[0:46] Good evening. I would like to call to order uh the town planning advisory

[0:51] committee meeting of Monday, August 31st, 2026.

[0:55] I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are in Migmagi, the ancestral

[1:00] and unseated territory of the Migma people. I also acknowledge that people

[1:05] of African descent have been in Nova Scotia for over 400 years. We honor and

[1:10] offer gratitude to those ancestors of Migma and African descent who came

[1:14] before us to this land. We also acknowledge that words alone are not

[1:18] enough and commit to work towards achieving the action items outlined in

[1:22] the calls to action from the committee for truth and reconciliation.

[1:28] Next on our uh agenda is the acceptance of the agenda which has been provided.

[1:34] If anybody wishes to add any items to the agenda, please make that known. And

[1:40] if there are no changes, if somebody could move to accept them.

[1:45] So moved. Councelor McGrath. Do I have a seconder for that motion? Miss M Miss

[1:50] Deloreier. All those in favor of accepting the agenda as circulated,

[1:54] please signify by saying I. >> Motion passed. Thank you. Uh the minutes

[2:01] from our last meeting of May 25th, 2026 have been uh circulated.

[2:09] If there are any um omissions, corrections,

[2:14] amendments to those, please let me know.

[2:21] And if there are none, if somebody wishes to make a motion to approve them

[2:26] as circulated, that would be appreciated, Mr. Laurier.

[2:31] And uh seconded by Councelor Graham. Okay.

[2:39] All those in favor of approving the minutes as circulated, please signify by

[2:43] saying I. I. >> Okay. Motion carried. Thank you.

[2:50] The next item on our agenda is the uh step two of

[2:59] five for the development at 149 Callback Street.

[3:05] uh and that is senior planner Conny's project. So I will turn the microphone

[3:12] over to her to speak to this. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also

[3:18] note for the members of the planning advisory committee that we have two of

[3:22] the representatives for this application are and they are in attendance and they

[3:26] do have a small presentation themselves that they would like to do following

[3:29] this one. As mentioned, this is the application step two for 149 Callback

[3:34] Street. You may have forgotten about it because it had a little bit of a rough

[3:38] uh go so far. It initially came forward in front of this committee back in March

[3:43] for step one and then we had a couple delays and a random power outage and now

[3:50] finally we are back for step two review. So this this application as mentioned

[3:56] 149 Callback Street is in an area of redevelopment currently. Uh the

[4:01] application is being brought forward by Zap Consulting on behalf of the uh

[4:06] property owner Lanchaw Construction. The original application came forward in

[4:10] February and it is to construct a multi-unit residential building with 43

[4:14] residential units and two levels of parking within the building itself.

[4:19] Again, this is a step two of the five-step expanded application process.

[4:26] Here we see a aerial photograph of the subject site. It is just over 1 acre in

[4:32] area and has approximately 23 meters of frontage on Callback Street. We are able

[4:38] to see also some of the recent development. This is a little bit older

[4:43] of a photo, but we see the the three larger buildings that have been fully

[4:46] constructed and completed a little bit above there at 185 Callback Street.

[4:53] Here we have some photos of the subject site. So, it is that yellow house where

[4:56] the yellow arrow is pointing. So, it is just above north of the existing

[5:02] graveyard. And you can see again those other larger buildings that have been

[5:05] constructed a little bit further further south.

[5:10] Um some more site photos.

[5:15] So the applicable policy area, the lands are within the urban growth policy area.

[5:19] Multiple unit residential proposals um more than 18 units must be considered by

[5:24] development agreement as per policy UG35 within the town's municipal planning

[5:29] strategy. The lands are also zoned urban growth and have a bit of environmental

[5:34] reserve at the rear. So the property itself is a little bit odd shaped where

[5:38] it has that triangular portion which at the rear to the east in this photo and

[5:43] you can see that it's completely within that er zone.

