[0:24] Hello everyone. Thank you for being
here. We're going to get started if
[0:27] everybody's settled and ready to go. Uh,
welcome. I am Lindsay. I'm the community
[0:32] and economic development coordinator for
the town of Kentville. But tonight, I am
[0:36] your host and moderator for the comment
section of the evening. Um, we have a
[0:41] few folks here with us on staff tonight
that I'll introduce. First, our director
[0:45] of planning and development is Darren
Shu. He's right here. Uh, next to him is
[0:48] our development officer, Ben Croll. And
down at the end is GIS technician and
[0:55] development officer, Kirsten Duncan.
story. She's had a lot of different
[0:58] titles over the times that we've worked
together. Um, so the order of the
[1:04] evening will be pretty simple. Uh, we
want to start with a presentation from
[1:07] the director of planning and development
and after that we will have uh open time
[1:12] for public comments or questions for
Darren. Um, we only have one person
[1:17] registered to speak. Um, but that
doesn't mean that when that person's
[1:21] done, you can't put your hand up and and
ask for your time. Each person will be
[1:25] given one five minute time spot. Um, if
you haven't already, please sign in at
[1:30] the table over there by the door. Um,
the meeting is intended to collect
[1:36] feedback from and answer questions for
residents of the town Kenville. Um, the
[1:41] meeting is being recorded for the public
record. It's not being live streamed,
[1:44] but it is being recorded and it will be
posted publicly at a later time. So,
[1:47] please be aware of that. Uh, registered
speakers will be called on first. Like I
[1:51] said, we only have one so far. Um, and
then others will be given time at the
[1:55] end if there is time remaining. We will
end the meeting at 8:00. So, if there's
[2:00] someone who we somehow run out of time
and it's after 8:00, you're welcome to
[2:05] still send your feedback for
consideration. It will be added to the
[2:08] public package that council considers.
Um, there are some cards over on the
[2:12] table there with Darren's email address
on it and you can send your your
[2:15] feedback or your questions directly to
Darren um until May 31st. Is that the
[2:20] date? Okay, great. Thank you.
Um, each speaker will be asked to come
[2:24] forward, state your name and place of
residence, and then you'll be provided
[2:27] with five minutes to speak or ask
questions to the director. Once your
[2:31] time is up, an alarm will actually go
off, and we'll ask you to return to your
[2:34] seat. Um, I do remind you of a few
rules. It is not a debate, so we are
[2:40] here to collect your feedback and hear
your ideas and opinions. We don't want
[2:45] you to debate somebody else's comment
that may have been already made or try
[2:49] to disparage others who may have spoken
before you. Just tell us what you think
[2:53] and what you want us to hear and that's
really all we require. Um, you'll see
[2:59] that some council members are in
attendance tonight. Uh, council is here
[3:03] in observation mode. It is not a council
meeting, so they will not be answering
[3:07] questions. Um, so please just keep that
in mind. This is really important work
[3:12] that we're doing here as a community.
Um, this is the process by which the
[3:16] council gets to hear from the people and
that's a fundamentally important part of
[3:21] municipal government in our in our
democratic system. Um, we we want it to
[3:26] be effective and in order for it to be
effective, it needs to remain
[3:30] respectful. So, we just expect that from
you all and I I know that it will be
[3:34] fine. Um, if it becomes disrespectful or
devolves into something, then we'll just
[3:39] end the meeting. But those are the rules
of engagement. And with that, I will
[3:43] hand it over to Darren to get us
started.
[3:53] » Good evening everyone.
Let's get my slide notes.
[3:58] So I probably was I'm going to try to
keep it short as I can but still be
[4:02] complete in my presentation. Uh so
probably
[4:06] just a little bit probably about 15
minutes worth of slides and then we'll
[4:10] we'll get into uh whatever feedback or
comments. So questions you may have
[4:14] tonight. So the purpose of tonight's
meeting uh is to prevent
[4:20] to present proposed amendments to the
municipal planning strategy and lady's
[4:23] bylaw to explain uh the planning
rationale behind the proposed amendments
[4:28] and how the framework has evolved. So
this is the sort of the second uh
[4:33] attempt to to look at some of these
issues and we've amended some things
[4:36] along the way also to review feedback
and discussion that has arisen through
[4:40] staff PAC and council conversations
uh basically since the start of this
[4:45] year uh to receive of course the main
purpose is to receive public feedback
[4:51] prior to further consideration and as we
take this application through the uh
[4:55] through the different steps that will
will come and again as Lindsay mentioned
[4:59] No decisions will be made tonight. This
is purely a staff engagement with the
[5:03] public. So there's no decisions at all
at this point. So uh I'm going to start
[5:09] with some basics for this. So I'm going
to go through step you through this a
[5:13] little bit. The nature of land use
planning. So municipal land use planning
[5:18] uh regulates the use of land buildings.
It focuses on building forms, density,
[5:23] scale, site design, access, parking,
landscaping, buffering, and
[5:28] compatibility. Those are the main sort
of things that we look at. Municipal
[5:32] planning does not regulate personal
identity, income, health status, or
[5:37] personal support needs. So, we had to
know where we stay in our lane with this
[5:40] because we're required to by the
provincial government by the municipal
[5:43] government.
The focus of Lane's planning is the
[5:47] physical use and impact of development
within the community.
[5:55] So, a little bit about Temple's planning
framework. Uh, the municipal planning
[5:58] strategy establishes council's long-term
policy directions. That's where we we
[6:03] set out some of the big ideas that they
want to achieve over a certain time
[6:07] period and we're in the process of
updating these. Now, we're have a plan
[6:10] review that's ongoing. So, it's we're
starting to look at all of the uh all of
[6:14] the policies again, but the ladies by
all itself implements those policies
[6:17] through different zoning and development
standards and subdivision bylaw
[6:21] regulates the division of land and
infrastructure standards and the
[6:25] proposed amendments we have tonight
potential changes both planning strategy
[6:31] bylaw.
So in terms of uh meaningful context and
[6:36] growth structure
good uh the proposed amendments are
[6:40] being considered within our current
existing growth structure the medium
[6:45] density residential zone are three and
the institutional zoning that already
[6:49] exists uh throughout the community. We
look at some maps here in a second to
[6:53] demonstrate where that actually takes
place. So the first the first map uh
[6:57] this is a general uh generalized future
land use map. It describes basically you
[7:02] see the four five categories on the
bottom left of commercial space,
[7:07] residential, institutional and uh
industrial lands. So these these are
[7:13] where council uh back in 2018 envisioned
um these types of uses occurring. So
[7:18] this these are the primaries and within
within the commercial and within the
[7:22] residential zones in particular
designations in particular there are
[7:26] different zones underneath in underneath
each of those designations which
[7:30] describe different types of uses within
them. For residential use is mostly
[7:34] density that's being controlled with
commercial use is different types of
[7:38] uses that are placed in different parts
of town based on what they're hoping
[7:42] for.
[7:47] Can you give us
[7:53] the streets?
>> We'll get to the question
[7:57] here.
>> What's I can orient it basically.
[8:01] Obvious it's not obvious. It's north
north is top of the map. So the hospital
[8:07] which is which is major landmark not in
town but uh can we do anything with
[8:11] cursor?
[8:15] Okay. Um, let's let's start downtown.
So, the the the pale blue cluster in the
[8:23] center, that's our that's our downtown
area. Basically, that's that's some C1
[8:26] commercial general. Building out from
that, uh, if we go west of it, um, we
[8:34] start to get into some of the park
areas, the ballparks and things like
[8:36] that as we move down Park Street, Main
Street into Park Street. And then as we
[8:40] go along there's there's a sort of
there's residential there and then we
[8:46] finally get down to where some of the
car car dealers are that sort of very
[8:50] west part of town and if we went east
from our downtown core we're working out
[8:57] towards Miners Landing and the border
with the miners basically. Does that
[9:02] help?
>> Okay great. So what we're also looking
[9:06] at here, I mentioned under the
designations, those those sort of five
[9:10] big designations, these are how the how
the zoning breaks down within the
[9:13] community as well. So you see a much
larger range of colors there which
[9:18] represent mostly again commercial for
commercial and residential. We
[9:21] differentiate some of those uses based
on density. And uh again for commercial,
[9:27] there's different types of commercial
uses that are permitted in different
[9:29] types of different parts of town.
It's much more of a patchwork of of uses
[9:36] on the east on the zoning map.
[9:41] So we we'll flip back and forth between
these maps too as as we look at this.
[9:44] There may be some questions too that are
that are located in different areas that
[9:48] we might want to point to. So from the
provincial point of view and we take our
[9:53] cue from what the province allows us to
do on the m under the municipal
[9:56] government act again. So the MGA and
statements of provincial interest
[9:59] establish the B the broader planning uh
framework that we work within. Uh Chem's
[10:05] municipal planning strategy already
supports housing diversity, compact
[10:09] development, mixed use compatibility and
residential intensification. They do it
[10:14] does that in different ways based on the
zone uh that you'd be be uh looking at
[10:19] and the proposed amendments built build
upon these same types of principles.
