019
CURRENT SITUATION
The information contained in this report has been prepared in response to discussion and consideration
by Council at a meeting held on November 15, 2018, regarding a request for increased land use control
on lands around Harris and De Adder lakes. Council considered a staff report outlini ng options including:
rezone to the Single Unit Residential Zone, create a new unique zone specific to Harris & De Adder lakes
or leave existing zoning but research additional environmental protections that could be applied to all
lakes. Council ultimately directed staff to pursue Option 4 of the report dated October 31, 2018 ;Direct
staff to maintain the proposed General Basic Zoning. In addition, direct staff to research and bring forward
additional environmental protections to be considered as additions to the Lakefront Overlay or Wetlands,
Watercourses and Waterbodies provisions within the draft Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By -
law.
BACKGROUND
Council has been approached by members of the Harris Lake Property Owners Association (HLPOA), who
are requesting increased zoning and land use controls for lands around Harris and De Adder lakes.
Council has considered the request on several occasions and on October 11, 2018 directed staff to
maintain the proposed General Basic zoning. At a more recent meeting held on November 15, Council
reiterated the decision to maintain the General Basic zone. However,many of the HLPOA’s concerns relate
to environmental protection of the lake and Council requested that staff research and propose additional
environmental protections that could be applied more widely to other lakes within the Municipality.
Council preferred this approach as it avoids the practice of spot zoning, but also provides the opportunity
to addresses many of the issues raised by the Harris Lake Property Owners Association regarding density
and protection of inland waterways.
DISCUSSION
Following Council’s recent direction, staff have presented additional environmental protections that could
address several concerns raised by the HLPOA.These protections have been consolidated into the draft
Residential Lakeside (RL) zone (attached)along with supporting policy.Each new individual provision is
outlined below.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department
DATE:January 10, 2019
SUBJECT:Consideration of the Residential Lakeside
Zone
ORIGIN:Direction from Municipal Council Meeting
(November 15, 2018)
2 Request For Decision /Direction
Alternatively,Council may select specific provisions below to be adopted.Staff will implement the
selected options and ensure they do not conflict with other parts of the planning documents.Most
options could be included in the Lakefront Overlay, however, some may require changing the Overlay to a
zone which surrounds identified lakes as proposed with the draft Residential Lakeside zone.
If Council chooses not to move forward with any additional measures, the Lakefront Overlay and
Wetlands, Watercourses and Waterbodies Setback provisions will remain as currently drafted.
1.SETBACKS –One of the most recognized and common tools used in land use control. Setbacks
outlined in the Land Use By-law may specify distances between various types of development or
prevent any new development within a specified distance of environmenta lly or culturally sensitive
areas. Setbacks are an effective tool in protecting water quality by slowing down stormwater runoff
and allowing time for absorption of pollutants.
CURRENT PROPOSED APPROACH -The Draft Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By -law
include requirements for a 20 m setback for new main structures from the Ordinary High Water Mark
of identified lakes.
INCREASE PROTECTION –The Draft Residential Lakeside Zone attached to this report maintains the
20 m setback but would only permit one boathouse and one dock to be built within the 20 m setback
from the lake. In addition, the Residential Lakeside Zone would extend 100 m from the OHWM of
lakes and all development within this zone would require a Development Permit.
Options for Setbacks:
a) Current Proposed Approach
b) Increase Protection
c) Other (please specify)
2.PERFORMANCE STANDARDS –An increasingly popular control mechanism which can allow flexibility
for developers while still ensuring a set level of compliance. A Performance Standard is a measured or
required outcome that must be met, often through the submission of information or materials
prepared by a qualified professional,in order for a development to receive approval. In the case of
water quality protection,a performance standard could be drafted that would require no increase to
net-runoff between pre and post development of a site.In order to meet this standard, a developer
may have to contour the lot or add features such rain gardens and swales, which would be
documented and submitted as part of the application for development approval.
CURRENT PROPOSED APPROACH -The Draft Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By -law
currently require performance standards for Stormwater only for large developments containing 12 or
more dwelling units or Commercial, Institutional, or Industrial developments which exceed 1000 m 2 in
floor area or 6000 m2 in land area.
3 Request For Decision /Direction
INCREASE PROTECTION –The Draft Residential Lakeside Zone contains provisions requiring that the
Stormwater Standard described in the Land Use By-law must be met for all Commercial, Light
Industrial and Institutional developments that locate within the Residential Lakeside Zone.This is in
addition to the requirements for larger developments currently contained within the Draft documents.
Options for Performance Standards:
a) Current Proposed Approach
b) Increase Protection
c) Other (please specify)
3.MINIMUM LOT AREA –The regulation of the minimum lot area for new lots is another common
provision found in planning documents. Minimum lot area is often used as a tool to promote or
control density in a given area in combination with the permitted number of dwelling units per lot.
Minimum lot area may also be used as a tool to preserve or enhance community character,
particularly for areas with a history of large lot sizes and separation distances.
CURRENT PROPOSED APPROACH -The Draft Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law do
not require a minimum lot area (beyond the provincial minimum of 20m x 20m) in any zone except
the Coastal Island Two Zone. In all other zones, the effective minimum lot size is determined by the
requirements of Nova Scotia Environment as the authority who permits the installation of on-site
septic systems.
INCREASE PROTECTION –The Draft Residential Lakeside Zone contains provisions that would require
a minimum lot size of 0.4 hectares, or approximately one acre for all new lots created through
Municipal Subdivision Approval.The zone also proposes a maximum of two dwelling units per lot,
which in combination will control the density of development around lakes. Existing undersized lots
may still be developed, subject to setbacks and other zone requirements.