[5:47] [clears throat] So again the proposal pardon me is five

[5:51] stories. It actually is six at the rear due to the elevation change of the site.

[5:56] Uh 43 residential units as mentioned 21 bedrooms, 16 twobedrooms and seven

[6:02] two-bedroom plus den units. The lot coverage itself for the building is 25%

[6:07] and then when we include the impermeable surface for parking that increases to

[6:11] 42%. Parking is 60 total spaces with 46 being inside the structure and 14 at the

[6:19] rear at the surface which is a parking ratio of 1.4 per unit. Amenity space

[6:25] currently shown at 314 square meters which includes the balcony the balconies

[6:30] and an amenity rooms. It is important to note that this has a little bit less

[6:34] currently than what the land use bylaw requires for amenity spaces. Um it's

[6:40] about 561 square meters short on that, but it does

[6:44] have some uh forested or undeveloped property at the rear. It's questionable

[6:49] as to the amenity usefulness of that, but we will get further into that as we

[6:54] consider this application. We just did a little bit of a

[6:58] side-by-side comparison from the original application to what's in front

[7:02] of us today. The original is on the left. The submitted current application

[7:06] is on the right. So, the two changes that have come out since step one into

[7:10] step two include an increase in parking. So, there's 14 spaces now at grade which

[7:16] are highlighted by the the number one in the yellow circle on the far right of

[7:21] the graphic. The other thing is that the building has been pulled closer to

[7:25] Callback Street. So, it's now at a setback of 13 meters instead of the

[7:29] original 19.86. This is also due to firefighting

[7:33] requirements. And correct me if I'm wrong when you get to do your

[7:36] presentation uh Miss Ste consultant that we can uh that the

[7:43] the fire it's now closer to the building to enable um increased and improved fire

[7:48] fighter access with the um pulling up at the street with the truck.

[7:53] Here we see the original massing plan that was submitted back in March. Pretty

[7:56] much just a large rectangle. And then now we have a little bit more fleshed

[8:01] out design, fuller renderings with conceptual um cladding material and

[8:07] design that you can see what that would look like within that neighborhood

[8:11] context.

[8:15] And we have a few more of those. So this is a different angle

[8:21] and this is from the rear. So you get a sense of the slope and the existing

[8:25] grade at the property and how that parking will be laid out at the back

[8:33] and from callback street.

[8:41] So two parking levels, no changes to this as noted from the original to the

[8:48] current submission. One level does have a drive-thru that you enter and then you

[8:53] kind of exit to access that rear park surface parking,

[8:58] but an estimated 23 to 25. We're probably going to hit about 24 in that

[9:02] once the accessible parking spaces are incorporated into the design.

[9:07] So there has been a slight modification for the residential layout that the

[9:12] mechanical and elevator stairwell area has been modified slightly.

[9:18] But that's the only substantive changes from the first original to now

[9:25] and that continues on for levels three to five.

[9:32] We did highlight some areas of potential conflict with the land use bylaw

[9:35] requirements. So there are setbacks that limit the height of a building. So this

[9:42] particularly applies to the site because the residential the general residential

[9:46] zone is across the street and the zones meet in the center of the road. Um so

[9:52] that has largely been met and you can see that on the drawing below where

[9:58] they've noted the 15 meter setback from the street center line as well as the

[10:02] setback from the property boundary. Um, it's not necessarily a negative thing,

[10:09] but it is something to note for planning advisory that the stepped back

[10:14] requirement, which you can see in the lower left corner, is not being met

[10:18] necessarily. The buildings, most of the building's mass will be placed farther

[10:25] back, but it still does not or is not expected to meet the land use bylaw

[10:30] requirement for that. Uh the development application notice

[10:36] sign was posted on the subject site in midappril or sorry mid August on the

[10:41] 11th. Uh information has been and will continue to be posted on the town's

[10:45] website under active development applications and the public

[10:48] participation survey will open to all who would like to provide their

[10:53] feedback. That will open after this meeting. of tomorrow. Uh, and a mail out

[10:57] will also be sent to all the affected property owners within 150 meters of the

[11:02] subject lands and will notify them of the upcoming public hearing which is

[11:06] expected to be in November. This application is expected to progress

[11:11] to step three following this meeting which will be next month, the end of

[11:15] September, I believe the 28th. and all any and all changes that will result

[11:20] from this meeting will be incorporated to any submission that will go forward

[11:23] to that next meeting. And that concludes my presentation.