[10:32] So the the existing residential
institutional framework can uh Kent
[10:36] Phil's planning framework already
contains a range of residential
[10:40] institutional land use categories. We
looked at some of them you know on the
[10:43] previous map. Um the types of uses would
include group homes, homes for special
[10:48] care, boarding houses, assisted living
facilities and institutional uses. uh
[10:53] and they're all all similar in some ways
uh under some of the discussion that we
[10:58] have in some of the way that we've
looked at these particular uses there's
[11:01] some overlap between them and uh and the
next point speaks to that is as housing
[11:05] forms have evolved there's been overlap
uh between residential and institutional
[11:10] uses there there always kind of has been
but I think there's there's different
[11:13] types of
of u instances where those things are
[11:18] being combined now and that's the
program based housing uh idea that we
[11:22] that we look at.
So why why do we need to clarify some of
[11:27] these terms? Uh the current framework uh
under current the 2018 uh planning
[11:33] documents uh there's there's some
uncertainty regarding approval pathways
[11:38] uh and land use interpretation based on
the definitions that we have right now.
[11:42] Uh the amendments that we're presenting
are intended to focus more directly on
[11:46] land use function compatibility and
build form. Um, and the proposed changes
[11:52] seek to improve administrative clarity.
So, it makes it easier to actually look
[11:56] at an application when it comes in. It's
more clarity for not only the applicant
[12:00] but the residents around in the area
where it may be as well as staff and
[12:03] council.
[12:09] So under under the existing zoning
context,
[12:15] the R3 zoning, the R3 zone already
accommodates a broad range of
[12:18] residential forms and densities. Um
institutional zoning already
[12:24] accommodates a range of community survey
and public uses. And again, the proposed
[12:28] amendments, um they also work within
this same structure.
[12:35] So the next map that we're going to show
gives a demonstration of where the R3 uh
[12:41] medium density and institutional zones
currently exist in town. So the the uh
[12:47] yellowy orange mustard color I guess
would be the institutional zones that
[12:51] currently exist and the large one on the
on the the southeast side of town is the
[12:57] agricultural research facilities. That's
that's the one that really stands out
[13:01] and takes up most of our institutionally
zoned property and the remaining red the
[13:06] red spots are the R3 zone. So there
there's not in in the full picture of
[13:11] the town there's fairly limited of each
currently.
[13:21] So under the previous amendment
framework and we were looking at doing
[13:25] some uh creating some amendments
basically in the fall leading up to
[13:29] December of last year. They they
explored more operational
[13:33] classifications for supportive housing,
transitional housing and emergency
[13:37] shelters.
And the previous approaches also uh
[13:42] explored occupancy threshold separation
distances between uses and additional
[13:47] approval triggers.
uh the framework was refined to focus
[13:50] more directly on the things that we
actually have control over that being
[13:54] land use option compatibility build form
and I can explain a little bit the
[13:58] operational classification ste right now
actually
[14:02] slide for that one but uh just to give
an example of what I mean by operational
[14:07] distinctions we had language in there
that talked about how a particular
[14:11] facility would be managed how the
services would be delivered how
[14:15] residents are supported or some of the
internal program functions within that
[14:20] particular building. And again, that
that steps outside of what we can really
[14:24] speak to and that's really government
act where we're where we're uh
[14:28] constrained to some degree to look at uh
say that use function compatibility
[14:35] form.
[14:39] So we had received uh some previous
feedback at a previous PPM uh public
[14:44] participation meeting and from council
and now from also plan advisory
[14:48] committee. Uh and questions were raised
regarding the distinction between
[14:51] residential institutional uses. There
also concerns raised regarding
[14:55] operational definitions and
forcibilities. spoke a little bit about
[14:59] the operational side of things that sort
of outside of our our purview
[15:04] and there was discussion which focused
on compatibility uh public review
[15:09] processes and the role of existing
definitions.
[15:12] A lot of what we're looking at is the
power of definitions to determine what
[15:16] we can actually do.
So what we're proposing tonight uh
[15:23] is that the program housing uh be rec
recognized primarily as a residential
[15:28] use. The the primary the sort of
framework focuses on residential
[15:33] function build form site site design and
compatibility. return back to things
[15:37] that we can actually uh speak to.
Program based housing is uh proposed
[15:42] within the R3 zone because of the
compatibility scale and built form is
[15:46] already kind of contemplated in that
zone. So the density level is similar
[15:51] for that type of housing.
Emergency shelters um are proposed as a
[15:57] distinct institutional use which differs
from the the version that we had in the
[16:01] fall uh due to the operational intensity
uh and community service characteristics
[16:08] of that particular use.
[16:12] And we would look to use the existing uh
planning tools that we have um in our
[16:17] new planning strategy for site plan
approval development agreements to shape
[16:22] those um those types of developments.
[16:29] So some specifics there.
[16:35] So we're proposing a set of four new
residential policies here and I will
[16:41] quickly quick quickly read to them. So
the first is it shall be the intention
[16:44] of council to recognize program based
housing as a residential use providing
[16:49] accommodation with a shared or group
living arrangement which may include the
[16:53] provision of supports or services.
So there's there's a marriage there of
[16:58] residential with with some institutional
in the sense that services are being
[17:02] provided at those establishments.
The second RS29, it shall be the
[17:07] potential council to to enable program
based housing within the municipal sorry
[17:12] within the medium density residential R3
zone subject to the requirements of the
[17:16] land use bylaw. Program based housing
shall be subject to site plan approval
[17:21] in accordance with the same threshold
and provisions applicable to other
[17:24] multi-unit residential development in
order to ensure compatibility of form
[17:28] scale and the site design with
surrounding development.
[17:32] So compatibility
For RS30,
[17:37] it shall be the intention of council to
report land use bylaws damage provisions
[17:41] regulating the form, scale, and site
design of program based housing to
[17:46] ensure compatibility with adjacent
residential uses. And lastly for this
[17:50] one, shall be the intentional council to
require development agreement for
[17:53] program based housing developments
exceeding eight dwelling units or
[17:56] sleeping units.
[18:00] Quickly looking at the institutional
policies,
[18:04] uh there are two uh so the CH
intentional council recognized that
[18:07] institutional uses vary in scale and
intensity and that certain uses may be
[18:12] limited to specific zones are subject to
additional approval requirements in
[18:16] accordance with the language bylaw. And
also it shall be the intention of
[18:21] council to permit emergency shelter uses
within the institutional zone by
[18:24] development agreement.
[18:29] And we also tack on to that there's a
couple other that that have to appear
[18:33] elsewhere in planning strategies to make
the whole thing work. So section 4.2.4
[18:38] on development agreements and these
these basically these two items kind of
[18:41] reflect each other. Um it shall be
amended to uh include emergency shelters
[18:47] within the institutional zone and also
program based housing exceeding eight
[18:52] units within the R3 um requiring a
development agreement and policy GD5
[18:57] just reflects that basically that um
those are the ways that we would
[19:01] administer those types of developments
for this proposal going forward.
[19:11] Okay. So in terms of the the the key
policy direction we kind get into the
[19:16] summary part of this so not too much
longer the proposed policy framework
[19:20] focuses on uh a residential versus
institutional land use function and
[19:25] looks at the compatibility of build form
and scale. So kind of the the scale of
[19:29] what what is being developed. Um
it uh it directs the appropriate
[19:36] approval pathways and it allows for
public review for opportunities for
[19:42] larger or more intensive developments
that may be
[19:46] contemplated.
[19:52] And to step through the process very
quickly, the program based housing R3
[19:56] zone would generally proceed through a
site plan approval and larger program
[20:02] based housing proposals would require
development agreement approval.
[20:06] Emergency shelters within the
institutional zone would also require
[20:09] development agreement approval.
uh and development agreements generally
[20:15] include public notification, public
hearings, council review, and deal
[20:18] rights. So there's there's a little more
oversight for that that level of
[20:22] application.
[20:35] So for the development agreement just to
quickly look at the process it provides
[20:40] such specific review process of certain
criteria that have to be met when
[20:45] looking at a development agreement why
both staff and council look at a
[20:48] development agreement. The process
includes public notification and public
[20:52] hearing council consideration appeal
rights. We spoke to that already. Um and
[20:57] council as part of the criteria may
consider such things as compatibility,
[21:01] traffic, parking, landscaping,
buffering, servicing and the surrounding
[21:05] development context.
[21:09] For site plan approval slightly
different process. Uh it focuses more on
[21:13] the site layout and the functional
design of the application. uh and can
[21:18] include as part of this criteria
landscaping access circulation,
[21:22] lighting, buffering, parking and
compatibility measures. And this is
[21:26] overseen by our development officer
sitting on sitting on my right. And uh
[21:31] it also includes the process of
notification and appeal uh for all
[21:36] properties within the 30 m radius of the
proposed development.