Options for Minimum Lot Area:
a) Current Proposed Approach
b) Increase Protection
c) Other (please specify)
4.MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE (STREET & SHORELINE)–Similar to minimum lot area, requiring a
minimum lot frontage for new lots along public or private streets is commonly found in planning
documents. Requiring specific minimum lot frontage can avoid irregular lot configurations such as
flag lots. In combination with minimum lot area,implementation of these standards can result in a
more patterned and anticipated development pattern.
CURRENT PROPOSED APPROACH -The Draft planning documents in all zones except the Coastal
Island Two Zone, require only the Provincial minimum frontage of 20 m.
4 Request For Decision /Direction
INCREASE PROTECTION -The draft Residential Lakeside Zone contains provisions requiring minimum
lot frontage in two forms. First, all new lots within the zone are required to maintain 60 m of lot
frontage on a Public or Private Street. The second provision applies only to waterfront lot s and
requires that new waterfront lots maintain a minimum 60 m frontage along the lake in addition to the
60 m of road frontage. The combination of these frontage requirements will limit the number of
waterfront lots that are created around a given lake a nd will prevent the creation of waterfront flag
lots.
Options for Minimum Lot Frontage:
a) Current Proposed Approach
b) Increase Protection
c) Other (please specify)
5.MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE (All Structures)–Regulation of the total lot area that may be
covered by structures is another common approach to regulating land use. Applying a maximum
percentage of the lot that may contain structures may help preserve community character in areas
with a low population density while also offering potential environmental benefits related to
stormwater runoff.
CURRENT PROPOSED APPROACH -The Draft planning documents do not currently include any
provisions limiting lot coverage of structures, except within the Lakefront Overlay, where impermeable
surfaces (which also includes pavement) are limited to 25% of the lot area.
INCREASE PROTECTION -The Draft Residential Lakeside Zone proposes a maximum lot coverage of
10% for all structures within the zone.
Options for Maximum Lot Coverage
(All Structures):
a) Current Proposed Approach
b) Increase Protection
c) Other (please specify)
6.MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE (Impermeable Surfaces)–Similar to limiting the total lot
coverage of structures, this provision limits the percentage of a lot that may be covered by
impermeable (hard)surfaces. This includes structures, pavement and all other areas of the lot which
are deemed by the development officer to constitute an “impermeable surface” according to the Land
Use By-law.
CURRENT PROPOSED APPROACH –The Draft planning documents currently limit lots within the
Lakefront Overlay (20 m)to a maximum 25%lot coverage for impermeable surfaces.
5 Request For Decision /Direction
INCREASE PROTECTION –The Draft Residential Lakeside Zone proposes to maintain 25% lot coverag e
for all impermeable surfaces. Please note, this was intended to accompany an expansion from 20 m to
100 m for the extent of the proposed R L zone boundary or Lakefront Overlay.
Options for Maximum Lot Coverage
(Impermeable Surfaces):
a) Current Proposed Approach
b) Increase Protection
c) Other (please specify)
7.SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS –Home Based Businesses are specifically
defined within the Land Use By-law to permit the operation of small, low impact Commercial uses
within a residential structure, typically within a residential zone. The type of Commercial use is
restricted in addition to limits to the maximum floor area. Additional Signage and Parking
requirements often apply.
CURRENT PROPOSED APPROACH –with few exceptions, zones in the proposed planning documents
permit Commercial uses by right. In these zones,an application can be submitted for a Commercial
use,making specific allowances for Home Based Business unnecessary.An example of an exception
from the current By-law is the Single Unit Residential Zone. In this zone only Residential uses are
permitted,with specific exemptions for uses considered Home Based Business and subject to
additional restrictions and criteria.
INCREASE PROTECTION –The draft Residential Lakeside zone includes special requirements for
Commercial, Institutional and Industrial uses. Uses deemed acceptable as Home Based Business’ have
separate requirements to permit operation within a residence with limitations to size, signage and
retail. Note, if other options regulating the types of uses and requirements for such are not adopted,
staff recommend not adopting special provisions to regulate Home Based Business. This provision is
intended to be used in conjunction with the adoption of the Residential Lakeside zone and would be
problematic as a stand-alone measure in the Lakefront Overlay.
Options for Home Based Business:
a) Current Proposed Approach
b) Increase Protection
c) Other (please specify)
OPTIONS
1.Adopt and implement the draft Residential Lakeside zone as presented;
2.Select only some (please specify number and letter selections)of the additional protections listed
in this report. Staff will then implement only the selected options in the draft planning
documents;
3.Maintain existing protections and do not pursue additional environmental protection.
6 Request For Decision /Direction
AT TACHMENTS
Draft Residential Lakeside Zone
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
6.2 Residential Lakefront Zone
6.2.1 Permitted Uses and Developments
The following uses are permitted in the Residential Lakefront
(RL)zone subject to the specified approval process and
standards:
Approval
Process
Min. Front
Yard
Min. Side
Yard
Min. Rear
Yard
Min.
Setback
from
O.H.W.M
Max.
Height of
Structure
Residential
1-2 dwellings on a lot DP 1.5 m 1.5 m 1.5 m 20 m 10 m
Home-based Businesses DP Subject to section 6.2.8
Commercial/
Institutional
Any commercial/
institutional use or
combination of uses with
a gross floor area up to
100 m2 or which
occupies a land area up
to 200 m2, whichever is
lesser.
DP
(subject to
Special
Requireme
nt 6.2.4)
5 m 5 m 5 m 20 m 10 m
Light Industrial
Any commercial/
institutional use or
combination of uses with
a gross floor area up to
100 m2 or which occupies
a land area up to 200 m2,
whichever is lesser.
