[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] I'll call the September 8, 2026 meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee to order. I'd like to acknowledge that our gathering today is taking place in McMuggie, the traditional, unseated and ancestral territory of the McMugg people. I would also like to acknowledge that Nova Scotia has another unique people. The people of African descent, whose legacy and contribution stayed back
[0:28] In fact, over 400 years, predating confederation of this land, we are all treaty people.
[0:38] First item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda.
[0:43] This was circulated prior to today's meeting.
[0:46] Are there any additions that we'd like to place before the committee?
[0:55] Somebody move the acceptance of the agenda as presented?
[0:59] move
[1:06] to accept the agenda as presented.
[1:10] Seconder,
[1:16] Councillor Chambers, seconder.
[1:19] It's been moved and seconded that we approve the agenda is circulated.
[1:23] I'll move the favor.
[1:24] I can apply by saying aye.
[1:25] Aye.
[1:26] Contrary.
[1:27] The agenda is approved and is circulated.
[1:31] Next item is the acceptance of the minutes of our June 1st, 2026 meeting.
[1:36] these minutes were circulated prior to the day's meeting? Are there any errors or omissions?
[1:43] You
[1:48] have some phone callers or light just so on. He just turned it off. You're good?
[1:53] Yeah, that's fine.
[1:56] Councilor McMahon.
[1:59] Okay, there being no errors or omissions, I'll declare the minutes approved
[2:05] as circulated. Item number three on the agenda relates to 29
[2:12] May I join Patterson Street, Ms. Weiner?
[2:20] Thank you.
[2:23] So the purpose of today's meeting for 29 Patterson Street is for the committee to hear the staff report,
[2:28] hear from the owner and complainants, and make a recommendation if they so choose.
[2:33] Alternatively, the committee may defer a recommendation to a subsequent meeting.
[2:38] So this property is a vacant single-family detached dwelling with a residential zoning that recently changed ownership in August.
[2:45] It was last occupied in 2017 and has remained vacant since.
[2:50] The property was purchased at tax sale in 2019, sold again in 2023, sold again with the current owner taking possession just this August.
[3:00] An interior inspection did occur back on November 6, 2024, showing several deficiencies with the building,
[3:06] including the instructional integrity of the building was compromised, where a portion of the floor joists of the main floor had begun to collapse.
[3:15] The current owner took possession in August, as mentioned, and intends to demolish both the building and the accessory building.
[3:23] A follow-up inspection on August 31st confirmed that some exterior work had commenced, including disconnection of the power and removal of some siding from two of the sides of the main building.
[3:34] The owner had advised that the interior will be gutted by the end of October with demolition to follow.
[3:40] While a demolition permit application has not been received yet, the owner is aware of the requirement and has indicated that an application will be submitted.
[3:50] Given the extent of the deterioration, structural concerns and the overall condition of the premises staff are in the opinion that the building is dangerous and would require substantial repairs to be habitable.
[4:03] The owner agrees that demolition is required and has begun taking those steps to complete the process.
[4:10] Historically, recommendations for the orders for demolition have provided no more than a 90-day timeline from the date of the meeting in which the order was issued, providing there is no imminent danger precedent.
[4:21] Following consultation with the property owner's staff are recommending a 100, 180-day deadline for completion of the demolition, as the owner intends to undertake the demolition using non-mechanical methods.
[4:35] The owner has also indicated that 180 days provides a reasonable time frame to complete
[4:40] this necessary work.
[4:42] Just two pictures I'd like to have the community take a closer look at are on page 28.
[4:54] This is just when we did the inspection, we were only able to walk on the exterior of the
[5:00] building due to the interior floor collapse as you can see in this picture.
[5:04] This might be the one of the best pictures that you can see in this collapse, where the
[5:08] if door frames are not connected to the floor anymore and also on page 34 has a closer
[5:16] up view of this as well. Again, just the door frames no longer connected and the joys
[5:23] below have collapsed.
[5:29] So there will be three options for the planning advisory committee
[5:32] to consider today.
[5:36] Option one, I'll wait for it to be on the screen there.
[5:42] Option one is that the Planning Advisor Committee ordered the demolition of the building and accessory building and any holes backfilled, located at 29 Patterson Street, PID 25025909 within 180 days of the date of this meeting with all work to be completed by the property owner.
[6:02] Failure by the property owner to complete their acquired work may result in the town of Amers undertaking the demolition and disposal of contents to appropriate solid waste facility or impound yard with all costs incurred to be charged the property owner's tax account.