[21:42] Almost there. Two more slides.
So just to talk about how the process
[21:47] has evolved again we've looked at two
different ways of of tackling these
[21:52] questions over the last eight months. Um
the revised process uh framework
[21:58] reflects more of the more public
feedback uh ps it reflects the
[22:02] discussions that we've had at through
public feedback issues like uh plan
[22:06] advisory committee discussion uh
intensive staff review I would say and
[22:12] various implementation considerations
[22:16] the framework has shifted away from
operational distinctions towards more of
[22:20] a land use function and build form again
we're looking getting back to staying in
[22:24] our lane
and the revised approach more closely
[22:27] aligns with Kent Phil the existing
policy frame planning framework.
[22:33] So in summary
[22:37] the intent of the proposed amendments is
to improve overall the clarity
[22:42] consistency administration
u for these types of developments.
[22:47] Uh the revised framework focused more
directly on land use function
[22:50] compatibility build form and the
amendments built upon existing plan
[22:55] principles um while maintaining uh
public review opportunities
[23:00] um as we look at these different
applications.
[23:06] So at this time I'm ready to see the mic
over to the crowd. Um but I'll leave
[23:11] this last slide which uh just a little
direction on
[23:17] receive written comments and you can
either send it to the planning at
[23:21] campful.ca or or my own du ds and
there's cards up front for that for my
[23:28] uh my contacts as well.
>> So yeah, back to
[23:36] » we have one registered speaker and I'll
call them up now. That's Missy Veno like
[23:41] to come on up and
[24:06] Hi, my name is Missy and I live in
Kentro up on Hillrest Avenue. Um, I
[24:13] think what I'm going to be doing is just
kind of giving I think a summary of what
[24:17] you said and then you could um correct
me if I'm wrong. Um so my understanding
[24:24] um uh purpose of the reszoning if I'm
understanding correctly is essentially
[24:30] provides access to program program based
housing organizations to purchase
[24:35] existing R1 properties that are for sale
or reszone R1 to R2 or R3 depending on
[24:42] the size of the um the unit being built.
Placement of homeless individuals would
[24:49] be determined by the organization. The
location of these units and homes will
[24:54] not be disclosed to the cample residents
and any issues that may result in harm
[25:00] are to be handled by the police. Um, and
I'm not suggesting that this would be
[25:05] the case in every situation. Um,
[25:13] » I think I I'm a little short.
[25:40] Okay. Can Can everyone hear me now?
>> Yes.
[25:42] » All right. So, I'll I'll I'll take this
from the top. Um if I'm understanding um
[25:48] everything correctly. The purpose of the
reszoning uh essentially provides access
[25:53] to program based housing organizations
to purchase existing R1 properties that
[25:58] are for sale or reszone R1 to R2 reszone
R1 to R2 or R3 depending on the size of
[26:07] the unit being built. Placement of
homeless individuals would be determined
[26:11] by the organizations.
location of these units and homes will
[26:16] not be disclosed to camp residents and
any issues that may result in harm are
[26:21] to be handled by the police and I'm not
suggesting this would be the outcome in
[26:26] every situation but um yeah that would
be my understanding is that you guys are
[26:31] just providing infrastructure
um for this like you're so that um these
[26:37] organizations are able to um have access
to
[26:43] land um that they wouldn't previously
have had access to.
[26:55] » Let's just use
[27:10] as long as the speaker is like
[27:29] All right.
[27:33] Use the stand for this.
[27:37] Um, so let me see if I get a question
correct. First of all, so you're asking
[27:42] about like particularly for lower
density residential R1 or R2 potentially
[27:47] being resoneed R3 to which would then
accommodate program based housing in
[27:53] this under that reszoning.
Um first of all a resoning process such
[27:59] as that would have is is a council
process. So there's there's some council
[28:04] control over that. Um
through that there's also the public
[28:08] feedback that there would be a resing
application. So there' be public
[28:12] opportunities to uh to um speak your
mind against that if that's not
[28:17] something you're in favor. Um for
program B again, we also come into
[28:22] different levels of of control. So you
have to you'd have to first reszone this
[28:28] the property the the hypothetical
property and then it would be through
[28:32] depending on the scale of the
development being proposed up to eight
[28:37] would be through site plan approval. So
and another process on top of that that
[28:42] would be through development office or
primarily through a specific criteria if
[28:46] they wanted if the proposed developer
wanted to go any higher in terms of
[28:50] number of units and that would be
through development agreement which
[28:52] again is a council process. So there's
potentially two checks through council
[28:58] for a larger scale program based housing
u not just and not just in our going
[29:03] from R1 to R3 R1 or R2 to R3 to pretty
much anywhere R3 um through this this
[29:10] new process there'd be two two council
checks on that. So there' be two
[29:14] separate opportunities for for public
neighbors to um to oppose or support
[29:19] potentially a given application for
that. Is that
[29:24] » is um policy RS31
is that the
[29:42] So policy RS31 is uh the intention of
council to require development agreement
[29:47] for program based housing development
exceeding 8. So that would be the larger
[29:51] scale uh development. Yes. So that'd be
the second check from council on that
[29:56] type of develop to make sure it's
appropriate for that that particular
[30:00] neighborhood.
[30:05] That gets you
>> I guess that that answers really the
[30:10] only I guess you can answer because the
organizations that are going to be
[30:16] applying for grants to either purchase
existing residential homes, right,
[30:22] » which they can purchase
like residential homes for that purpose.
[30:28] Is that correct?
>> I'm not aware of how the granting
[30:32] opportunities work for
>> like the home was for sale,
[30:36] » right?
>> They they could then use that
[30:41] that house.
>> Yeah,
[30:42] » they can divide it up or they can leave
it as is, but they could use it um for
[30:46] programs.
>> It would depend on I'm not I'm not as an
[30:51] expert on how the problems grants or the
criteria that they use.
[30:55] I'm aware of some properties that have
been purchased for for for basically
[31:00] program based housing and opportunities
like
[31:05] » and I'm not sure if if the province sets
their sites to keep those types of
[31:10] developments where the services aren't
mostly located
[31:13] » or if they would look further field and
town to different parts primarily
[31:17] residential areas. I I really don't know
that I can't I can't answer that
[31:20] effectively.
>> So essentially
[31:24] the the reszoning is approved before you
guys go ahead with it. Um,
[31:31] unless you need to resone that
particular section,
[31:35] then it's pretty much hands off. Like
then it's up to these organizations
[31:42] to to then decide what programs where
the programs are going to go um within
[31:49] the town. Once that resoning happens,
It does open up quite a bit of
[31:56] possibility.
>> There's not really a lot of limitations
[32:00] on where they can go once once the
zoning is
[32:05] » if we if we picked any of the R3
currently R3 zone properties in town. Um
[32:13] the application for if it was program
based housing would have to be
[32:18] considered through that development
agreement. We go back to RS31. So that
[32:21] would be that check at that point. Once
it's already zoned R3, the potential for
[32:26] development could occur, but it would
have to be through council's perview uh
[32:30] to to look at all that factors involved
with the development agreement. And they
[32:34] don't have to they they have options
when it comes to looking at a
[32:38] development agreement if they don't feel
it's appropriate as well. So
[32:41] » okay,
>> that's why there'd be some back and
[32:43] forth between the community and council
on on making sure that that was
[32:46] appropriate.
>> Okay. So just so I understand correctly
[32:51] what you're saying. So the program based
housing
[32:55] um
any new developments
[33:01] would have to go through us first.
>> Yes. Um
[33:08] trying to think if that would apply to
renovations or not. But if it's in an R3
[33:12] zone
>> and there's a new it could could it be a
[33:16] an existing R3
that looked at some sort of repurposing
[33:20] of that structure. Um I but I think to
get the program based housing use
[33:26] permitted it would have to go through
then either the site approval or
[33:31] development agreement depending again on
the scale
[33:33] » of development number of units attached
to it. So I think that's always going to
[33:37] be the case as I think on the fly.
>> Is there anything I mean maybe this is
[33:43] not something but
like with with homelessness and people
[33:52] need places to live,
you know, supports like whatever they
[33:57] need.
I'm all for making that available to to
[34:02] people. Sometimes you can get
individuals that you know they they
[34:10] could be known for being particularly
violent.
[34:14] » We're going to have to stop you right
there just for now.
[34:18] » Okay.
[34:24] » Right. We can't talk about what people
do and don't do. Um
[34:29] » right.
>> I for us we have to stay in our lane. I
[34:32] can only answer questions. because
that's what my job is based on.
[34:37] » But I'm always
>> I guess that's what I'm just trying to
[34:40] clarify.
>> You guys don't
[34:46] that's all you guys are doing and you
are able to
[34:50] » we have again we have our lane that we
can focus on.
[34:54] » That's good. That's good.
>> Yeah. And I'm open to chat with anyone
[34:57] after this as well
>> in the future.