DP
(subject to
Special
Requireme
nt 6.2.4)
5 m 5 m 5 m 20 m 10 m
Other
Small Accessory
Structures
DP
(subject to
Special
Requireme
nt 6.2.5)
1.5 m 1.5 m 1.5 m none 10 m
Docks DP
(subject to
Special
Requireme
nt 6.2.5)
1.5 m 1.5 m none none
Campground/ RV Park DA
Waterfront Parks not
owned by the
Municipality
DA
Abbreviations:
DP =Development
Permit
SP =Site Plan Approval
DA =Development
Agreement
6.2.2 Lot Standards (for new lots)
All newly created lots within the Residential Lakefront (RL)zone
shall conform with the following:
Waterfront
Lot
Non-
Waterfront
Lot
Minimum Lot Area 0.4 ha 0.4 ha
Minimum Lot Road Frontage 60 m 60 m
Minimum Shoreline Lot
Frontage
60 m N/A
6.2.3 Prohibited Uses and Developments
The following uses and developments are expressly prohibited in
the Residential Lakefront (RL)zone.
a)Abattoirs;
b)Fur farming;
d)Composting Facilities;
e)Contaminated Soil Facilities;
f)Salvage Yards;
g)All heavy industrial uses.
6.2.4 Special Requirements: Commercial, Institutional and Light
Industrial Uses within the Residential Lakefront (RL)zone
Commercial,Institutional and Light Industrial uses are only
permitted within the Residential Lakefront (RL)zone,when the
application for a Development Permit includes the submission of
a Lot Grading Plan prepared a professional Land Surveyor,
Landscape Architect or Professional Engineer confirming that
4.23 Stormwater Standard is satisfied;
6.2.5 Special Requirements:Setback from Ordinary High Water
Mark
Within the Residential Lakefront (RL)zone,no structures are
permitted within twenty (20) m of the ordinary high water mark,
except as follows:
a)one (1) boathouse and one (1) permenant dock shall be
permitted within twenty (20) m of the ordinary high water
mark per lot;
b)fire-fighting impoundments and structures related to water
systems shall be permitted within twenty (20) m of the
ordinary high water mark;
c)Minimum rear yard requirements shall not apply to
boathouses, docks, wharves, fire-fighting impoundments and
structures related to water systems, or where otherwise
permitted in this By-law;
6.2.6 Special Requirements:Lot Coverage
a)Within the Residential Lakefront (RL)zone,the maximum lot
coverage of all structures shall not exceed ten (10) percent of
the lot area;
b)Notwithstanding 6.2.6 a) lot coverage exceeding ten (10)
percent of the lot area may be permitted provided that the
application for a Development Permit includes the
submission of a Lot Grading Plan prepared a professional
Land Surveyor, Landscape Architect or Professional Engineer
confirming that 4.23 Stormwater Standard is satisfied.
6.2.7 Special Requirements:Impermeable Surfaces
a)Within the Residential Lakefront (RL)zone,impermeable
surfaces, including all structures and hard-surface
landscaping, shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the
total lot area;
b)Notwithstanding 6.2.7 a)impermeable surfaces exceeding
twenty five (25) of the lot area may be permitted within the
Lakefront Overlay provided that the application for a
Development Permit includes the submission of a Lot
Grading Plan prepared a professional Land Surveyor,
Landscape Architect or Professional Engineer confirming that
4.23 Stormwater Standard is satisfied;
6.2.8 Special Requirements -Home Based Business
Notwithstanding 6.2.4, a residential dwelling may be used for a
home-based business without the need to submit a Lot Grading
Plan,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 product: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)The external appearance of the building shall not be
changed by the home-based business;
g)Signs advertising home-based businesses within the
Residential Lakefront (RL)zone shall not exceed 0.5 m2.
6.5 Environmental Protection Area
The Environmental Protection Area designation addresses specific land types which are
sensitive to development and require additional protections:
Potential drinking water sources;
Lands placed in trust, donated to the Municipality or otherwise held for the
purpose of conservation.
Development near lakeshores
Drinking water is a crucial issue, especially in Chester Village. Several conceptual plans
and studies have been conducted on a central water system for the Village using Spectacle
Lake as a water source. To protect a future water supply, Spectacle Lake was designated
a Protected Watershed under the former Chester Village Secondary Planning Strategy.
To preserve the potential of Spectacle Lake as a water source, land uses will be strictly
controlled to minimize the possibility of contaminating the lake water. Engineering studies
have also identified the feasibility of diverting the water flow from the northern watershed
of Mill Brook into Spectacle Lake. To ensure an adequate supply of clean water, the same
land use controls extend to this watershed. In the event that other lake -water sources are
deemed to be viable options, this Area designation may be applied to any area wit hin the
Municipality.
Over the years, a number of islands in Mahone Bay and St. Margaret’s Bay have been
placed in trust or donated to the Municipality for the purpose of conservation. For the
islands so designated, only research, education or passive recreation uses will be
permitted. Council may further apply this designation to any land that has been
specifically dedicated by the owners for the long-term conservation of natural habitat.
The only permeant structures permitted within the Conservation Zone shall be those
erected by or under the guidance of the Municipality.
Rural areas have historically accommodated seasonal lakefront development with few, if
any development controls.More recently,a trend toward year-round development on
lakefront properties has also emerged. This trend is expected to lead to increased density
around lakes and poses a threat to water quality and the well-being of the natural
environment.Unregulated development along lakes often results in the removal of
natural vegetation and an increase in impermeable surfaces, both of which contribute to
increased rates and quantities of runoff.
Protection of lakes, rivers and wetlands was repeatedly raised as being a significant need
and focus for this planning strategy during public engagement sessions. The Residential
Lakefront zone is created to address the concern of overdevelopment around lakes by
regulating the type and intensity of development.