[6:16] Option two is that the planning advisor committee directs staff to retain a qualified third party contractor or professional engineer to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the building's condition.
[6:25] This will include detailed recommendations and cost estimates required to ensure the structure can be properly secured and safe to be accessed by first responders and further that the findings of this assessment be reported back to the PAC with all associated costs to be charged to the property owner's tax account.
[6:41] And finally, that the option three is that the Planning Advisory Committee direct staff to continue monitoring, monitoring the subject property and to report back to the committee on any new emerging, any new or emerging issues as they arise.
[6:59] Thank you. Is there any questions from Ms. Wainwright at this point?
[7:07] Thank you. Is the owner or representative of the owner present and if so, and I'd like to speak with you to come to the podium, please identify yourself please.
[7:17] So
[7:19] my name is Cindy McLeod, I've had the property for a little less than six weeks, so I'm getting up to speed.
[7:27] I understand the property needs to be, the house needs to be demolished and the building as well, and then the property backfilled.
[7:34] I'm just asking for some time, we've already started undertaking my brothers and Ontario right now or we would be further along.
[7:40] I did apply for the demolition permit today, I just haven't had a chance to get here.
[7:46] So, it's in process. I'm just asking for this was a surprise. I received this notice the day I signed for the property.
[7:53] I was not made aware before I put a bit on the property that it was, I knew it was going to need to be torn down.
[7:59] Didn't understand that it was at this stage. So, I'm just asking for some time. I agree the house needs to come down.
[8:07] It's an eye sore, it's dangerous, and I'd like to, the time to be able to proceed.
[8:16] The report recommended 180 days is set within your timeframe.
[8:23] I believe so.
[8:23] I believe so.
[8:24] Yes.
[8:25] We do have, it's the two of us and we've torn down more than one structure in our lifetime.
[8:31] The house isn't terribly huge.
[8:33] We just, we'd like to salvage some of the material and prevent it from going into solid waste if it doesn't have to.
[8:39] And, you know, make sure that things are appropriately sorted, so the metal goes to metal, and things like that, I think doing it manually as well will have less of an impact on the neighbors will be a little bit quieter, a lot less messy.
[8:53] And then, just would really like the chance to do it properly.
[8:59] Are there any questions that we spoke about?
[9:06] Thank you very much.
[9:07] Thank you.
[9:09] Oh, sorry.
[9:10] Oh.
[9:12] Okay.
[9:15] So appreciate that this is something you're tackling yourself and you've done this before.
[9:21] Yeah.
[9:21] As you mentioned.
[9:24] And so I hope it will be done safely.
[9:29] I'm sure it will.
[9:29] So, but my question is, Gus, more to that, you plan to strip some of the materials and reuse them or divert them.
[9:39] That's really great.
[9:42] But I guess my question is, as you get closer to having an open structure, what's your sort of safety plan to keep that?
[9:51] At some point that structure becomes, when the walls and doors are removed, it's easy for
[9:57] for animals and people and kids to get in there.
[10:00] What's your plan?
[10:01] I live at 39.
[10:03] Okay.
[10:03] I'm putting cameras up.
[10:04] I also own 31.
[10:06] My brother's gonna live there eventually.
[10:08] So I own 31 as well, which is right in front of it.
[10:11] Cameras are going up on 31.
[10:13] I've already bought the fencing to put around 29.
[10:16] I'm right there.
[10:18] So you have a plan to put some fencing around it while you're
[10:21] great.
[10:22] That's great.
[10:25] I have any other questions.
[10:29] Thank you.
[10:30] Thank you.
[10:30] Thanks for the opportunity.
[10:37] Is the complainant or representative of the complainant here today and would they like
[10:43] to say anything?
[10:49] Okay.
[10:49] There's not.
[10:53] We've been presented with three options by Ms. Wainwright.
[10:58] Is someone prepared to make an option, a motion to accept one of those options, please?
[11:07] Councillor Ripley?
[11:08] put a motion forward that we go with option number one.
[11:14] It is a PZ.
[11:16] There's a seconder.
[11:17] Councillor Teppany Mayor Chambers.
[11:19] Seconder.
[11:19] Thank you.
[11:21] Any questions with respect to the motion?
[11:29] For the question, all those in favour of accepting the motion, which states acceptance of
[11:36] option number one, signify by saying aye.
[11:43] Thank you.