[35:00] » Okay. Thank you. Sorry to have to do
that just we have to make sure time for
[35:04] everybody if there's anyone else. I see
one hand. Uh is that
[35:09] » can you just come up to the front? We
just really want to discontin audience
[35:13] back and forth just because
[35:21] » not a big question, but um
does the the council and the planning
[35:27] department have uh a sense of what
properties in Kentville right now would
[35:32] potentially be R3.
[35:39] have to share my
[35:43] » maybe if you want to stay close just in
case.
[35:47] » Okay. Okay.
>> We don't Yeah. We'll figure um what
[35:53] could potentially be zoned are three. Um
we know
[35:58] we know what has been zoned, but we have
what's what we've received in terms of
[36:02] applications and that's pretty much all
that we know of. We don't
[36:07] have any uh
[36:13] now that we don't know.
>> No, if there if there were an
[36:18] application to reszone our three would
be publicly made available once once the
[36:22] application comes in.
>> So it's sort of
[36:26] colored.
>> Yes. Yes.
[36:32] But you could potentially from
understanding that you could take R1 and
[36:36] jump to an R3.
>> Well, we have uh very specific and
[36:42] stringent rules with R1 and our
documents where you you can't upzone it
[36:46] like that. That's we we've held on fast
to that idea that R1 stays R1.
[36:52] » Um that only are there are there
occasions where that can be changed? I
[36:57] look to my DMs,
they'll determine that, but in almost
[37:02] all cases that it's it's capped at R1
that's often due to the size of the lot
[37:08] too as much as anything.
>> So
[37:12] that particular
[37:17] » correct
[37:22] » that that is one that's available on our
website.
[37:31] Okay. So, the only occasion where you
can go from R1 to R2 is where the
[37:35] subject property is currently vacant and
has uh frontage on the collector road
[37:40] which is specific roads for collectors.
We don't have that map up here but
[37:44] they're fairly limited.
>> Just one more follow.
[37:46] » Sure.
>> Yeah.
[37:49] » Is there a directive from province or do
you people
[37:55] have
in mind of what how much bars
[38:03] » I again I can't speak for the province
but uh from and and I really shouldn't
[38:07] speak for council either because there's
sitting in front of me I'll be in
[38:10] trouble um but in terms of a quota for
R3 we don't really have anything like
[38:14] that it's based on what applications
come in so if we if we see an
[38:19] application looking to to change zones
in that way that we look at there's no
[38:23] there's no queue for it there's no quota
for
[38:26] It is what it is in terms of
applications.
[38:33] » Okay.
[38:42] » Sorry. The reason that we want you to
come up is not just because of decorum,
[38:47] but also we're recording for the public
record so that it can be posted later.
[38:51] We just want to make sure that people
are tuning in later at home. what the
[38:55] audience is asking. Otherwise, it's just
answering questions.
[39:02] » Thank you.
>> I'll just
[39:06] leave it there.
>> Hi, it's Tom Herman from El Mountain. U
[39:11] first I'd like to thank you for the
presentation. It's uh it's been useful.
[39:17] Uh and the question I have perhaps not
Germaine directly, but I I'm curious
[39:25] because I know relatively little about
the planning process in Kenville. I will
[39:30] acknowledge my my ignorance. Um but I'm
struck by
[39:37] the categories R1, R2, R3. First, I'm
curious um how flexible historically
[39:45] have those categories? In other words,
how wedded is the town to those specific
[39:50] categories and the criteria within them?
And is there some kind of provincial
[39:56] constraint on that that limits the
imagination and the creativity of the
[40:03] town to accommodate what are clearly
important needs in the community? So
[40:08] that's my first question. I'll follow
that first.
[40:12] » Absolutely. If you like
[40:27] » um
historical context for residential
[40:31] zones, this first one, so they they have
changed. Kirsten behind me here would
[40:37] probably be better to answer that
because she's she's been around the town
[40:40] longer than I have, but my understanding
is that they've changed a bit from uh
[40:44] 2000
>> 2001 2000
[40:48] » 2001 early 2000 um in 2018 we currently
we we brought in this set for the new
[40:55] plan for the plan review that we're
currently engaged in there may be a
[40:58] different mindset towards where we want
to go with that I've heard some
[41:02] different thoughts from council about
what we want to do with resial zones
[41:07] kind of zones early conversations so
it's not really
[41:11] Nothing crystallized at this point.
What was the second?
[41:16] » Well,
actually I'm curious about how
[41:22] solid those, you know, how there are
provincial constraints on what you can
[41:27] do uh to modify those classes,
[41:33] increase the number of classes,
whatever. one of the provincial
[41:39] statements of that housing. We have we
have some uh basic standards that we
[41:44] have to hit when we do the planner do.
Um so it makes sense to talk about the
[41:49] things that the community is concerned
about and there is flexibility in that.
[41:52] So looking at density there's there's
different ways of doing that. That's one
[41:56] of the main concerns whether it's a
single family or single attached
[42:00] dwelling uh neighborhood. Um there may
be room for some density within that.
[42:06] Some are more appropriate for larger
scale density. Um, that's one of the
[42:11] main ones because it looks at traffic,
it looks at buffering so that your
[42:16] neighbors aren't looking right, you
know, top of you necessarily. Um,
[42:19] different things like that that we can
consider. And there's also mixed use as
[42:23] well, some mixed use areas where you can
have a commercial ground floor and
[42:26] residential above. Um, so particularly
in areas of town like where Donald Hills
[42:31] is in the process of being developed,
there's a whole new mindset towards how
[42:36] residential commercial development could
happen up in that part of town that
[42:38] hasn't even thought of been thought of
yet because of of the nature of the
[42:42] growth of the town. So there there is
there's quite a bit of latitude how we
[42:46] could consider that.
>> Thanks. Can I
[42:51] stop?
>> Yeah. Okay.
[42:55] I can turn around. I just don't want to
put my back to death. Um but that's
[43:02] better because I don't want to put my
back to everyone else. Um well, one of
[43:06] the things that strikes me is that if
you look at the criteria uh in R3 at
[43:12] present
um
[43:16] and I don't say this in a porative way,
so but it's a bit of a dog's breakfast
[43:21] in terms of the uses. Um and I'm
wondering whether adding yet more
[43:27] diversity to that range of uses under
one classification
[43:32] makes the classification actually useful
in the planning process rather than some
[43:39] uh rethinking around the the
classifications and the categories. And
[43:44] I realize that's probably people behind
me are probably rolling their eyes
[43:48] saying, "Oh my god, that's an
administrative nightmare. Don't suggest
[43:52] it." But it's just a question. Um, and
I'll, if I could, if you indulge me, I
[43:59] just add one more comment. Um, because
you you centered the conversation and I
[44:06] think rightly so on land use and you're
avoiding other topics which are the
[44:13] perview of other agencies and
departments and I totally get that. Um,
[44:19] but it's just a comment. But in in that
consideration of land use, um I having
[44:27] lived in Keno for 30 plus 5 years, um I
think there has been a distinct lack of
[44:36] what I would call integrated planning.
Uh because there are whole ranges of
[44:41] things which never come up in the
conversation.
[44:45] they're not in the amendments and so on.
But there are things that are important
[44:50] as they touch on land use and one of
them is dealing with the actual
[44:56] capacity physical capacity of the
landscape and how it works and
[45:00] understanding that. So how these changes
affect things like
[45:06] uh climate change remediation plan
what's happening with climate change
[45:11] remediation planning? I understand
there's a an exciting new urban forest
[45:17] plan possibly that that the town is to
receive funding for s funding for and
[45:23] that's really exciting
but before we see dramatic changes in
[45:29] the planning structure I would hope that
we can start to explore those other
[45:35] elements which are key components about
how you fit people into a landscape so
[45:40] that they live happy healthy lives and
that though their neighbors do as well
[45:48] and that they can continue to do so for
generations. Just a comment and I will
[45:54] shut off.
>> Thanks very much for your switch for a
[45:57] minute.
>> Sure.
[46:02] Um so first of all in terms of theis
back everyone um for our three
[46:11] appropriate in R3. Um, part of what I
was trying to convey is that it's if it
[46:16] stays at the same scale as other three
developments, we see it as housing
[46:21] primarily. Yes, there's an institutional
component and when we're still looking
[46:27] at what's the appropriate threshold,
does it become more institutional than
[46:30] residential at certain point? And then
should we look at a mechanism for
[46:34] considering that? Uh but as it stands in
the way we presented it so far and
[46:39] there's can always be adjustments to
this as well of course but we're seeing
[46:43] it as an equivalent housing form as any
other housing form in town. So that's
[46:47] that's why we kept it three. We thought
that would be a good place to start with
[46:50] it. Um so that's that's that's kind of
logic behind that. Uh in terms of some
[46:56] of the environmental things you just
mentioned we are looking at that more
[47:00] intensively I think we have in the past.