Council adopts the following policies for the Environmental Protection Area
designation:
Policy E-29
An Environmental Protection Area designation shall be
created, the extent which shall be shown on the Generalized
Future Land Use Map.
Policy E-30
The intent of the Environmental Protection Area designation
is to:
a)limit development and strictly control land use in
designated lands;
b)safeguard the ecological integrity of designated lands in
order to protect drinking water and preserve natural
habitat.
Policy E-31
The policies of the Environmental Protection Area designation
shall be implemented by:
a)Creating the Protected Watershed Zone;
b)Creating the Conservation Zone;
c) Creating the Residential Lakefront Zone;
d)Limiting or prohibiting land use in the interests of
environmental protection.
6.5.3 Residential Lakefront Zone
Lakefront and cottage developments add to the vibrancy and economy of rural areas. The
enjoyment and attractiveness of lakes,in part depends on clean water. Unregulated
development practices near lakes can damage water quality. The Municipality wants to
ensure development protects the water quality of our lakes.
This Planning Strategy balances the protection of lakes with the desire for lakefront
development by creating the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone in the Land Use By-law. The
purpose of the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone is to protect identified lakes from
environmental degradation caused by overdevelopment and inappropriate land use.
Several approaches are introduced to protect water quality. Setbacks are required for all
structures,with new residential uses being permitted by right but limited to a maximum
of two dwelling units per lot.Commercial, Institutional and Light Industrial uses are only
permitted when the application for a permit is accompanied by a report prepared by a
qualified individual confirming that the Stormwater Standard outlined in the Land Use By-
law is satisfied. Vegetated buffers are an effective approach to limiting and controlling
runoff,but they must also allow views, docks and access to the water. Restricting the total
area covered by impermeable surfaces (gravel, concrete, roofs, and asphalt) and the total
area covered by buildings will also reduce the amount of runoff entering lakes.
Quantitative standards to limit sediment and chemicals in runoff may be adopted through
the Land Use By-law. Finally, major new developments in the Residential Lakefront zone
may become part of a Wastewater Management District. These Districts will ensure septic
systems work properly. Together, these approaches help protect our preci ous lakes.
Council adopts the following policies for lakefronts:
Policy E-16
The Residential Lakefront (RL) zone shall be created and
applied to land surrounding lakes as indicated in the Land Use
By-law.
Policy E-17
The Residential Lakefront (RL) zone shall extend 100 m from
the Ordinary High Water Mark of all lakes identified in the Land
Use By-law.
Policy E-18
The intent of the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone shall be to
protect water quality.
Policy E-19
Lakefront development may require vegetate d buffers,
stormwater standards, limited impermeable surfaces and
wastewater management districts depending on the size of
development, as specified in the Land Use By-law.
Policy E-20
Residential Uses shall be permitted within the Residential
Lakefront (RL) zone subject to the Land Use By-law.
Policy E-21
Commercial, Light Industrial and Institutional Uses are only
permitted when the application is accompanied by a Lot
Grading Plan as detailed within the Land Use By-law.
Policy E-22
The Land Use By-law shall prohibit specific types of
development within the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone and
all permitted development shall require a development permit.
Policy E-23
Within the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone one boathouse and
one dock shall be permitted within 20 m of the ordinary high
water mark, subject to a development permit.
Policy E-24
Within the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone all structures shall
maintain a minimum setback of 20 m from the ordinary high
water mark, except as specified in the Land Use By-law.
Policy E-25
The Land Use By-law may include additional stormwater
standards, specific to the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone,
including provisions for stormwater management practices.
Policy E-26
The Land Use By-law shall include limits on impermeable
surfaces and total lot coverage for structures within the
Residential Lakefront (RL) zone.
Policy E-27
The Land Use By-law shall outline the minimum lot area,
minimum Lake Shoreline Frontage and minimum Road Frontage
for new waterfront and non-waterfront lots created within the
Residential Lakefront (RL) zone.
Policy E-28
The Land Use By-law may specify the size of developments in
the Residential Lakefront (RL) zone that shall be part of a
Wastewater Management District.
INFORMATION REPORT
Prepared By:Garth Sturtevant, Planner Date December 4, 2018
Reviewed By:Tara Maguire, Director Date December 4, 2018
Authorized By:Malcolm Pitman, Acting CAO Date January 3, 2019
CURRENT SITUATION
Tristan Mills (the Applicant), on behalf of the property owners of 219 Victoria Street, Chester, submitted by
email, a request to rezone a portion of the lot from Marine Industrial to Central Village Residential on
September 6, 2018. Council received this request at a meeting held Sep tember 13, 2018 and directed staff
to prepare a report for consideration by the Village Area Advisory Committee (VAAC).
The staff report (attached)has been presented to VAAC held on October 16, 2018. After significant
discussion and several defeated motions,VAAC passed the following motion:MOVED by Ray Cambria
SECONDED by Brad Armstrong that VAAC make a negative recommendation to the Citizens Planning
Advisory Committee with reference to the property known as 219 Victoria Stree t, Chester (PID 60686532)
as the proposed rezoning does not conform with the policies of the Chester Village Area Secondary
Planning Strategy.
Staff presented an updated report (attached)to the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee at a meeting
held on December 3, 2018. After discussion and a defeated motion to grant the request of the Applicant,
CPAC members agreed that they did not see any motion successfully passing and referred the issue to
Council without a recommendation. It was noted that Council ha s the ability and authority to direct policy
changes which would permit the requested change.
This request requires direction and a decision from Council as to how to proceed. The attached staff
reports outline current policy within the Chester Village Se condary Planning Strategy, which do not
support the request to rezone.Should Council wish to permit the request, a thorough policy review will be
conducted, and new policies will be drafted to permit the rezone and outline any other anticipated
repercussions of the change in policy.