[11:32] Thank you, Senior Planner Connley. Um would the committee members like to

[11:39] hear from our um developers representatives before we move to

[11:44] questions? Does that make sense? Okay, great. Uh, please come on down

[11:52] and uh just make sure your microphone is on,

[11:57] which I will >> hear me. Okay,

[11:59] » should be working now. >> Okay, great.

[12:02] Good evening, uh, members of the planning advisory committee. My name is

[12:05] Connor Wallace. I'm a planner and principal at Zap Consulting. We're

[12:08] working on behalf of the land owner, Land Chalkaw Construction, as they're

[12:12] looking at a development at 149 Callback Street. Uh I'd like to thank Carla for a

[12:16] thorough presentation. Um so I won't uh repeat a lot of the details around the

[12:21] proposal. Certainly there's available availability for questions of

[12:24] clarification around that. I will just provide a bit of additional detail

[12:27] around the design approach and again that's certainly available to ask any

[12:31] questions that do come up at the meeting. Um and also we'll just provide

[12:35] a bit of response to some of the feedback we understand we've received in

[12:38] the process so far and some of the changes we made to the design as a

[12:41] result of that. And I I what I'll do is kind of talk through those as I have

[12:45] this image up on the slide. Um so the first thing that we heard about was the

[12:50] location of parking and parking supply was something that was discussed in the

[12:53] early stages of the application. Um with was um understanding if there was

[12:58] consideration for surface parking in front of the building and not just in

[13:01] the rear of the building. Uh so we have continued to consider the parking within

[13:04] the rear of the building for a couple of reasons. one one of which was mentioned

[13:08] by Carla as it relates to fire access and emergency service to the building

[13:12] and its proximity it needs to be to the public street in this case callback

[13:16] street. Uh so with that it creates a challenge with with that amount of

[13:20] distance to fits surface parking and its its functions. What we are using that

[13:25] area for is access to the interior parking of the building as well as a

[13:29] very clear and distinct pedestrian access to the building through a

[13:32] enclosed bumpout that projects out closer to the street than the primary

[13:36] mass of the building. Um, and I'll I'll speak to the height a bit more um in in

[13:42] further comments. Uh, so the parking is located in the rear as it remains. The

[13:47] property does have an odd configuration as was mentioned and the rear portion is

[13:51] within an environmental zone. The intent is not to um develop those lands and to

[13:55] have some additional surface parking um available for tenants um or potentially

[14:00] residents who are uh having visitors over um there are you know fob systems

[14:05] and access systems in place that are available through these buildings to

[14:08] provide access um in those certain circumstances. However, we did recognize

[14:12] that parking was some and parking supply was something that was discussed and

[14:16] recognized as a need by the committee in the community. Um

[14:20] with regards to the building material cladding and color and and as it relates

[14:24] to beyond just kind of the box masking that was initially proposed uh there's a

[14:27] variety of of materials um proposed within the development. It as I

[14:31] mentioned within its form it's intended to have a one-story projection at the um

[14:36] street to provide a very prominent and obvious entrance for residents or

[14:40] pedestrians accessing the building with a direct connection uh to the sidewalk

[14:45] and to the the public rightway. There's a separate uh connection from a stairway

[14:50] emergency access on the opposite side of the building. Can you see my cursor

[14:52] here? Great. Um so that comes out here from a uh exit stair that occurs on the

[14:58] other side of the building. That's directly out to the street as well. And

[15:00] then the central portion of the site is uh frontage is um being utilized for