Certainly the storm water issue has been
[47:05] on the top of the town's mind for
certainly since the last big rainfall
[47:09] but uh longer than that and we're
looking at ways of bringing more
[47:14] environmental policies into the
documents as well as we go forward in
[47:16] the urban force studies part of it
coastal flooding because we we still get
[47:21] some coastal flooding effects here as
well as other types of flooding so that
[47:28] river flooding as well so that's we are
definitely
[47:31] » if I could just thank you very much I
that I I think we'll put this on record.
[47:38] Uh thanks very much Darren. I appreciate
that. And I think the point that you
[47:42] just made is really important. Um
because it may turn out that um the
[47:49] environmental criteria should become a
more uh significant determinant of the
[47:56] use than the actual type of housing. In
other words, I can see I I I Just for
[48:04] instance, the density of housing is
probably much more important in terms of
[48:09] the longterm sustainability in a
neighborhood than than the type of
[48:15] housing. Uh, so I I hear your point loud
and clear about the similarities between
[48:24] the the grouping of of
different um types of housing together
[48:31] based on the fact that they're all
housing. But I think the scale is
[48:36] probably a more important question
necessarily in the nature. But it's just
[48:40] my own personal bias and thank you very
much.
[48:48] I mean,
[48:52] » um, sorry. So, my question is around
industrial. Um, how much how much
[48:58] industrial is there that's buildable and
do we have the option to designate more
[49:05] land institutional?
Institutional is what I meant to say
[49:09] from the onset. Yeah. How much Yeah.
land institutional that's buildable.
[49:14] Could we designate more land
institutional? Sorry.
[49:24] » Um
and yeah, so we have the we have the map
[49:29] and the the sort of mustard yellow
indicates where we currently have
[49:33] this a little bit.
See if that helps.
[49:38] where we currently have institutional.
Um are the language in our documents
[49:42] right now treat institutional in in a
somewhat strange way? Um where there are
[49:49] no Can we go back to the
the G forms for a second
[49:56] general future use?
So that's exactly the same basically
[50:03] the uh there's no future in
institutional these are all occupied
[50:09] basically what we have now. So there's
there's enough in mind to to set aside
[50:13] areas for two institutional
new institutional development
[50:18] that
u in terms of redesating uh that is
[50:24] always a possibility.
Um we haven't we've seen any
[50:29] to institutional since the last No. So
there there hasn't been much of that. So
[50:34] we'll be introducing it with this type
of proposal we talked about tonight for
[50:38] for emergency shelters.
>> So all of the institutional at this
[50:42] juncture is used.
>> It's yes I believe it all has a use
[50:47] attached to it at this point. It's not
vacant land
[50:50] » my
but there there's a process to redesate
[50:56] » that. But again for a red designation
get to uh an emergency shelter would be
[51:01] redesignation resone plus development
under the current
[51:06] » proposed plan.
[51:15] Thank you.
[51:20] » Hello. My name is Michelle. Thanks for
letting me speak. I actually do not live
[51:24] in the town of Dville. I live just
outside of the town of Kentville in
[51:27] North Kentville and I think my
perspective does have um some relevance
[51:32] here. I live next door to Nexus,
directly next door to Nexus. And if
[51:38] everyone doesn't know what Nexus is,
Nexus is a institution owned by the
[51:43] province that houses young adults who
have a variety of challenges to their
[51:49] life. So potentially you would think
that they would be a horrible
[51:53] neighborhood to live next door to and I
cannot say that that's the case. I
[51:58] haven't lived there very long. I lived
there approximately a year and I have
[52:01] yet to have one challenge with any of
the young adult and adults that live
[52:05] there. So just kind of putting that into
perspective when we think about
[52:09] supportive housing. I do really
appreciate that the town and the staff
[52:14] have listened to community and have made
the distinction between a shelter and
[52:20] supportive living. To me, they are very
different things. I have worked in both
[52:24] um housing supports and in emergency
shelters and I do strongly believe that
[52:29] a shelter should not be in a residential
area that it should be in an
[52:33] institutional zone setting and that
supportive housing is housing and it is
[52:38] a very different situation. And I just
wanted to point out that on this page
[52:42] here, number five, I really appreciate
you listing out the different types of
[52:46] program- based housing and because it
was it was a good reminder for me that
[52:51] not all program based housing is for
folks who are unhoused. So, thank you
[52:54] very much.
[53:04] » I think no secret I live in Temple. Um,
I just I want to thank you for that
[53:08] presentation and I want to kind of chime
in what Michelle just said that program
[53:12] based housing is not just for people
that have you know illness or addictions
[53:16] or whatever. We have to remember that
that could be one of us someday could be
[53:19] one of our parents or someone with
disabilities right that's an important
[53:22] point but my question for you director
Shu and I'll look at you is in R3 the
[53:28] town of chemical as of right is already
allowed in program best based housing
[53:32] correct as of right you can have up to
[53:37] resial
res.
[53:41] » Correct. But that would mean right now
that somebody could buy an R3 property
[53:44] or own one and have up to six units in.
Correct.
[53:48] » So the only change in this is that
someone could now have buy one and have
[53:52] up to eight before it comes to council.
So it's not a huge change than what's
[53:57] already in place. My understanding
>> I would have to follow up a little bit
[54:00] with that.
>> Okay.
[54:02] » Yeah. Okay. just
>> my understanding I'm not a planner so I
[54:06] just that's what I that's what I
interpreted but maybe
[54:09] » okay
>> um
[54:13] » just I had to add a little bit of
context the way you said under our
[54:17] current definitions um
>> thank you
[54:24] this
[54:29] so for we have we have three terms under
the same definition which also awkward,
[54:33] but we're we're working through these
things. So, it's a residential care
[54:36] facility, a home for special care, or a
group home. They all mean the same
[54:40] thing. They mean a community- based
group living arrangement in a single
[54:44] unit where accommodations are provided
and which may include additional
[54:47] services for residents with physical
and/or intellectual disabilities or are
[54:53] marginally disadvantaged. We don't have
a definition for what marginally
[54:56] disadvantaged means. So, it's it's very
much up to interpretation.
[55:00] uh including but not limited to medical
care super supervisory or personnel care
[55:04] personal care uh and counseling but does
not include hospital or facility
[55:10] licensed or under contract by
corrections Canada or um Nova Scotia
[55:14] correction. So the the the caveat there
I guess the the issue that we have
[55:21] interpretation is what what is a
marginally disadvantaged person. So, but
[55:26] but what you're saying is correct that
we do have a path forward for those
[55:30] types of developments currently in our
district.
[55:37] » Anybody else with a question or comment?
Please come on up.
[55:47] It's very
[55:52] » Kelly Grant Elm Avenue. Um,
I guess I just wanted to actually
[55:58] reflect first on this map because I
found this a bit shocking actually. Um,
[56:04] I just see so much residential uh
potential there. I'm kind of shocked
[56:09] that this is the direction that Kimbo
feels that it needs to go. Um,
[56:15] and I'm also quite concerned the lack of
green in that picture. Uh I know we have
[56:20] existing parkland.
Um
[56:24] I would like to see about double or
triple that park land
[56:29] especially in the commercial area. I
find it lacking a lot of green. I'm I'm
[56:35] pleased and this is the first heard
about an urban forest strategy or town
[56:39] forest strategy. This is a huge that
would be huge for us because I feel like
[56:43] we there's so many effects from the
heat. Um that more trees, more park
[56:49] space, which makes camp so much more
enjoyable and livable. Um so when we're
[56:54] talking about land use, and this has
probably nothing to do with program
[56:58] based housing, but I just wanted to
mention that it's of a concern to uh me
[57:03] and I'm thinking others in Kentville. Um
but I guess also because I'm trying to
[57:08] come up to on all this too. Um, and I'm
not really very knowledgeable on how
[57:16] many of these different types of program
based housing are in existence in camp
[57:20] right now. I I didn't even know about
Nexus. I'm sorry, but it sounds awesome.
[57:26] Um, I I I guess I'm wondering what scale
are we right now? And just just to put
[57:33] it in context. So that's probably one of
my first questions, but so why don't you
[57:38] try?
>> Yeah,
[57:42] » the first thing you mentioned was seeing
the amount of residential designated
[57:47] areas up there and being surprised by
that. What did you do about it?
[57:51] » Well, is this what it is now?
>> That's that's currently what it's
[57:55] designated.
>> This is future land use. So I thought so
[57:58] what's the land use? Is it pretty much
the same? And now probably it's closer
[58:03] to what we have for the ladies the
zoning mount that reflects currently
[58:08] there.
>> Okay.
[58:09] » So you see stuff like the
>> this is just so a lot of that orange and
[58:13] the future uses now that's
>> it includes both currently developed and
[58:20] land set aside for future development.
>> Okay. So, and this ties into the
[58:25] question you had about park space as
well for some of those larger losses.
[58:28] There's quite a few of them around the
double road particular part that hasn't
[58:32] been completed yet. When those
eventually if if and when they're
[58:36] developed uh will be parkland dedication
as as a part of that subdivision
[58:40] process.
>> So, you see more park plan
[58:43] as required as part of that.