OPTIONS
1.Grant the request of the Developer to reduce the width of the Marine Industrial zone to uniform
20 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (policy changes required). Staff will prepare the
necessary MPS & LUB amendments and bring them back to Council for 1st Reading;
2.Reject the request to rezone, maintain existing zoning on the property;
3.Reject the request to rezone, but request that this property be considered for rezoning as part of
the forthcoming Chester Village Plan Review.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Garth Sturtevant, Planner
DATE:January 10, 2019
SUBJECT:Rezone Request –219 Victoria Street
ORIGIN:Council Motion #2018-384
2 Information Report
ATTACHMENTS
1.Citzens planning advisory committee report –dated December 3, 2018
2.Village Area Advisory Committee report –dated October 16, 2018
Municipality of the District of Chester
Community Development Department
Application Overview
Prepared for:Citizens Planning Advisory Committee
Submitted by:Jason Genée,Planner
Date:December 3, 2018
Subject:219 Victoria Street,Chester,Rezoning and Plan Amendment Request
Recommendation
That the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee makes a negative recommendation to Municipal
Council as the proposed rezoning does not conform with the policies of the Chester Village Area
Secondary Planning Strategy.
Current Situation
At the October 16, 2018 meeting of the Village Area Advisory Committee, staff presented on the request
to rezone a portion of 219 Victoria Street, Chester. The request is to decrease the Marine Industrial (MI)
zone to 20 feet (ft.) from the high water mark, increasing the Central Village Residential (CVR) zone area.
The meeting commenced with staff’s presentation on the site, the developer’s propo sal, and the existing
policy and regulations. Staff noted that the proposed rezoning does not conform with existing policies
within the Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy.The Staff Report presented to the Village
Area Advisory Committee is attached below.
Staff’s presentation was followed by a roundtable discussion by the Committee which included input from
the developer.The developer stated their intent to subdivide the property into three (3) lots and construct
a dwelling on each of the lots that were in keeping with the character of Chester Village.While some
members commented on the potential positive economic impact of the development,other Committee
members were hesitant to support the proposed rezoning.It was noted that there is no guarantee the
developer will build the site as proposed due to the nature of rezoning requests.VAAC members were
concerned with the proposed zoning change as it would allow residences to be built closer to the water’s
edge, potentially threatening property and individuals while also threatening views of the harbour.
Concerns were also raised about the potential ‘spin -off’ effects rezoning the property could have.
Members felt rezoning the property could put increased development pressure on other MI areas in the
Village, sites that have been historically used for boat building in the community .
Throughout the discussion and debate, three motions failed to pass:
1.The Committee voted against rezoning the Marine Industrial area to Waterfront Residential;
Application Overview Page 2
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
2.The Committee voted against rezoning the Marine Industrial area to Central Village Residential;
and
3.The Committee voted against decreasing the Marine Industrial area to 25 ft. from the high water
mark.
The Committee ultimately passed a motion to maintain the current zoning of the property.
Motion Text:
MOVED by Ray Cambria SECONDED by Brad Armstrong that VAAC make a negative recommendation
to the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee with reference to the property know n as 219 Victoria
Street, Chester (PID 60686532) as the proposed rezoning does not conform with the policies of the
Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy.
Options
1.That the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee makes a negative recommendation f or rezone
request
2.That the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee makes a positive recommendation for rezone
request
3.That the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee makes a negative recommendation for rezone
request, but recommends rezoning MI to WR
4.That the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee makes a negative recommendation for rezone
request, but recommends evaluating the rezoning of 219 Victoria Street, Chester during the
Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy review
5.That the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee requests changes or additional information from
the developer
Application Overview Page 3
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
Application Overview
Prepared for:Village Area Advisory Committee
Submitted by:Jason Genée,Planner
Date:October 16, 2018
Subject:219 Victoria Street, Chester, Rezoning and Plan Amendment Request
APPLICANT Tristan Mills on behalf of Gail Smith (landowner)
PROPOSAL Decrease Marine Industrial zone to 20 feet (ft.) from the High Water
Mark, increasing the Central Village Residential zone area
LOCATION 219 Victoria Street, Chester, PID:60686532
LOT SIZE 2563.2 m2 (27590 ft 2)
ZONE Marine Industrial (MI) and Central Village Residential (CVR)
SURROUNDING USES Waterfront Residential (WR), Waterfront Access (WA), and Central
Village Residential (CVR)
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION None to date
Recommendation
That the Chester Village Area Advisory Committee make a negative recommendation to the
Citizens Planning Advisory Committee as the proposed rezoning does not conform with the policies
of the Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy.
Background
The Municipality has received an application from Tristan Mills who is proposing to rezone 219 Victoria
Road, Chester. Upon further discussion with the applicant and written authorization from the landowner
Gail Smith, staff understand the proposed rezone is meant for 219 Victoria Street, Chester. The rezone
proposes to reduce the area of the Marine Industrial zone, expanding the Central Village Residential zone.
The applicant is requesting the Marine Industrial zone be reduced to a uniform 20 ft. from the hig h water
mark.
Application Overview Page 4
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
Subject Properties and Expressed Intent
The site is located at 219 Victoria Street, on the Back Harbour within Chester Village and is split zoned as
Marine Industrial (MI) and Central Village Residential (CVR) (Figure 1). The zoning design ations and their
boundaries for this property mirror the Future Land Use map within the Chester Village Secondary Planning
Strategy meaning this proposed rezoning also requires Municipal Planning Strategy amendments.
Figure 1: 219 Victoria Street zoning and surrounding properties (Source: Sylvia Dixon)
Presently, the current use of the property is wholly residential and properties around the site are zoned as
CVR and Waterfront Residential (WR). The small MI zoned property north of the subjec t site is owned by
the Municipality of the District of Chester.