[15:04] access driveways to the two levels of parking. Um, one thing I will speak to

[15:08] as it relates to the design approach is the site does slope to the back away um,

[15:14] downgrade away from the elevation of Callback Street. It is located next to

[15:18] an existing cemetery as well. When we were looking at design for integrating

[15:22] parking as well as residential units, we were cognizant of the amount of

[15:25] excavation and you know digging and disruption of ground to accommodate the

[15:30] development as we looking at its proximity to its neighboring uses. So

[15:33] although there is some excavation intended here, the intent here is to

[15:38] actually have the parking kind of funnel out as the landscape falls up from it or

[15:42] falls out from it towards the um the environmental zone. So and I believe

[15:47] there may be an image from the back. So you can see from the back here a good

[15:51] portion of that building is actually it it becomes exposed in the rear when it's

[15:54] away from the streetscape, but it doesn't require that level of excavation

[15:57] within proximity to that use. that was a bit of the one of the driving factors

[16:01] behind the design approach and then the residential units sit on top of that

[16:07] um as it relates to the building height and I'll I'll refer back to this image

[16:10] when we're when I'm speaking to this and um and also referencing um some of the

[16:14] land use bylaw requirements around um building height and its height as it

[16:19] relates to street and the street walls um in this case this is the site does

[16:23] have a unique context where directly abuing uh it's the site is a general

[16:28] residential use zone zone on so next to it um and butting along Callback Street

[16:33] is an urban growth zone and designation and also on the other side of that

[16:37] corner kind of condition of the street is urban growth as well. So it is a very

[16:41] mixed area in terms of the existing uses and its zonings and its existing zoning

[16:45] framework. That said, what's being proposed within the design is to really

[16:49] have, as mentioned here, the pedestrian entrance and interaction with the street

[16:54] be very prominent and obvious and scaled to the streetscape experience with a

[16:59] direct connection and integration of landscaping that it's very prominent and

[17:03] easy to navigate to and easy and safe to access and is at a scale that is um you

[17:08] know appropriate for that inviting pedestrian experience. and the building

[17:12] the building mass itself that is taller is set back further than that to

[17:16] accommodate access for the underground parking but also to have that separate

[17:20] more background appearance to it from the main entrance. Although taller, it

[17:24] does have some vertical elements and lighting to help you know show show its

[17:28] scale but then also have different materials, more grounded materials such

[17:31] as masonry um at the base to help you know accentuate that base and have it as

[17:36] more of a a grounded building at the pedestrian level. Um so although it it's

[17:41] within this framework it's not meeting the intent of the land use by

[17:44] regulations exactly um we do feel that through the design approach there's the

[17:48] intent behind that pedestrian scale and safe access um experience is is being

[17:53] made through this proposal. I just want to provide a bit of context around the

[17:56] site and design um approaches that that led to that. Um

[18:05] with regards to the construction methods um and like I believe there was some

[18:08] feedback about how it may be constructed and how that may have impact on

[18:11] neighboring properties and and disruption um and things like that. The

[18:14] as mentioned as it relates to excavation the intent here is to try to minimize

[18:18] excavation and through the design approach. Um, also understanding intent

[18:22] now is that this likely would be the parking levels would be be built out of

[18:26] concrete and then the upper levels would likely be bu be built out of wood. Uh,

[18:29] due to its scale and its um, its form is very conducive to to wood construction.

[18:34] It can be built out of other um, methodologies as well. What's uh, great

[18:40] about that in the sense of construction impact is that there's not larger

[18:43] construction equipment such as cranes and all these things that do come with

[18:46] other construction methods such as as concrete in a lot of forms. So, um the

[18:51] the intent from that approach is it for it to be built similarly to a lot of the

[18:54] other buildings of the scale within the town. Um as it relates to construction

[18:57] approach, that exact approach hasn't been nailed down yet. Um but the scale

[19:01] and design of the massing is intended to keep that those options flexible and in

[19:05] mind. Um the there are some existing mature trees in front of the property.