>> I know the parks is also parks parks and
[58:48] recck department is also looking at
their own strategy.
[58:52] So that may may well address some of the
issues that you have in terms of how
[58:57] much we have and where we have it. Like
if there's if there's a need a future
[59:00] need for it, if there's current need for
it, where should it be? How much should
[59:03] it be? What kind should it be? So that
would be part of their their more their
[59:08] real.
>> Um so
[59:13] have an environmental
or climate change
[59:18] for res
[59:21] I just don't know.
>> No, we we don't have a committee for
[59:24] that for that particular purpose. We
have just hired a new staff member, the
[59:28] climate action coordinator who's
updating a lot of the work that we've
[59:31] done in the past. Uh and actually she's
currently doing public engagement on on
[59:37] some of those issues right now. So, uh
it'll be on our website presence and
[59:41] will be on her social media presence
where she's giving a little SC to talk
[59:45] about that. So, that's that's a current
project.
[59:52] Can you explain that to me again?
>> How many programies?
[1:00:00] » There are many categories.
>> I don't even know if we have any or
[1:00:06] » I I'm not going to name them, but I know
there's at least four there. There's
[1:00:09] there's there's youth based, there's
women's family shelter,
[1:00:13] » there's homeless homelessness,
>> and I'm not there's any others. There's
[1:00:18] probably I can't think about something I
haven't
[1:00:22] » there's three or four at least different
types and there's some that we like
[1:00:27] again for corrections they don't
typically let us know where the
[1:00:30] facilities are
>> the privacy aspect of those are
[1:00:34] important so
>> and they work under different
[1:00:38] rules
[1:00:43] » and my last
[1:00:48] understand
[1:00:51] it. So it's a lot to take in. Um are you
saying that you're trying to put
[1:00:56] emergency shelters under the institution
as opposed to under so that's been
[1:01:01] separated?
>> That's correct.
[1:01:05] » That's one of the main points.
[1:01:17] » Sorry.
[1:01:21] uh Kathy Maxwell Avenue. Um so I just
want to clarify here all those little
[1:01:28] red slivers that are in amongst the pink
and the yellow are R3 within an R1 or R2
[1:01:37] area. Is that correct?
>> Many of them.
[1:01:40] » Many of them. Okay. Okay. So in the R3
um we could put supportive housing and
[1:01:48] our definition says longerterm housing
with ongoing supports that may include
[1:01:54] mental health services and addiction
supports.
[1:01:58] So
[1:02:01] how much support
is going to be in a residence that has
[1:02:10] mental health and addiction issues? Is
it two hours a day? Is it 24 hours a
[1:02:16] day? 365 days a year. How much support
is in that? Because to me that that
[1:02:25] makes a big difference if that home is
with mental health and addictions
[1:02:31] issues.
[1:02:38] » Thank you for the question. I understand
the concern. Um
[1:02:41] I have to go back to uh what planning
can do and what we have to do to stay in
[1:02:46] our lane with that. When it comes to the
actual operations of these facilities
[1:02:50] that's that's outside of what we can
really regulate that would come down to
[1:02:53] different bodies sometimes
sometimes perhaps independent but it
[1:02:58] would be it's outside of what I can do
as a planner to really speak to how
[1:03:03] those those organizations run their run
their business run their service. So we
[1:03:09] have no control over the amount
[1:03:14] » um
not through the land use bylaw or
[1:03:18] through municipal planning strategy.
There may be other ways that council
[1:03:21] could speak to either at the provincial
level to determine what what what they
[1:03:26] what council feels is appropriate levels
of service, but it it's beyond that. I
[1:03:30] can't suggest
[1:03:48] Good evening. Good evening. My name is
Fred. Um, first of all, you've got a
[1:03:53] hell of a job.
Um, I'm just there a question, right?
[1:04:00] You've got all this zoning going back
and forth. Um, if I to sell my property
[1:04:07] and it's an R2,
but I figure by enhancing to enhance the
[1:04:12] value, I'm going to make an R3. I'm
going to apply for an R3.
[1:04:17] What do I have to show you? One, for me
to get to an R3. Um, and two, um, do I
[1:04:26] have to have a development plan?
Anyhow,
[1:04:34] So individual property owners always
have the ability to come in and to
[1:04:38] apply. In this case with Dub
there your there your there are two
[1:04:42] property R3
um it an application may be received
[1:04:48] that has a specific development in mind
or it doesn't it doesn't have doesn't
[1:04:52] have to. So you may be looking to
improve the value of your property by
[1:04:56] doing that and allow for different
development opportunities in the future
[1:05:01] by by developer. They see the value in
that. Um the application itself uh would
[1:05:07] there's there's different policies that
apply if you if you have a development
[1:05:11] particular development mind or if you
don't. So there's a path either way. So
[1:05:16] we believe it should be a matter of
bringing that forward. Council would
[1:05:18] consider what you're trying to do there
and would weigh the merits of it based
[1:05:25] on what we have in policy the criteria
that they have to follow uh to look at
[1:05:29] it. So Right.
[1:05:50] Right. You're looking at the potential
future potential
[1:05:57] » between staff and council both have that
role to
[1:06:10] Yeah. Whatever you need to do.
[1:06:15] My name is Dave Ritzy. Uh I live in
downtown Kentville. Run a business in
[1:06:20] downtown Kentville. I think it's fair to
many that we're in fight fight for our
[1:06:24] lives and our livelihood in the downtown
Kentville area. I just want to talk
[1:06:28] about the competitive environment that I
see ahead. And I think it's you've got
[1:06:31] the Donald Hills connector project in
Kentville. You've got the Numinus South
[1:06:35] project in Numinus. I think we're in a a
two decade fight for growth and
[1:06:39] development in this area. And my
question to you Darren and your team, to
[1:06:43] what extent have you looked at uh some
sort of competitive analysis or
[1:06:47] comparables in terms of your your
biologics and will they sustain us for
[1:06:51] for the next two decades and are they
competitive with new minus
[1:07:02] feedback
[1:07:06] to keep it grounded.
>> We can't do that for long enough.
[1:07:10] » Um so in terms of looking at potential
economic growth in particular or general
[1:07:17] growth, what are you thinking?
>> Uh both.
[1:07:21] » The the the uh the new the plan review
that we're working towards We'll have uh
[1:07:27] both in terms of a residential growth uh
analysis that's being completed as well
[1:07:32] as an economic development one. Um we're
hiring new economic development staff
[1:07:37] shortly who should help be able to help
with that process as well and a new
[1:07:41] committee uh for economic development as
well. So there's there's a couple
[1:07:45] different ways that that's being
approached. Um, and from my point of
[1:07:49] view, we definitely want a good sense of
of what's happening in the area to make
[1:07:53] sure the chemical's position well to to
grow um in at least at the same terms
[1:07:58] that the the surrounding region is um
and hopefully use advantages that we
[1:08:03] have here as a town to to rise above
that mean. So, there will be
[1:08:07] opportunities for that and we'll be
doing that through um again as we work
[1:08:11] through what this this business
community is going to help us with, what
[1:08:14] the new business position um
as well as with our current economic
[1:08:19] home staff to to look at how that goes
forward. We know there's some changes in
[1:08:23] how we're looking at regional business
um the regional business environment
[1:08:28] basically and we're looking to move more
as a town ourselves with that. U so but
[1:08:33] certainly with the plan review there's
an opportunity to to focus in on that
[1:08:37] and determine what when we when we need
to determine how much space we need to
[1:08:41] set aside for commercial growth in the
town. That's part of that question as
[1:08:44] well. So what we see on the the chief
alumn for commercial
[1:08:50] um is important to that may change based
on especially with Donald Tilts if
[1:08:55] there's opportunities for said I talked
about the excuse but also just specific
[1:09:00] commercial growth along Donald Tilts it
be it'll be interesting to see how
[1:09:04] council will want to handle that as we
go forward. Yeah, I I know our business
[1:09:08] is looking very closely at new line of
South. We like the fact that it's
[1:09:11] commercial and residential and I think
you're introducing institutional into
[1:09:15] the Donald Hills built area. You were
talking about institutional
[1:09:18] » potentially. Yeah, that's we're looking
at the right mix for there. So, the the
[1:09:22] feedback we get from the public as we
work up our our plan review will help
[1:09:26] inform that as well. Uh we'll be talking
with the property owners that are that
[1:09:31] have large tracks of property in that
area as well. And of course, council
[1:09:34] will have their opportunity to influence
and eventually sign off on how they want
[1:09:39] that to go going forward.
[1:09:45] » Anyone who hasn't already spoken or
asked questions.
[1:10:01] » Good evening everyone. I'm Pat Norton. I
live in Kentville and have for 40ome
[1:10:07] years. Um I have lots and lots of
questions and my questions are always
[1:10:12] around context, definitions, process and
organizational structure and I probably
[1:10:18] have 10 or 12 questions in each of that
those categories and I know there's not
[1:10:23] time for that here tonight and that's
not the intent and you know I expect
[1:10:28] other people must have you know many of
the same questions that I do. So,
[1:10:34] I'll try and wrap that up in one
question that I have specifically with
[1:10:39] um regard to definitions. I'm just
wondering what your definition of public
[1:10:46] review is.