In their application letter, Tristan Mills (hereafter referred to as the developer)has expressed the intent to
subdivide the property into 2-3 lots and place moderately sized homes on the properties. While the purpose
of this Staff Report is to analyse how the proposed rezoning relates to existing policy and regulations, the
intent of the developer has also been considered.
Application Overview Page 5
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy
Chester Village Area’s Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law were adopted in 2004 and have
had 22 and 28 amendments made to them, respectively, the most recent made in June 2018. During the
Five Year Review of the 1992 Planning Strategy, the public provided input to reshape the document to fit
the community’s vision. Municipal Staff integrated that input to form the current vision of the document
which expresses residents’ desire to “Keep Chester as it is.” The vision includes maintaining development
density, and the physical, environmental, and architectural character of Chester Village.
Additionally, the vision of the Planning Strategy indicates that residents within the Plan Area have a desire
for more certainty in land development policies and regulations. Resi dents felt previous iterations of
planning strategies threatened the stability and vision of the community through the extensive use of
planning tools such as Development Agreements.
Marine Industrial and Central Village Residential Zone
Development within the MI zone is restricted to:
Boat Sales and Displays
Boatyards
Boat construction, repair, and storage
Existing single use dwellings
Marinas
Marine Sales
Woodworking Shops
Wharves and Slipways
Figure 2: 1992 aerial photograph of 219 Victoria Street and surrounding properties (Source: MODC)
Application Overview Page 6
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
The current single-unit residence (Figure 3) is located in the area zoned as CVR. As part of the previous
plan review, the CVR designation was created to tigh tly control regulations with respect to development
density. Permitted developments in the CVR Zone are single unit dwellings, parks, existing multi -unit
dwellings, and group homes. Also permitted are two -unit dwellings subject to additional restrictions.
Figure 3: Streetview of 219 Victoria Street and the residence located on the property (Source: Google Maps)
Policy Analysis
This section analyzes the Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy to understand the policies
related to this rezoning and potential development.
Table 1.
Chester Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy Analysis
Policy Analysis
Policy 2.2.1:The existing character of Chester –
regarded as a high quality, predominantly
residential living environment of traditional
architectural character and urban form with small
enclaves of modern residential, commercial,
institutional and light industrial dev elopment –is
regarded as the primary point of reference and
model for future development.
Staff Comment: Rezoning the property fits within
the intent of this policy.
Application Overview Page 7
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
Policy 3.3.4: To limit the density of residential
development in the Planning Area in order to
protect groundwater supply, in accordance with
policies articulated in section 4.1 (Residential
Development) of this Planning Strategy.
Staff Comment: While rezoning the property will
not directly increase density and threaten
groundwater supply,the stated intent to build 2-3
residences could impact existing groundwater
supply.
Policy 4.2.5:To designate land along the
waterfront which is not in industrial or park use,
but which fronts directly on a public street or
public right-of-way, as Waterfront Residential
Areas, as shown on Map 5, Future Land Use Map,
and to establish in the Land Use By-law a
corresponding Waterfront Residential Zone where
new land use activities shall be limited to single
unit dwelling and uses related directly to water
access. The intention of this zone and the
development restrictions in this zone is to
maintain the character of those areas as expressed
by the low density of development and the vistas
of the harbour and ocean horizon which are
available between the structures.
Staff Comment: This policy would suggest that
where a property is not used as industrial (or park)
and there is frontage on the public street, it
should be designated as Waterfront Residential.
This would suggest that an argument could be
made that rather than extending the CVR zone,
the WR zone would be supported by policy. It
further supports that the intention was to restrict
residential development within 50 feet of the
high-water mark.
Policy 4.2.10:Within the Waterfront Residential
Area,as shown on Map 5, Future Land Use Map,
to restrict the erection of structures within 15
metres (fifty feet) of the Mean High Water Line, so
as to limit the scale and extent of development
and alteration of areas which are subject to
flooding and storm damage as well as being
essential to the preservation of the open character
of the area.
Staff Comment: As the applicant has stated the
intended purpose of the rezoning would be to
subdivide 219 Victoria Street into 2-3 lots and
erect residential structures,rezoning the MI as WR
could be seen as a more appropriate proposal as
the MI zone loses much of its utility. The WR z one
abuts the MI zone on the subject property.
Policy 4.4.1: To recognize the marine oriented
industrial and marine service areas located on the
Back Harbour by designating these areas as
Marine Industrial Areas shown of Map 5, Future
Land Use Map, wherein both Maine Industrial uses
and existing Residential uses shall be permitted,
and to establish a Marine Industrial Zone in the
Land Use By-law to carry out this intention.
Staff Comment: While there are no marine
industrial uses on the site, the preamble to policy
in Section 4.4 states Council’s previous dismissal
of requests to rezone Marine Industrial zones in
this area to preserve land for boat building
activities to take place in the future.
Policy 4.4.2: To consider proposals for expansion
of Marine Industrial Areas by amending the
Zoning Map of the Land Use By-law to
Staff Comment: The proposed rezone reduces MI
area, which could be seen as contrary to this
policy. However, the subject property, while zoned
Application Overview Page 8
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
incorporate abutting areas into the Marine
Industrial Zone, provided that any resulting
conflicts are minimised in accordance with policies
6.0.7, 6.0.8, and 6.0.9.
MI does not currently contain an industrial use
and no expansion of the MI zone has been
proposed in recent memory.
Policy 6.0.8: Council may consider
(ii) expansion of the Marine Industrial Zone by
amendment of the Land Use By-law Zoning Map.
Staff Comment: This policy does not apply as the
request from the Developer is to reduce the area
zoned MI and replace it with CVR.