[19:10] Um we are at this point not uncertain if those trees are able to remain within

[19:16] within the development as it's become closer to the street. Um the intent is

[19:21] to try to preserve those through the development. However, having them

[19:24] maintained to be preserved could present challenges um due to also maintaining

[19:28] the proximity for fire access um and and service through the recent changes that

[19:33] were made. So wanted to highlight that for discussion today. Um

[19:39] there was some discussion around the unit model around um not only the

[19:43] breakdown um but from our understanding through our client is this intended to

[19:47] be rental um units um so purpose-built rental units that they would be they

[19:51] would be renting similar to a lot of housing of the scale that's being built

[19:54] in the town currently. Um as it relates to the amenity space there are personal

[19:59] private balconies um allocated for each individual unit. There is a fairly

[20:02] substantial ground floor amenity space um that was uh noted in the floor plans

[20:07] and provided in your report as well of just over 1,000 square feet about 1,200

[20:11] square ft. Uh and that is intended it could be multiple spaces that amount of

[20:17] square footage could be it doesn't necessarily need to be one contiguous

[20:20] space or one contiguous room. Um but it could be a variety of a combination of a

[20:23] gym and a common room or um various combinations of amenity uses that are

[20:28] common to the residents in the building. um as it relates to outdoor amenity

[20:32] space, it is a budding a natural green space um and and cemetery to um to its

[20:39] neighboring side. Uh and it does have area of the lot within the rear that is

[20:44] preserved to be undeveloped. Now, will that be programmed for a specific many

[20:47] space? At this time, it isn't intended to because the intent is not to have um

[20:51] a level of disruption to that land because it's environmentally sensitive

[20:55] zone. Um however we do feel with the surrounding outdoor amenities and

[21:00] facilities within the area um combined with the outdoor balconies and interior

[21:04] space that there's an adequate amount of space for the development proposed.

[21:07] Again looking to discuss that further today. Um and the the parking as well is

[21:12] we're we're proposing a range of 23 to 25 stalls recognizing that there will be

[21:16] some spatial um adjustments to accommodate the barrierfree parking um

[21:20] that will be implemented with the building. So that that will be required

[21:24] in accordance with the 43 units. There will be I believe at least two to three

[21:27] barrierfree parking stalls and units that would be um required in accordance

[21:31] with the code. Um that would be reflected in the the parking structure

[21:35] and those uh stalls would have access to units either within the ground that that

[21:41] same level or through the elevator access to their barrierfree designed

[21:45] unit. Um, so I think that was touching on um, a number of the items I think

[21:49] were discussed previously um, over the course of this application. Again,

[21:53] looking forward to continuing the discussion today. We're available for

[21:55] any questions, clarifications, or discussion items and really thank you

[21:58] for your time.

[22:02] » Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Okay. Um, if any members of the

[22:08] committee wish to ask questions to Mr. Wallace or

[22:13] Miss Connelly.

[22:18] » Okay. Councelor McGrath.

[22:23] » Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Wallace, for the report. Um,

[22:28] probably to Miss Connelly first when we were talking about amenity space. And

[22:34] Mr. Wallace, you had mentioned the thousand square feet of uh amenity space

[22:39] in the room there. We've mentioned some balconies. I don't know if we have the

[22:43] sizes of the balconies. The what what is the calculation through the existing

[22:49] land use bylaws on what amenity space would be required if it was being done

[22:54] uh as of right or by site plan approval? Like how far are we missing on on

[22:58] amenity space? Because Miss Connelly, you mentioned at the previous meeting

[23:01] that uh that the application fell short. Yeah, just based on the uh numbers that

[23:07] we have on the the common room as well as the balconies, it's still 561

[23:15] me square meters less than the required and the required is calculated based on

[23:20] the number of bedrooms per unit. So it is quite a bit of amenity space that is