[11:46] Next item on the agenda relates to 51 York Street in this winery.
[12:00] Thank you again.
[12:02] Similar to the first item, we just discussed for 51 York Street, so the committee today
[12:07] will hear the staff report here from the owner and complainant of present and make a recommendation
[12:13] if they wish. Otherwise, the committee can defer their recommendation to a subsequent meeting.
[12:19] A complaint was received in March of 2026 regarding garbage throughout the property and food being disposed of at a second story window.
[12:28] The initial inspection found extensive deterioration to the building in general, including a collapse rear basement wall.
[12:35] The building official was then requested the same day to ensure immediate safety for anyone entering the building or the property.
[12:43] It was determined at that time that a request for an interior inspection was necessary.
[12:49] That interior inspection was conduct on April 14, along with Amherst Police Department myself and the owner and an occupant, and due to the conditions of the building in order to vacate was issued on April 16, once alternative housing options were provided to the owner.
[13:06] The owner was also given until May 31st to meet with the building official and myself to discuss their intentions with the building, which the owner did not proceed with at the time.
[13:16] Several deficiencies were noted during the inspection, including a collapsed portion of the rear basement wall, significant water damage the road, deteriorated and broken windows, inadequate means of egress and accessible bathroom and a lack of operational smoke detectors.
[13:35] A substantial accumulation of materials and belongings further restricts movement and access to essential facilities.
[13:42] A heating appliance and evidence of cooking in a confined bedroom and add further fire and life safety risks.
[13:50] It is in the staff's opinion that the building is severely deteriorated, sorry.
[13:57] Unsafe and presents a significant risk to the health and safety of any person entering or occupying it.
[14:02] Given these conditions, staff are in the opinion that the building is dangerous, and when we require an unforeverable number of repairs to make habitable.
[14:12] The pictures I'd like to focus on are on page 52 and 56, I guess we'll go to 52 first.
[14:19] So this would be the collapsing rear basement wall from the exterior.
[14:23] So this was originally found on the initial inspection when we received the original complaint for garbage.
[14:30] And from the inside, from April 14th, page 56, I know they're not great pictures to see,
[14:38] but that's the collapse from the inside of the building there.
[14:43] Again, that's the exterior rear wall.
[14:51] The three options that are presented at the PAC today is that one,
[14:55] the Planning and Advisory Committee order the demolition of the building located at 51 York Street.
[15:00] Fifth, zero, zero, three, zero, nine, six, within 60 days of the date of this meeting with all work to be completed by the property owner. Failure by the property owner to complete the required work will result in the town of Amherst undertaking the demolition and disposal of contents to appropriate solid waste facility or impound year with all costs incurred to be charged the property owner's tax account. Option two is that the planning advisory committee direct staff to retain a qualified third party contractor or professional engineer to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the building's condition.
[15:30] This will include detailed recommendations and cost estimates required to ensure the
[15:34] structure can be properly secured and safe to be accessed by first responders.
[15:38] And further that these findings of the assessment be reported back to the PAC with all associated
[15:43] costs to be charged to the property under a tax account.
[15:47] And option three is that the Planning Advisory Committee direct staff to continue monitoring
[15:51] the subject property and report back to the committee on any new or emerging issues as they
[15:56] arise.
[15:56] And at this time, staff will be recommending option ones.
[16:02] Thank you.
[16:04] Are there any questions of Ms. Wainwright?
[16:11] Is the owner or representative of the owner present?
[16:16] Would you care to speak, sir?
[16:21] If you go to the poll, would you, if you would like to speak, sir?
[16:28] Okay, fine, thank you.
[16:31] Is the complainant or representative of the complainant present?
[16:35] Would
[16:41] someone like to make a motion with respect to one of the options that we're presented
[16:45] here today?
[16:52] Yeah.
[16:58] I just had a question of a, so an order to vacate was issued and it says, kind of, progress
[17:03] was made.
[17:05] I'm just wondering if, kind of, we've exhausted all options here before demolition.
[17:20] So the progress was in regards to a garbage order on the exterior of the property.
[17:24] So we issued a garbage order on April 9th the day after the initial site visit due to
[17:31] the accumulation of garbage and other contents on the exterior of the property.
[17:36] The owner did work away over the months to clean that up.
[17:39] We ultimately couldn't wait any longer and we did do.
[17:43] We finished the cleanup on July 29th after we hadn't received any more communication from
[17:52] the owner.