[1:10:53] » Public review is something that's
mandated by the province that we have to
[1:10:57] um engage in. Uh the current public
review process with these types of
[1:11:02] applications would be something just
like this public participation meeting.
[1:11:06] Uh we then send it through a couple
rounds of review through the plan
[1:11:11] advisory committee. Then back to council
and then council determines whether or
[1:11:15] not they want to move forward with a
given application and which time there
[1:11:18] be a public hearing which would be a
second opportunity for the public to
[1:11:23] give them a little more time to think
about what's being proposed to come back
[1:11:26] and share their thoughts at that point.
So that's the basic and u should the
[1:11:31] public feel that council not is not
upholding their policies in certain
[1:11:35] circumstances or opportunities for the
for the public to reach out and to
[1:11:39] appeal a decision that's made by
council. So there's there's a couple
[1:11:43] different levels of of review of the
code along with that. But that's that's
[1:11:47] the basic process that we work under
with the municipal government act as a
[1:11:52] town.
[1:11:56] response to that. Um, just having
observed the interactions here tonight,
[1:12:02] um, most of them involved three or four
at least interactions back and forth.
[1:12:08] And I always have said that
communication begins with the response
[1:12:13] to the response. So, I said something,
then you said something. We still can't
[1:12:19] determine that we've actually
communicated because I may have heard or
[1:12:23] understood nothing of what you said and
vice versa. So it's really only from the
[1:12:28] point of the response to the response on
that you actually have any
[1:12:31] communication. So, I'm wondering, you
know, just in your explanation of what
[1:12:38] the public review process is intended to
look like,
[1:12:43] is it intended to involve communication?
[1:12:52] If I understand it correctly, your
question correctly. Um, communication in
[1:12:57] the sense that materials are provided to
the public based on the application
[1:13:01] itself that we communicate the
opportunities for the public to engage
[1:13:06] whether or not they want to speak in
front of the mic at whichever occasion
[1:13:10] that may participation meeting or a
public hearing. and also to make sure
[1:13:18] that we have open lines of communication
in terms of being able to receive
[1:13:21] correspondence through email as well. So
there's not again not everyone wants to
[1:13:26] speak in front of the mic. Um, I've
gotten used to it a little bit. Um, but
[1:13:30] I'm I'm not typically a person who
enjoys this myself. But, um, so there's
[1:13:35] different opportunities for the public
to provide their information
[1:13:39] and for us to communicate what we're
trying to achieve through the post. U
[1:13:45] this this is this is the town initiative
initiative. um when when I'm presenting
[1:13:51] uh from the town's point of view for for
an application for whether for reszoning
[1:13:56] u or reddes designation
it's a different process because you
[1:14:00] have the applicant up here as well
speaking um
[1:14:04] so do you think that answered your
question
[1:14:09] » um
yes I I would say I would say you've
[1:14:15] answered my question I don't think you
satisfied my concerns.
[1:14:20] So
what what I saw on the slide is that we
[1:14:26] have 10 days to send in a written
comment. No guarantee of any response
[1:14:33] coming back.
uh in terms of
[1:14:37] if it was me and I think anybody else
here, if we were hoping to make some
[1:14:41] sort of an intelligent comment and
submit it, we would have to, you know,
[1:14:46] have broad-based information. And I've
been to a lot of these meetings in
[1:14:52] various counties and in this province,
and I've been involved in some national
[1:14:58] groups on some of these things as well.
And um
[1:15:05] it just
what what seems to be standard practice
[1:15:10] is this siloed approach. So you can only
answer questions about this and somebody
[1:15:17] else can only answer questions about
that and everybody has to stay in their
[1:15:20] lane. But
that really is not
[1:15:27] a context in which people can make any
informed opinions or formulate any
[1:15:34] intelligent questions. So I'm just
wondering how we get around that.
[1:15:44] I'll say straight up. I don't know if I
can answer that question. Um
[1:15:49] who else would you want to have in the
room tonight?
[1:15:56] It's not about who's in the room. It's
about what happens in the room.
[1:16:01] And
[1:16:05] I would like it would be sufficient to
have just who's in the room if they had
[1:16:11] all the information.
But if they don't have all the
[1:16:14] information and we need all the
information, then then there would be
[1:16:17] other people that would need to be in
the room for sure. But I don't know who
[1:16:21] they are because if you don't know, I
sure don't know, you know. And
[1:16:28] so it this does not seem like a process
really designed for anything that I
[1:16:34] would call a meaningful public
engagement.
[1:16:38] Would you agree?
[1:16:44] » Uh the purpose of tonight's meeting was
stated at the beginning. I know we
[1:16:47] weren't a little bit late coming in, but
we are here to hear from the people.
[1:16:51] Yes, Darren's here to answer questions
and he can only answer questions based
[1:16:54] on his role. That's just how it is. We
can't answer questions that are that are
[1:16:59] appropriate for the province or other
other bodies. We we do have to stay in
[1:17:04] our role, you know. So, if you have
questions for Darren about program based
[1:17:09] housing or the changes that may be
considered by council going forward,
[1:17:13] we're happy to hear them. Um, but we can
only answer the questions we can answer.
[1:17:20] Let's not shout out from the audience,
please. And thanks. That was on the
[1:17:24] rules at the beginning. I appreciate it.
Thank you. Do you have any other
[1:17:28] questions about program based housing or
this this topic for
[1:17:34] » Okay, thank you. You have
[1:17:38] » um
you know,
[1:17:42] we use these terms but but they're they
lack specificity. So in terms of
[1:17:48] programbased housing and I know that
your area is more about land use but I
[1:17:55] used to work for people works. So that
was a program that was available and a
[1:17:59] very successful one for people who had
various challenges. Um that's been shut
[1:18:05] down. Everywhere I look, it seems that
programs are being shut down. And we've
[1:18:12] had various of these types of meetings
here over the last year and had some
[1:18:17] very eloquent speakers telling us about
long waits to get mental health services
[1:18:22] and addiction services. And you know, so
we talk about program-based housing, but
[1:18:29] I'm just wondering
is there any substance to that?
[1:18:43] Okay. Um,
respectfully, uh, the I know there have
[1:18:48] been meetings in here that have been put
on by the provincial government which
[1:18:51] have looked at a broader range of topics
than what I I brought forward tonight.
[1:18:56] My team was brought forward. Um, so we
we do recognize that there's is a much
[1:19:00] larger project or much larger
processing. uh much greater uh breadth
[1:19:08] of knowledge that is required to address
some of these issues. We've taken our
[1:19:13] plan our planning or our land use uh
lens to this and uh again together with
[1:19:20] council. We've looked at some of these
issues on dealing with some of the
[1:19:24] challenges that the town faces. Um there
may be other avenues. I'm aware that
[1:19:30] there's a new committee that the that
the minister Lore has put together to
[1:19:34] talk about some of these things. Um so I
mean there are efforts that are
[1:19:38] happening. I'm not privy to all of those
uh but I I do interact with those who
[1:19:46] who do have some greater knowledge on
those things. So there are conversations
[1:19:50] that are happening but we're not
representing that broader consortium
[1:19:54] tonight of ideas that are looking into
these issues. Um so unfortunately
[1:20:01] it's probably not satisfactory but my
lane is explaining and uh that's that's
[1:20:07] the lens that we put on this for tonight
at least. There may be other top
[1:20:10] opportunities in the future where a
broader group can be brought together
[1:20:14] but that wasn't part of my mandate for
this evening.
[1:20:21] So final question, will you be
responding to written comments that
[1:20:24] you're hoping to receive within 10 days?
[1:20:32] » Questions. Um it
[1:20:38] when we receive written comments, we
we'll definitely acknowledge that
[1:20:41] they've come in. what we typically do
and what we do with all the comments
[1:20:44] from this evening. Um we don't sign up
to the individuals. We we try to distill
[1:20:50] some of the meaning out of it, the
common themes that we've heard and then
[1:20:53] take those forward to council. Um so if
there are questions that are specific to
[1:20:58] me or to the department, um I will
certainly answer them. Uh
[1:21:03] the 10 the 10day window of time that
we've talked about, we should depending
[1:21:08] on the questions that we get and whether
or not we can answer them appropriately,
[1:21:10] we'll c respond to them at some point.
So, I'll have to wait for questions.
[1:21:22] » Anyone we haven't heard from yet, I
would like an opportunity to ask a
[1:21:25] question or make a comment.
[1:21:30] » Okay. Uh Lloyd, uh we did say in the
beginning it's a oneshot deal. Um so, if
[1:21:36] if it's a quick one, I'll let you up
here, but I don't want to
[1:21:41] form style. What we will do is encourage
you if you have thoughts after the
[1:21:45] meeting or if there's something you
didn't have an opportunity to say, use
[1:21:48] that email address that's uh planning
at.ca or grab one of D's cards with his
[1:21:53] name on the way out and we'll do our
best to uh accommodate you.