[23:23] required. Um but yeah, 561. >> And then Mr. Wallace, you had mentioned

[23:30] the cemetery next door possibly being used for amenity space. I think a lot of

[23:36] people would probably find that very disrespectful uh depending on the usage

[23:40] that they were planning for amenity space in a cemetery. Uh just throwing

[23:44] that out there. >> Um with regards to barrier free parking,

[23:48] that was something that was mentioned at the previous meeting that the uh barrier

[23:52] free parking was not identified in there. Uh and you mentioned just now

[23:57] briefly, can you touch a little bit more on the accessible units? Uh how many

[24:01] units are going to be accessible? Are they going to be designed and built in

[24:04] such a way that they are adaptable in case you end up with more people needing

[24:09] accessible units for example? >> Mhm. Um yeah, so I'll I'll um provide um

[24:15] response to those and and please let me know if I I missed any items. Um so as

[24:20] it relates to uh the the amenity space piece. Uh, so the balconies themselves

[24:25] are typically about a uh 5 foot by 10 foot balcony or sorry 5 foot wide by

[24:31] about a 3ft or excuse me they're about 5 foot deep and by about 8t wide and

[24:38] that's about your typical balcony size and those often they are either you know

[24:43] within the functional design of the units themselves they often flank off

[24:46] the the living room space um but those are kind of your standard and I believe

[24:49] that was what was used to calculate the overall total area was a combination of

[24:53] those per unit and that's what reflected the total. Um as it relates to the

[24:56] amenity space within interior of the building as mentioned this is a a fairly

[24:59] substantial size of interior amenity space to service what we believe the 43

[25:03] units that are proposed within it. Um common rooms, gym, those types of things

[25:07] can be well accommodated within this space. If there was additional amenity

[25:10] space to be provided within the building, it would likely be in a

[25:13] reduction in units to accommodate that space just functionally within the form.

[25:17] and we believe that there is an adequate amount of space and there's an adequate

[25:21] we believe amount of parking to accommodate the 43 residential units. Um

[25:25] so the the proposal is indicating to do that and as it relates to outdoor

[25:29] amenity space and the neighboring use and I I absolutely appreciate your

[25:32] comment as it relates to the neighboring use. I I do find that as it relates to

[25:36] cemetery land uses they're often used as passive recreation places for people to

[25:39] walk and enjoy the outdoors. They have often very dedicated pathways that are

[25:43] often accessible um and foliage and all these things that there's often

[25:47] cemeteries that are and there's there places of of um of mourning and

[25:51] reflection as well. Um and recognizing that there's there can be that

[25:55] multifaceted nature and opportunity with that that use and also recognizing that

[25:59] it's important to respect how that's used um and and those who use it. Um and

[26:06] I believe it was it was primarily related to amenity space but was there

[26:09] anything else that uh the sorry the barrier free parking. Thank you.

[26:13] » Um so as it relates to the code itself it will require at minimum uh three

[26:18] barrier entirely barrierfree units including dedicated barrier free parking

[26:21] stalls. Uh so that would be provided within the building. The the code is

[26:25] also requiring adaptable units within buildings as well. Um so I I I'm not an

[26:29] an architectctor or building official myself so I won't get into the the

[26:32] details of that. uh the intent is to meet all those requirements. Um and the

[26:36] the parking stalls would be designed accordingly with that. They're often

[26:38] cited close to the um the residential core due to their proximity and often

[26:43] that's where the spacing requirements are ideal for those those stalls within

[26:46] the the space as well. >> Okay. I asked mostly because when and I

[26:51] know we're still in early stages. I acknowledge and understand that. Um but

[26:55] when things aren't showing up at the beginning, I just want to make sure that

[26:58] they've actually been been thought about.