[17:53] So the progress wasn't necessarily on the structure, it was on the exterior contents.
[17:59] There's a few orders that were issued on the property.
[18:02] So you have to follow up?
[18:04] Yeah, I guess it was it clear at that time that it was a, you know, there were structural
[18:10] problems and whatnot.
[18:12] Yes, yeah.
[18:13] When did the initial site visit on April 8th?
[18:15] That's when I first saw the exterior collapse in the building and that's the day we, so
[18:23] So the following day on the 9th, we issued the notice to enter and issued the garbage order for the exterior contents, and we also had the building inspector on site the day of the initial site visit as well, which was April 8th.
[18:35] Okay.
[18:39] Any further questions?
[18:41] Okay.
[18:45] Absolutely.
[18:46] And you said there's been no talks about the owner doing any work to the building at all.
[18:54] Not yet, I think I've never been given a definitive answer either way, but I think they
[18:59] realize the extent of the deficiencies, and it's a huge undertaking, of course.
[19:07] And just to put that, we also issued an order to meet with us by May 31st, as I mentioned,
[19:15] and we haven't done that.
[19:16] And I mean, if they would have came to us a little bit after we don't have that hard set
[19:21] for 31st, but it was also if you don't meet with us by May 31st, it will be going to
[19:25] PAC for demolition. So this was the closest PAC meeting since then, because it would
[19:33] have missed the June cutoff.
[19:36] Okay, so Chambers,
[19:40] there's no one in their tallies or nobody's squatting in there.
[19:44] The order of AK was issued and we don't have any other methods of assuming there was anyone
[19:49] in there because there's no water consumption, we don't get a water consumption because there's
[19:54] no access to water facilities in the building, and as usually how we can tell if someone's in
[19:57] the building. But as of, I'm assuming the date of the order to vacate that it would
[20:04] have been vacated.
[20:06] Thank you. Any other questions? Someone's here to make a motion.
[20:22] Mr. Ripley?
[20:23] Make a motion to go out to number one.
[20:25] Here. They're seconded for that.
[20:29] Mr. Hammond.
[20:31] I second that motion.
[20:32] Any questions with respect to the motion?
[20:40] Is there a repeat?
[20:44] Okay.
[20:45] It's been moved and seconded that we accept option number one as presented by the staff.
[20:53] All those in favour?
[20:55] Signify by saying aye.
[20:57] Contrary.
[21:00] Motion accepted.
[21:01] Thank you.
[21:04] Next item on the agenda relates to a variance at $69 lower of a plan.
[21:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair,
[21:22] so it's standard practice when staff issue a variance that we report that variance to the playing advisory committee.
[21:28] This is really an information item for now, but the intent is to sort of review what was the variance that was issued.
[21:37] And sometimes it leads to identifying something, I needed amendment to the land use by law or something of that nature.
[21:47] In this case, in August 11th, we issued a staff issue to 7.5% variance to the minimum
[21:55] lot area requirements at $69.00 per plant street to permit the construction of a nine-unit
[22:01] apartment building.
[22:04] That, and I'll get into it, but that variance was appealed to Council and the hearing is scheduled
[22:10] for Thursday, September 17th, 430.
[22:13] so following that council can at the hearing council will hear from staff and then from
[22:22] the appellant and the property owner and they can make any decision that the development
[22:28] officer could have made. So staff will come back with that and update the committee once
[22:33] that's over. But I'll just go into a little bit of detail what the details of what was applied
[22:41] slide four. Next slide please. So as I mentioned this is 69 over
[22:50] the planch and you can see
[22:51] it identified in red on the screen it's when you're coming into town off of lower
[22:56] the planch it's the first street on your right.
[23:03] Bear with me for one second.
[23:07] Oh, okay.
[23:07] So the proposal was for a nine unit apartment building that it met the parking and
[23:17] manatee space requirements.
[23:21] The minimum lot area required was 1350 square meters.
[23:28] The total lot area was 1250 leaving a shortfall of 100 square meters or about a thousand
[23:36] the square feet, representing a 7.5% variance.
[23:40] Next slide, I'll just to show you, this is the site plan.
[23:45] So hopefully you can tell the rectangle near slower in the plan street.
[23:51] That's the building.
[23:52] It has the entrances and stairwells are exterior.
[23:57] And you'll see that in the next diagram.
[23:59] It has a driveway entry way and exit on both sides of the building in 14 parking spaces at the rear.
