[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.

May 21 2026Town of Kentville Public Participation Meeting

Transcript