Proposal Analysis
The proposed rezoning does not conform with some of the policies and their intent stated in the Chester
Village Area Secondary Planning Strategy. The two primary policy areas where contradictions between the
proposal and policy are:
1.Marine industrial use on the property; and
2.Rezoning of industrial (or park) land to Waterfront Residential.
While rezoning the subject property does not directly increase the density of residential development,
following the completion of a rezone, the developer may subdivide and develop the property according
to the existing land use and subdivision by -laws. Table 2 outlines the site’s current development potential
and compares it to the proposed rezone. The stated intent of the developer to subdivide the property into
2-3 lots and erect dwellings on the lots would increase the residential density in the area and could affect
groundwater supply. Staff know of no issues of groundwater supply on this or surrounding properties and
the developer has expressed the option to explore how the proposed development could affect
groundwater.
Although Table 2 indicates the development potential between the current and proposed zoning are the
same, the location of residential development would change with a change in zoning boundaries.
Residential development is not permitted in the MI zone and by altering the zone boundary residential
development could be built closer to the waterfront, subject to minimum rear yard requirements of 3 m
(9.8 ft). The proposed rezone does not have an effect on the maximum lot coverage between the current
and proposed lot configuration.
Application Overview Page 9
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
Table 2.
Current development potential compared to the developer’s proposal for 219 Victoria Street
Current Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 8,000 ft2 8,000 ft2
Number of Potential
New Lots
3 3
Number of Potential
New Dwellings
-One, 2 unit dwelling through
residential conversion as per 5.6.1.b.i
-One new 2 unit dwelling as per
5.6.1.b.ii
-One, new single unit dwelling
-One, 2 unit dwelling through
residential conversion as per 5.6.1.b.i
-One new 2 unit dwelling as per
5.6.1.b.ii
-One, new single unit dwelling
The proposed rezone contradicts Council’s intent and policies related to th e use of the Marine Industrial
(MI) zone. The preamble to policy for the MI zone supports marine industrial uses in this area and notes
Council’s previous decisions to deny requests to rezone properties for residential purposes. Policies within
the Planning Strategy also support the expansion of marine industrial uses in the Plan Area. The proposal
to reduce the MI zone to 20 ft. from the high water mark (Figure 4), could limit the future use of the
property, contradicting the intent of the Secondary Planni ng Strategy. Twenty (20) ft. between the high
water mark and zone boundary could limit the type and scale of marine industrial use on the property.
Additionally, section 4.4.12 of the Chester Village Area Land Use By-law indicates “Vehicular access to any
commercial or industrial building or use, from the public street, shall be through the same zone in which
the building or use is located” (pp. 16). The current lot frontage (or a portion of it) of the MI zone on
Victoria Street would need to continue for any marine industrial use to be located on the property,
creating potential land use conflicts between residential and industrial uses. The community’s and
Council’s desire to see a change in use on this property could be explored based on the time since th e last
Plan Review; however, shrinking the MI zone could cause it to lose some of its utility meaning a change in
zone may be more appropriate.
Application Overview Page 10
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
Figure 4:Proposed MI zone boundary based on high water mark (Source: Sylvia Dixon)
If Council decides marine industrial uses are not feasible and wishes to pursue residential uses in this area,
Council may consider rezoning the MI zone to Waterfront Residential (WR). In all but a few areas within
the Plan Area, the WR zone buffers the CVR zone from the Water Access (WA) zone. Policy 4.5.2 advocates
for the designation of land which is not being used for industrial or park purposes to be zoned as WR.
Rezoning the MI zone as WR would preserve the low density character of the Village while a lso
maintaining the views of the harbour. As the proposed rezoning could eliminate the potential of marine
industrial uses from locating on the property, rezoning the site as WR could be a solution to promoting
residential development. Rezoning to WR would also support Council’s intention to protect development
from flooding and storm surges.
The property’s location on the Back Harbour means additional considerations need to be made for
future development with regards to protections from flooding and storm surges.Amending the zone
boundaries could allow residential development to occur within 20 ft. of the high water mark, posing a
threat to property and individuals. Policy 4.2.10 and the associated regulations for the WR zone limit the
extent of development in areas prone to storm surge and flooding by restricting the erection of
structures within 50 ft. of the high water line.
Application Overview Page 11
219 Victoria Street Rezone Request January 3, 2019
Conclusion
Staff feels the rezone, as requested, does not meet the intent of the Secondary Planning Strategy. If the
community and Council feel marine industrial uses do not fit the current vision of the community, Policy
4.2.5 indicates that the area should be rezoned to Waterfront Residential. Reducing the MI zone also
reduces the potential utility of the site and could result in land use conflicts with the proximity of
residential and industrial uses.
Public Information Session
None completed to date
Options
1.Make negative recommendation for rezone request
2.Make negative recommendation for rezone request but consider rezone to WR
3.Make negative recommendation for rezone request and wait for Chester Village Area Secondary
Planning Strategy review to consider rezone
4.Make positive recommendation for rezone request
5.Request changes or additional information from the developer
REQUEST FOR DECISION /DIRECTION
Prepared By:Greg Jonah,C.E.T.Date December 18, 2018
Reviewed By:Matthew S. Davidson,P. Eng.Date January 4, 2019
Authorized By:Malcolm Pitman,Acting CAO Date January 4, 2019
CURRENT SITUATION
The Building and Fire Inspectors vehicle is due for replacement. For this reason,as well as to
eliminate the use of staff’s personal vehicles, Council approved the budget to purchase two (2)
Sport Utility Vehicles. A public tender was issued and closed on December 13, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Engineering & Public Works Department:
1)Award Tender MODC-T-2018-019 for the Purchase of two (2) 2019 Ford Escape SE 4WD
(blue)Sport Utility Vehicles to Valley Ford Ltd., Kentville, Nova Scotia for a purchase price
of $57, 204.70 plus HST.