[24:05] here. Next slide. So the elevation on the left side would be the, those are the entrances
[24:16] to the units. The west elevation on the right, that would be looking at the rear of the
[24:22] building. Next slide. This would be looking from low-plant
[24:28] street on the left elevation and the east elevation on the right would be your view from
[24:35] lower the plant tree, big slide.
[24:39] So as I mentioned, the variance process, the Municipal Government Act, where it's provided
[24:45] for in the land use by law, allows the development officer to grant a variance for specific things.
[24:52] Those include the lot area, the frontage, the minimum yard setback requirements, the number
[24:59] of parking spaces required, building height, et cetera.
[25:03] Those are provided for in our land use by-law under section 3.12.
[25:09] So under the Municipal Government Act deals with variances in section 235 and it sets the
[25:16] test for variance and it states it may not be granted, it may not be granted if it violates
[25:23] the intent to the land use by-law.
[25:25] The difficulty experience is general to the properties in the area or the difficulty is experienced
[25:31] experience is the result of an intentional disregard for the landing spot.
[25:36] So that's a pretty high bar, I think most development officers would tell you that that excludes
[25:43] any type of variance if you were to really apply the letter of those of that test.
[25:50] I guess we thought that a seven and a half percent variance to allow three additional units.
[26:01] To allow a nine unit apartment building here was reasonable.
[26:07] But frankly, if it was appeal, it was something that Council could look at and set the expectation
[26:16] of what what council feels isn't an appropriate variance or not so in this case the process is that if if the development officer determines that a variance is warranted or or is approved a notices sent to property owners within 30 meters and provide and that provides 14 days to appeal that decision to council council here's the appeal and they will in the 17th and can make any decision that the development officer
[26:45] can make which is approve or deny it.
[26:50] After the appeal hearing on September the 17th at Council,
[26:56] likely a Council's regular meeting in September,
[26:58] a decision would be made on the appeal.
[27:02] So that is where that stands right now.
[27:06] Happy to answer any questions, but like I said,
[27:09] there's not really a decision to be made here.
[27:12] And I think once council makes their determination of appeal, we can have another committee can have another discussion about both the rules and the variants.
[27:24] Questions?
[27:26] Madam?
[27:35] Yeah, I just had a question about what it is that was violated here, is it the size of the building on the lot or the amount of total lot space required for all the parking spots, et cetera, to actually fit on the lot?
[27:50] Thank you.
[27:51] That's a good question.
[27:52] So the way we regulate density, if you will, in a lot is we require a certain, a minimum
[27:59] lot area for every unit, dwelling unit that's proposed.
[28:03] So in this case, and the rule is for, in the general residential zone, the first six units,
[28:12] it's basically 200 square meters per unit.
[28:14] So six gets you to 1,200 square meters, then every unit above six, it's 50 square meters per unit.
[28:23] So, you can do the math on that.
[28:26] He was, that basically says, this is the minimum lottery that will allow for this number of units.
[28:33] And he, and they were short, so we issued that variance.
[28:36] And it, it seemed to be because it was the actual rectangular shape.
[28:40] It wasn't the full, like, there's another patch of grass next to it
[28:44] that was not part of that.
[28:46] Sorry, the plan just looked like a pretty small building on a pretty big lot, so I just
[28:51] wondered what, yeah.
[28:53] So yeah, to the north of that is not part of that property.
[28:57] Correct.
[28:58] And I first looked at that.
[28:59] It seemed like a really big piece of property.
[29:01] Right.
[29:01] No, it's just everything within the bar, the rectangle, if you will.
[29:07] It doesn't really have a, it really, the minimum lot area requirement, it really is kind
[29:13] of a density control.
[29:18] That's the, that's its function really.
[29:21] Didn't look very dense. Once you had the parking in, yeah.
[29:30] Any other questions?
[29:39] If this is approved, will the town do something about the entrance going into there?
[29:48] because right now you have your
[29:55] turning into that street and at the same time
[29:58] and people are...
[30:00] In to the lane to go either left or right.
[30:06] Mr.
[30:10] Chair, if I may. So there's no plan to alter that intersection, particularly because of this development. No.
[30:23] I think just hearing from some of the neighbors there, there are concerns are the entrance to that street.
[30:33] and the two signs that the big billboard signs they have,
[30:39] but I'll leave that up to the presenters,
[30:43] but I was just curious more or less on the street entrance
[30:46] because if you leave Frenchies,
[30:53] your turn,
[30:54] you have to go left to get in the lane
[30:56] if you went into Rob's park or went up the plant street.