[27:00] » Um building materials. I think you already mentioned it's going to be uh

[27:04] concrete for the parking area and then uh wood build on top. Uh so we skip over

[27:11] that one. The birectional driveways that was something I had asked about at the

[27:15] previous meeting just making sure that there was sufficient space to avoid

[27:19] conflict from people coming and going with these these two driveways. Uh and

[27:24] again acknowledging early stages has that been looked at for uh you know

[27:27] required widths? >> Yes. Um thank you. It's a it it is a

[27:31] great question and um we were from a width perspective, yes, we looked at it

[27:35] twofold. We were looking at the standard widths that are often used for two-way

[27:38] driveways within these these parking structures as it relates to their

[27:41] functionality and also with the how the structure is often designed in them. Um

[27:46] that accommodates two-way driveway traffic. And then we also um are in a

[27:50] way looking at creating some sort of masonry um design there to help create a

[27:55] distinction between the two driveways. And I imagine there will be other layer

[27:59] design elements that could help with like wayfinding and access and things

[28:02] like that that are typically associated with underground parking structures. Um,

[28:05] and based on our understanding of all those, we we were able to also run tests

[28:10] basically that >> vehicles can get in and maneuver through

[28:13] the parking structure particularly with this one because the lower level does

[28:16] provide access to the rear parking. So like how that functions and cars are

[28:20] able to get in and out. Um, so it has been looked at at that level and the

[28:23] widths have been allocated to help accommodate that. Perfect. And and while

[28:28] we're on the subject of the rear parking, I think it was me who brought

[28:31] up uh whether it had been uh considered to do parking in the front in order to

[28:35] bring the structure back. We just wanted to clarify. I wanted to know if it had

[28:40] been looked at. I certainly wasn't recommending bringing the parking lot to

[28:43] the front. >> Uh because we don't really want to look

[28:45] at the parking despite how often some of us argue that we should have more of it.

[28:49] Um we don't necessarily want to see it. Mhm.

[28:52] » Um the uh still on parking, charging infrastructure and bicycle parking. Uh

[28:59] two related I think especially because I think microobility is the future. A lot

[29:02] of people are moving to these electric scooters uh ebikes etc.

[29:06] » Um and again early steps but are we keeping in mind that we're going to need

[29:11] charging infrastructure in these for all types of electric vehicles?

[29:16] » Uh yes, thank you for for bringing up again. I I do recall that was that was

[29:20] mentioned last meeting. Um and the there hasn't been the details of those have

[29:24] not been ironed out at this point. There are allocated spaces within the building

[29:28] and the parking structure for interior bike parking. Um as well as uh the space

[29:34] within the stalls and ability to have um electrical wiring for interior charging

[29:39] and that is becoming more and more common within buildings. That decision

[29:42] hasn't been finally made on this building yet for by our our client. Um

[29:47] but it's certainly the spatial allocations have been made and the

[29:51] building and design can accommodate that and that is happening more common where

[29:55] they they are setting them up for more usage but there may not be the direct um

[30:00] unit hookups for every single stall but the wiring is there to plug them in when

[30:04] there's more demand type thing. So that's being investigated.

[30:07] » So maybe not there right from go but we were building an adaptability

[30:12] » it's similar to adaptability with the um the barrier free units. Absolutely.

[30:15] Yeah. >> Perfect. uh affordable housing. We do

[30:18] not yet have an enforceable affordable housing framework here. So, we can't

[30:22] necessarily make you, but I would encourage strongly that there be

[30:27] affordable below market units uh in this building. Have you looked into anything

[30:32] with CMHC or other programs in order to drive affordable housing at this unit?

[30:37] » Uh and I this I will echo this through discussions with our that we've had with

[30:41] our client to date. um and relying that that information at at this point the

[30:44] intent is it to be built as as market rental housing. Um there is financing

[30:50] programs as you mentioned available through CHC. A lot of that is

[30:54] » somewhat up in the air right now with Build Canada Homes now becoming uh a

[30:57] primary funer for a lot of affordable housing programs. A lot of uh our

[31:02] clients including including um this developer as well is looking at what

[31:04] sort of programs are available to support affordability um and how they

[31:09] can do that through market housing developments that come with the layers

[31:12] of land cost, construction costs, all those types of things. Um so I don't

[31:16] have a definitive answer for you right now. There's a lot of unknowns as it

[31:19] relates to those programs right now, but they are certainly being investigated

[31:22] and how they can be brought forward to this project.