BACKGROUND
As per the Municipal Purchasing Policy (P -04) the Municipality shall acquire goods such as new
vehicles through a public tender.In the case of the purchase of two (2) Sport Utility Vehicles,the
submissions were opened publicly on December 13, 2018 .
The objective of the Tender is to support the Municipality of the District of Chester’s
(Municipality) ongoing operational requirements. The vehicles to be acquired are generally for
use of building and fire inspector(s) to complete necessary inspections.
DISCUSSION
Following the Municipality’s Procurement Policy, P -04, the project was tendered during the
month of November, closing on December 13th, 2018. Two (2) submissions were received and
reviewed for the conformity to specification, completeness and mathematical accuracy. Below is
a summary of each submission.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Engineering & Public Works Department
DATE:January 10, 2019
SUBJECT:Supply and Delivery of two (2) Sport
Utility Vehicles
ORIGIN:
2 Request For Decision
Life Cycle (5 year) Cost
Mosher Valley
Purchase Price $67,066.34 $65,785.41
Estimated fuel Cost for five
(5) years at 20,000km per
year ($1.15/liter)$22,540.00 $22,540.00
Maintenance Cost $422.92 $3,812.57
Estimated Residual Value $21,000.00 $25,100.00
$69,029.26 $67,037.98
Note: All prices include HST where applicable
All submissions were evaluated according to the Evaluation Criteria which were Delivery
Schedule (20 points), Life Cycle Cost Analysis over a five (5) year period (60 points) and Vehicle
Specification list (20 points). A summary of the evaluations can be s een below, based on
purchasing 2 new Vehicles.
Evaluation Criteria Points Available Mosher Valley
Supply and Delivery of
Truck as detailed in
Schedule A
20
17.4 17.9
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
(Over 5-year Period)60 57.7 60.0
Schedule –date of
delivery within 12 weeks 20 20.0 20.0
Total 95.1 97.9
Valley Ford has successfully and satisfactorily supplied and maintained trucks (2015 F250) to the
Municipality in the past.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Tender MODC-T-2018-019 followed Policy P-04 -Procurement
Financial/Budgetary
The purchase of these vehicles, the highest rated submission is Valley Ford Ltd. The variance
with the project budget is under budget as seen below.
3 Request For Decision
Purchase two (2) Sport Utility Vehicles
BUDGET $90,000.00
TENDER PRICE $65,785.41
HST Rebate $6,128.91
Net Tender $59,656.50
VARIANCE (under budget)$30,343.50
Strategic Plan
1.Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;
2.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
3.Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
OPTIONS
1.Award tender and purchase vehicles as recommended2.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as
identified by Council.
1
Cindy Hannaford
From:Cindy HannafordSent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 3:25 PMTo:Cindy HannafordSubject:FW: Harris Lake Property Owner Association Zoning Request
CINDY HANNAFORD
Executive Secretary
Office:902-275-4110
Consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
From:wayne white
Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 1:13 PM
To:Garth Sturtevant, MCIP, LPP <gsturtevant@chester.ca>; Allen Webber <awebber@chester.ca>; Tara Maguire
<tmaguire@chester.ca>
Cc: 'Theresa Zafiris'
Subject:Harris Lake Property Owner Association Zoning Request
Dear Garth:
As Vice President representing Harris Lake Property Owner Association we are formally requesting that Chester
Municipality apply the existing Single Unit Residential (SU) Zone to the area surrounding Lake Harris and De Adder lake
as indicated in the attached map.
The HLPOA recently conducted a vote of its membership to determine if majority were in favour of the SU zone being
applied to the land surrounding the Lakes.We circulated to our membership the documents on the SU zone found
online including the nonconformance clarification email provided by the Development Officer, Heather Archibald.The
membership was asked to review and reflect on the documents and to vote if they supported the application of SU to
the area.
This vote indicated that the strong majority (greater than 80%) were in favour of the SU zone bein g applied to the land
surrounding the Lakes.As the HLPOA represents majority of the property owners surrounding the lakes and these
citizens overwhelmingly are in favour of the SU zoning we are formally requesting that you include Harris and DeAdder
Lake area in the SU zone.The membership concluded that this is the best way to protect the environment, the
character of the community and property investments.
I have included a map of the area that we request be included in the SU zone.The entire area that has been included is
very important in ensuring the character of the Lake development is protected.If the area indicated is not included in
the SU then the Association feels that the purpose of the restrictions of SU are circumvented so any adjustm ents of the
area would need to be reviewed by HLPOA.
We recognise that we have included the area of the proposed campground in our SU zone as our members surround this
area.We appreciate that given the progress to date for this future development that i t will fall under what the
development officers described as an existing non conformance exception and it will continue to operate as a
campground in the SU zone.However, if in the future, the campground is not viable and it is part of the SU zone then
this property will be subject to the SU zoning bylaws thereby restricting any future non conformance conversions.
As noted we have also included the area surrounding De Adder lake in the SU zone as majority of the property owners
surrounding that lake have joined HLPOA and voted in support of SU.
2
Thank you for your patience in our journey to define the character and protect the environment of the Lakes.In keeping
with the Municipalities ReVision Plan’s documented principals and policies and in listening to the majority voice of the
citizen of the community, I hope council can support us in this request similar to all the other SU zones sprinkled
throughout each of the other six districts in Chester Municipality.
If you need any further clarification please don’t hesitate to send me a note or call me at 902 462 8890.
I look forward to your reply.
Respectfully
Wayne A White P Eng MBA
Vice President Harris Lake Property Owners Association
Lake Harris NS