[31:01] And at the same time, if you're coming down that street,
[31:03] your office will turn when that street. It looks like a failure or more there's not a
[31:15] whole lot of traffic on that street but if you add the extra people going in that street,
[31:22] it's certainly worth looking at to, yeah, I guess I would, and that's something council can look at.
[31:31] I guess I would suggest that if that is an issue, that issue exists whether or not this development takes place.
[31:40] I don't think they have, they're not opposed to the billing.
[31:46] They just have concerns that the two big signs you can't see by the grant, by that gas station, the two big signs.
[31:57] You can't see excellent in that street because of those two signs, and then plus with the entrance into that street, one is you're going to be turning it in at the same time and people on the other end are going to be trying to cut over.
[32:14] But it's something to look at anyway.
[32:16] We'll leave that up to the presenters for next week.
[32:19] Just figured that didn't know if our committee would pre-look at that.
[32:24] Thank you. Any other questions?
[32:30] Please.
[32:31] Andrew, was there any...
[32:35] This wasn't...
[32:36] We do this, and then it was denied.
[32:39] I'm trying to do math in my head.
[32:41] If he was only put two units on the third floor,
[32:44] would that work out?
[32:47] Because I know he just kind of boxes them on, right?
[32:49] That's kind of where my head was.
[32:50] The math in my head is seeming like it's going to be really close
[32:53] if he was to do two.
[32:55] Good question he could do six on that site by right yeah but if you put two two more on top on one side he said at the top three he'd be I wrote it down still over about 50
[33:10] Slightly over yeah you already did the math
[33:17] any other comments questions
[33:19] Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
[33:23] Thank you.
[33:27] Next item on the agenda, number six.
[33:32] Gentlemen, please.
[33:33] Gentlemen.
[33:35] Please, thank you.
[33:36] Related to municipal planning strategy and land use by law amendments.
[33:41] Mr. Fisher.
[33:50] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[33:51] So the report is really in my, it was in your package, but recently council gave direction to staff
[34:00] to prepare a report for this meeting of the PAC to define wet sites and where and what is permitted and further define where overnight shelters are permitted in town and hold a public participation opportunity and then make a recommendation to council.
[34:23] So, in terms of definitions, in the context of addictions, a wet site is commonly known
[34:33] as a wet house or wet shelter.
[34:35] It's a residential facility for individuals with chronic substance use disorder, typically
[34:41] or historically an alcohol use disorder, where residents are permitted to consume alcohol
[34:48] on the premises.
[34:50] Given that alcohol is legal, an alcoholic wet site is not specifically regulated by senior
[34:57] levels of government.
[35:00] A supervised consumption site often called a safe injection site or an overdose prevention
[35:06] site involves the consumption of illicit controlled substances.
[35:12] Approval for these sites require an exemption under section 56.1 of the Federal Control Drugs
[35:18] and Substances Act, currently there's two of those such facilities operating in Nova Scotia,
[35:25] one at Halifax, the other in Sydney.
[35:29] It does not, the exemption does not legalize elicit drug use but provide specific legal
[35:35] protections for the activities covered under the exemption at the authorized site.
[35:41] In practical terms, individuals can bring their own narcotics to a supervised consumption facility
[35:47] with trained staff that can prevent overdoses and provide other supports to those individuals.
[35:54] Overnight or emergency shelters provide temporary overnight accommodations and
[35:58] other basic needs, such as food, showers, and other supports for those experiencing homelessness.
[36:06] So those are sort of the definitions that staff have come up with so far.
[36:12] are.
[36:14] Under the current planning documents, all those definitions are not included in those
[36:22] planning documents. We don't define them. And particular, you know, depending on the
[36:28] particular, particulars of a specific proposal, shelters are permitted in the downtown commercial
[36:34] commercial zone, the highway commercial zone, and institutional zones.
[36:40] Given that the controlled substances are illegal, staff of the opinion that a development permit could not be issued for a supervised consumption site unless they provided an exemption under that the Federal Control Drugs and Substances Act.
[37:01] So further to the direction of council, we have pushed out the PAC meeting that would
[37:10] have been scheduled for October 5th so that we can hold a public participation session
[37:15] at that time.