[1:21:58] » I think we learned something tonight
that uh just slid right by everybody and
[1:22:03] I'm really disappointed to hear this. Uh
Dave Ry just told us we're going to lose
[1:22:07] a longstanding business in the dam.
>> Not just one.
[1:22:10] » Okay guys, we're not doing this.
>> Okay. So I'm um I'm personally
[1:22:16] disappointed to hear this because I
think that's not a good sign.
[1:22:21] But really what I put my hand up about
is I want to drill down on Fred's
[1:22:25] question about R3 because I don't think
you uh answered it. Um
[1:22:33] our
Are the council presented with something
[1:22:37] that um they don't know what the plan
is? Like are they supposed to approve
[1:22:43] something without a plan for R3? Like it
it seems pretty vague to me, you know,
[1:22:49] and I don't think that was answered. Am
I correct? Am I right, Fred?
[1:22:56] » Yeah, I understand.
You got to stay
[1:23:14] as
if I'm
[1:23:19] question asked to change my destination
to the only reason I'm doing that is to
[1:23:27] enhance my value it
your your job is not to help me enhance
[1:23:34] my real estate value by creating. So the
answer to what is the answer to that?
[1:23:40] How are you going to make sure it's
a new trick
[1:23:51] to
everybody?
[1:23:56] Precisely.
[1:24:02] Thank you for both questions. Um I go
back to the point that individual
[1:24:08] property owners have the right to
investigate how they may improve their
[1:24:13] properties. Um they can resone. That's
one way to do it. They can do different
[1:24:16] things with development on their
properties to improve it. Um we staff
[1:24:21] look at the criteria for for reszoning.
If it meets those criteria, then we
[1:24:26] would probably recommend it to council
to consider and then they would look at
[1:24:29] the same criteria and make their own
evaluation.
[1:24:33] That's the process as it stands. So, I
don't know if I can be any clearer than
[1:24:37] that, but it's open to every property
owner to
[1:24:41] » do
that.
[1:24:47] No, there's two there's two paths for
that. one that has a development
[1:24:50] attached to it and one that is more
speculative in nature.
[1:24:56] » Yeah, that's
[1:25:00] » it's I think it's often good to see what
someone has to do, but it's not required
[1:25:05] under
[1:25:10] » their intent is not
[1:25:21] Noted. Thank you. Um, again, we have to
follow our criteria when we're doing it,
[1:25:25] otherwise we're not doing our jobs.
>> So, that's that's basically where that
[1:25:29] lands. Thank you.
[1:25:37] » Last call. Anyone we have not heard from
that would like to make a comment or ask
[1:25:40] a question about program based housing
or
[1:25:44] this particular process that we're
undergoing? Sure.
[1:25:49] Come on up, Jackie.
[1:25:53] » The question is, um, the province we
know has lots of initiatives. We know
[1:25:58] all about what was going to be happening
down there by the marsh a while ago.
[1:26:02] What um capacity does the town, our
council have to respond or control or
[1:26:10] change or anything at all with with
provincial
[1:26:15] attempts because
we all know what the province is doing
[1:26:20] to Kentville with with mainstreaming a
lot of needs here and we have service.
[1:26:23] We've all heard all of that stuff and
and then we hear people complaining
[1:26:28] about Kentle's not doing enough.
Kentle's not doing enough. And I'm not
[1:26:30] saying that. My question is what what
control do you have over what happens in
[1:26:36] our town with program based housing
especially initiatives that
[1:26:49] it's a very broad question in many ways
but I'll do my best with it. Um the
[1:26:54] province obviously has its own uh agenda
and mandate for carrying out the duties
[1:26:59] that it's been assigned and that it's
been elected based on the um
[1:27:07] uh they they also have powers above what
the town has to achieve the goals that
[1:27:11] they want to achieve. Um sometimes they
work closely with the town on certain
[1:27:16] projects. Sometimes it's it's less less
of a close arrangement. We're usually
[1:27:21] aware of things that are happening but
again I I don't have full 360 view of
[1:27:26] what's happening. Um I have my own
department that I'm mostly focused on.
[1:27:31] Um sometimes there's opportunities to
work with the province on things
[1:27:36] and they contact me or our department to
for that respect. So
[1:27:44] » can I ask that question to clarify?
>> Sure. Sure. Um, and again, I know so
[1:27:49] very little about this, so I'm coming at
it with a good heart, but I just want to
[1:27:52] know
when R1 or R2 is for sale. Can the
[1:27:57] province come in, purchase it,
do whatever their plan is with that, and
[1:28:02] not follow town bylaws because it's
province.
[1:28:11] » The province does have powers above our
our bylaws that that they can come in.
[1:28:16] um and do certain things. Um I don't
know if specifically our one our two
[1:28:22] properties would be sorry for this mic.
Um but they they do have they have an
[1:28:28] ability to override what we have with
our our bylaws and strategies policies
[1:28:33] and things. I'll just leave it at that
because it depends on what I don't know
[1:28:36] what their what their intentions are or
what their agendas are. I can't really
[1:28:41] speak to those.
>> Yeah. I just wonder what type of
[1:28:45] control. We do or don't we have or what
is able to be overwritten and then you
[1:28:51] know we have these meetings and people
share their ideas and maybe get feedback
[1:28:55] they don't but just public do policy is
being followed but then things are going
[1:29:00] to happen anyway they never had control
anyway because there's people above it
[1:29:04] just sort of
is there a limitation to what town is
[1:29:08] able to control the development in the
town
[1:29:12] » we do have a certain level we have a
certain ability for that matter. The
[1:29:17] federal government has powers to come in
and to do as they need to do and they're
[1:29:23] mandating their different levels of
office as well.
[1:29:30] I don't want to get out there. This is
drawn up by the
[1:29:35] right
process flowchart.
[1:29:40] Yeah, that is that is the provincial
>> my question is my thought is the only
[1:29:46] town that's been selected that this is
going to be happen
[1:29:50] » that particular process
>> well the the yeah because what they want
[1:29:54] to implement are the
support homes and all
[1:30:01] you know whatever
when they come from the hospital where
[1:30:07] they're going to go is
the only town that you know of at this
[1:30:12] point that this has been has been
selected that this is going to happen
[1:30:16] because we are not the only town
hospital.
[1:30:21] Middleton has a mental facility down
there that I am aware of.
[1:30:27] » Right. I would say the chemical
situation is not unique in the province.
[1:30:32] Um I would also say that we're one of
the few um local governments that's been
[1:30:38] willing to into this issue and try to
figure out a way to make it work for the
[1:30:43] town. Um, not everyone's doing that.
There's I mentioned a lot of things
[1:30:47] about definitions tonight and the
challenges with definitions. Um, we wish
[1:30:52] that the province had some standard
definitions that we could look to for
[1:30:55] this, but there aren't a lot of there's
not a lot of consensus on how this this
[1:31:00] should be arranged. And so, we're doing
our best to try to work our way through
[1:31:03] it. And that's why you see different
iterations of this this plan, too.
[1:31:07] the one from people fall that we looked
at and we've modified it a bit and we're
[1:31:11] trying to find our way through the some
of these these thorny questions as best
[1:31:14] we can.
>> So it's it's not unique to
[1:31:19] » um I have read something
[1:31:27] as a place for
[1:31:32] housing programs
because are no other facilities between
[1:31:38] us and
so
[1:31:41] was
[1:31:45] designated to
that
[1:31:49] » I'm not aware of that
[1:31:59] » I've been involved in applying for some
of these funds so I know a little bit
[1:32:02] about how the province allocates the
funding and I think it could
[1:32:06] for some of the questions that people
are asking.
[1:32:09] The clear difference is it's not the
province that is deciding that Kenville
[1:32:15] will become the service hub or the
province has it designated
[1:32:20] that they will buy certain properties.
It is local service organizations who
[1:32:25] are asking the province and applying for
grants to deliver projects in Ko
[1:32:32] » or whatever community. So it's not
coming from the province to will happen
[1:32:35] in KO. It's local organizations saying
will you fund this for us and this is
[1:32:42] the property that we would like to have
done. So it's a little bit it may seem
[1:32:46] similar but it's not directed that's
coming from the province it's coming
[1:32:49] from the local service organizations.
[1:32:58] » Thank you for that clarification.
Any other comments or questions from
[1:33:02] folks who have not spoken about program
based housing in this process that we're
[1:33:07] undergoing right now?
Okay. I thank you all very much for your
[1:33:12] participation and your engagement this
evening. And I remind you again that if
[1:33:16] you have followup or you think of
something later that you'd like to pass
[1:33:20] along or or ask, then please do that
with the email addresses that are
[1:33:24] provided. And uh have a great rest of
your evening. Let's get this shut off.