[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] We're good. Okay, great. Well, welcome everyone and I just want to make sure that we've got a sound check here. For councilor furlong, you can hear me. Absolutely.
[0:10] Perfect. Thank you. And councilor Davis and you can hear as well.
[0:13] Yes, I can. Great. Thank you very much. And welcome everyone to our meeting afternoon, our special council meeting today.
[0:22] First we'll call the meeting order and do our territorial acknowledgement. I would like to acknowledge that our gathering today is taking place in McMoggi.
[0:29] the traditional unceded and ancestral territory of the McMot people.
[0:33] But also like to acknowledge that Nova Scotia has another unique people, the people of African descent,
[0:38] whose legacy and contributions date back over 400 years predating
[0:42] confederation of this land, where all treaty people.
[0:47] Included in the package is a number of items in the agenda.
[0:52] First, we'll get a, um, we're going to proceed with the development agreement synopsis and council
[0:59] wells.
[1:00] You're going to take us through that.
[1:03] Thank you very much.
[1:04] So development agreement, second reading of one Albion Street.
[1:08] The YMCA Carverland has applied for development agreement to permit the construction of a 36-unit
[1:13] residential development on the property located at one Albion Street.
[1:17] A public participation opportunity was held on March 30th, where verbal and written input was
[1:23] submitted both in support for and in opposition to the proposal.
[1:29] The Planning Advisory Committee reviewed the revised proposal on June 1st, but failed
[1:33] to make a recommendation on the application.
[1:36] A public hearing was held on July 8th, where verbal and written input was provided to council
[1:41] both in support for and in opposition to the proposal.
[1:45] The attached development agreement contains the terms and conditions intended to address the
[1:50] relevant policies of the municipal planning strategy.
[1:53] This infill development addresses the high demand for affordable housing and would be located
[1:58] in a central location in the downtown core area.
[2:02] The motion is that Council gives second reading of the development agreement for one Albion
[2:06] Street to permit the construction of a 36 unit residential development.
[2:10] Thank you. Do we have a seconder for that?
[2:15] Deputy Mayor?
[2:15] Seconder?
[2:16] Thank you.
[2:18] Just before we call for a question, I know I'd like to thank Council Firmlong for
[2:22] a number of clarifications that were provided to Council this week.
[2:26] I think all of Council had received those and read through those.
[2:31] Very important points to make with respect to this development.
[2:35] Are there any other questions with respect to this motion?
[2:41] I'll share a comment if I may.
[2:43] Absolutely.
[2:44] Go ahead, Councilor Furong.
[2:46] Most of my questions were thoroughly answered by the Planning Department.
[2:50] So I very much thank them for the strong response and
[2:54] citing a lot of useful information to help us make our decision there.
[2:58] I am still a little on clear around policy 5.7 around a
[3:02] minority space.
[3:04] It uses the strong language that Council shall ensure adequate
[3:08] on-site of an empty space. It doesn't say on-site space can be replaced or supplemented by
[3:13] parks or other off-site spaces. So I'm a little unclear on how this proposal meets our policy
[3:22] and whether any exemptions need to be explicitly made in order to comply with that policy.
[3:31] Okay, I'm going to ask the CAO if you want to ask Andrew, you want to come up and just speak to that.
[3:39] question and provide any clarification that you can.
[3:53] Thanks for the thanks for the opportunity to answer the question.
[3:58] I guess ultimately the policy talks about ensuring that there's adequate
[4:03] amenity space.
[4:05] As I attempted to answer in the questions the Council are for a long and
[4:11] I attempted to put that into context.
[4:15] There is 3250 square feet of Outdoor Humanity Space on site.
[4:24] And I guess the other part would be if they did provide a 20 square foot balcony,
[4:33] which is not very big and they for each individual individual unit.
[4:37] That would satisfy the land use by law requirements.
[4:43] But I guess I'll reiterate that under a development agreement,
[4:47] those hard and fast rules of the land use by law are negotiated.