[37:19] So what the intention is to bring these definitions forward as draft definitions for
[37:29] or an eventual amendment to our planning documents,
[37:33] as well as a, you know, I guess a discussion
[37:37] or some context around where they might be regulated
[37:42] or located, but really it will be,
[37:46] I guess staff's intention is to sort of say,
[37:49] these are the definitions of these things,
[37:51] these are where they're permitted now,
[37:53] you know, what's the public input around,
[37:56] where they think they should be located
[37:58] are not located. An important point under the Municipal Government Act is that the municipalities
[38:07] have the authority to control where things are or control the conditions around them, but they're
[38:14] not allowed to just prohibit them at right. They need to be permitted somewhere within the municipality.
[38:20] So, that will be the challenge, but we want to hear from the public on it, and then
[38:27] develop a report to the PIC that would take place, I believe, is scheduled for October
[38:35] 20th, and for a consideration of a recommendation to council.
[38:42] I guess I'll just stand up and was saying that it's important to note that this issue is
[38:47] about the planning documents, it's not about moving the existing shelter on Prince
[38:52] Arthur Street. That is a separate issue. As an existing use, which that shelter is,
[39:02] amendments to the planning documents do not impact the shelter's current operation.
[39:07] In other words, that location is grandfathered in. So with that, I'll open it up to her.
[39:18] I
[39:28] would just like to say that given the situation that had been identified within the community
[39:37] over the last number of weeks, some of the comments that have been brought forward
[39:43] to the Planning Advisory Committee with respect to development agreements that have been brought
[39:48] Before us, this is a very important issue, I think, that the town, town staff,
[40:01] town planning advisory committee and town council itself have to recognize and deal with.
[40:08] It's going to be a very intense discussion, I would expect.
[40:15] The fact that we have a public participation session coming up within the next month, I think it's incumbent for us as the members of the Planning Advisory Committee to certainly listen to the comments that are going to be brought forward.
[40:38] Any discussions that are going to result from that, again, I refer back to what Mr. Fisher
[40:46] was talking about with respect to the municipal planning strategy, the land use bylaw.
[40:53] That will be one of the main guiding points that we as a committee will have to follow.
[41:02] And I think that we have to be open-minded, but recognize also the importance and the
[41:09] significance of the issues that have been brought forward both to us, but also what we
[41:17] see out in the community, whether it's through social media or otherwise.
[41:23] So, again, I just think that it's very, very timely topic that we will be looking at.
[41:32] And I think it's fair to say that we look forward to working with staff listening to
[41:38] the recommendations.
[41:41] And also consider what the public is going to bring forward and up to over the fifth.
[41:49] Are there any other thoughts, some chambers,
[41:54] that familiar chambers?
[41:55] Just asking, when the bill is going,
[41:59] but gavels the stain, I love to ask that question.
[42:07] Fisher?
[42:08] You can ask the question, the intention
[42:14] for the new facilities to replace gavels,
[42:19] which is the nursing home,
[42:20] that facility will be vacated, I mean I've received no, I guess I can't, that's as far as I can go with, you know, in terms of what I've received no application for a repurposed of that site.
[42:38] Okay.
[42:40] Okay,
[42:48] I'm in.
[42:49] Yeah, just a question slash comment.
[42:53] I was talking to a friend that works in housing
[42:55] over each in Colchester County
[42:56] and just kind of going over how it works there.
[43:00] And I just wanted to be kind of briefed on this.
[43:02] And one thing that they brought up was damp sites,
[43:06] which is maybe the informal term that they use.
[43:09] Just wondering if we're defining these sorts of things,
[43:12] if something like that should be defined
[43:14] or if that's going to be, you know, suitably covered by the definitions that we use.
[43:19] Assuming that we're going to be kind of leaning on these definitions for developments in
[43:24] the future.
[43:27] It's a great question.
[43:29] I would say that we're going to, between now and the public participation opportunity,
[43:36] there's, we'll be doing more research on how, how, is, does, do these definitions cover
[43:41] all the various uses, because, you know, frankly, staff aren't playing staff aren't subject
[43:48] to experts on this, and there are a lot of, there are a lot of variations in treatment
[43:54] centers and what they're called, so we'll try to, from a definition perspective, be comprehensive
[44:02] in covering all of those sort of variations in those types of facilities.
[44:13] Thank you. In the other thoughts, questions, comments? Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Fisher.
[44:21] We look forward to the meeting on October the 5th.
[44:30] Okay, there being no other items on the
[44:33] agenda. Thank you. Chair in the meeting. Thank you very much.