[4:53] So I guess at the end of the day, there is over 3,000 square feet of outdoor
[4:59] many space on site in, I guess, our opinion that that is better than providing a 20-square
[5:09] foot balcony for each unit, there's an opportunity to gather to have perhaps a swing
[5:16] set or for children to play together in that common outdoor area, so in our opinion,
[5:27] I guess
[5:29] space is being met. Ultimately, it's Council's decision to make whether that is adequate.
[5:37] Right. Okay. Council, for a long-deserved, provide any further clarification for you?
[5:43] It helps. A motor long-clear, the land use in the difference between the land use and
[5:49] our municipal planning strategies. So the policy is 5.73 from the MPS. That's where the
[5:59] I'm a little on clear on the minimum, I think we talked about a 6 foot balcony space and the gap between 6 to 20 and if you do the math,
[6:11] the green space on the property is roughly 8.
[6:14] So then I'm trying to close the gap here, I'm still a little on clear, why the minimum standards of the land use by law,
[6:23] when the the verbiage is coming from the NPS and just trying to cover my bases there.
[6:32] Would you like to respond to that, Andrew?
[6:33] I'll try.
[6:34] So the municipal planning, the development agreement must meet the intent of the
[6:39] municipal planning strategy policies.
[6:41] It is not required to meet the standards of the land use by law.
[6:47] So if we were, if we were doing a different development that didn't require a
[6:51] development agreement, you would be held fast to the minimum requirements of the
[6:57] landies by-law. Because the development is by a development agreement, those
[7:04] landies by-law, minimums are not a steadfast requirement. We rely on the intent
[7:11] of the policies, and we use those requirements that might be relevant from the
[7:20] wait for the proposal. It would be fair to say the adequate on-site square footage that
[7:27] we're using. That's coming.
[7:30] Or land use by laws, those numbers, the 20 square meters?
[7:35] Yes, the 20 square meters, the 20 square meters, about dormant space requirement, is from the land use by law.
[7:44] Which is what we're kind of saying at our baseline for adequate base, give or take, based on the attend of the MPS.
[7:52] Correct.
[7:57] Just to wrap up my thought there.
[7:59] I'm
[8:04] glad that's pretty much it. We talked about the the traffic congestion in the area and you're provided some some great
[8:09] tangible stats on the current flow of the area and number of cars and how the
[8:17] development would impact that. The only question that the number you gave me about the next expected increase of around 20 to 24
[8:26] I forget what the term was, but that increase is that inclusive of a service delivery
[8:34] vehicles, visitors, and all that stuff, would that just be the residential impact of that
[8:42] 36 units going up, and that's where we think the numbers would generate.
[8:47] That's really a, that's kind of a generic plug-in, you know, what is a 36 unit apartment in
[8:53] down town setting using affordable housing with no public transit and 18 square feet of
[9:04] office space. So if you kind of like literally it's a simple, if you Google that that
[9:10] traffic manual, the traffic demand manual and you put you key in those conditions, that's
[9:16] number it gives you. So, okay. Yeah.
[9:23] All right.
[9:26] That's all I have
[9:27] I guess. I've been on the receiving end of policy where I thought I'd
[9:30] met the intent before, so I'm just being a little extra cautious. I didn't get the
[9:33] results I wanted, so I just want to make sure I'm ensuring the consistency in the
[9:38] application of our policy is also. Thank you. Certainly understand. Well, thank you
[9:42] council for a long. Are there any other questions? Council, well, do you have a
[9:46] That's all.
[9:50] Everyone good.
[9:52] I'll call for vote.
[9:53] Now, all those in favor of the development,
[9:56] approval, please signify by saying aye.
[9:59] Aye.
[10:00] Those against.
[10:02] One nague.
[10:03] Two nays.
[10:04] Councilor Furlong accounts, though, quickly.
[10:07] The motion has passed.
[10:09] That completes our actions for today.
[10:11] Thank you very much council for being here and folks for attending.
[10:15] Meet you.
[10:16] Meet you.
[10:17] Thank you.
[10:18] Thank you.
[10:18] The answers?