[31:24] » Okay. Okay. And then you did mention that this is going to be entirely uh

[31:29] rental units, not no units available for ownership.

[31:32] » At this point, it's our understanding. Yes, it's it's rental units. Yeah.

[31:35] » Okay. And uh one one thing I just wanted to

[31:40] mention, I keep hearing you say design approach. I really appreciate that. That

[31:45] is something that I bring up a lot at council to say, you know, we have to

[31:49] design things for how we want people to be. We need to design our roads for the

[31:54] traffic we want to see. We need to design our town for how we want it to

[31:58] be. So, I really appreciate that you're taking a design approach to this. Yeah.

[32:02] Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that comment. I do want to thank the, you

[32:06] know, staff and the process that's available for this to with this process,

[32:09] the ability to look at sites specifically and bring a certain

[32:12] specific approach to them and their their nuances, uh, which I believe the

[32:16] site has a lot of those context. So, appreciate that comment. Thank you.

[32:21] Uh, councelor Graham. >> Um, I was just wondering, is your group

[32:25] affiliated with the three other buildings on callback?

[32:29] » To my knowledge, no. They they they aren't affiliated with those buildings.

[32:32] No. >> No. Yeah.

[32:33] » Okay. The second question I have is with regard to the 72bedroom plus den. When I

[32:39] see that in a listing, it generally means that in a pinch, the den can be

[32:43] converted to a bedroom. Is that the case with these units?

[32:48] » Certainly. So with the scale and type of construction of this building, the

[32:51] building will be will be sprinklered. Uh so what that means is that dens may not

[32:56] have a window to the exterior. That being said, with a sprinkler, they can

[33:00] be functioning as an ancillary bedroom. Sometimes it could be like a guest

[33:03] suite, for example. Um so they can function as a den or a bedroom or an

[33:08] office or you know a mini gym. They're they're very multiunctional in that way.

[33:12] » Okay. >> Yeah,

[33:13] » those are my only questions. Thank you, >> Deputy Mayor Thomas. [clears throat]

[33:19] » Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you, Mr. Wallace, for your

[33:23] presentation and Miss Connley for yours. Miss Connley, I have some questions for

[33:27] you. Most of my questions have have to do with setbacks.

[33:32] Excuse me. Um, if we could in your presentation, can you bring your

[33:37] presentation up? just want to take a look at the setbacks uh from the general

[33:42] residential zone that you displayed. Thank you. So, it's the building is 16.2

[33:51] m from the U general residential zone. Is that correct,

[33:58] the corner of the building? >> Right. That's what they show there. My

[34:01] calculation was a little bit closer to 15 on that, but I see

[34:05] » to be confirmed. It's from the center of the rightway

[34:09] » and it's considered a fivestory building >> at the front. Yes.

[34:12] » Yeah. So, um 22 meters is the distance. So, it's you know Yeah. You're saying,

[34:20] you know, around 15 plus meters and it's supposed to be 22 meters. So, it's quite

[34:25] a bit a difference between uh what's as of right and and what's being requested.

[34:31] So, I think that's important to understand. Uh that uh another question

[34:36] I have has to do with um the um the right of way.

[34:43] Is is the cemetery um road is that a public right of way or how does that how

[34:51] is that described? >> It's private it's on private property.

[34:54] » It's a private property. >> Okay.

[34:57] » Okay. because there is a you know there is a a uh you can't

[35:03] exceed uh four stories if it's less than 19.7 from a public right away. So I was

[35:09] interested whether or not that applied. Um

[35:14] the other thing is um is really the storm water management. Um

[35:20] that that's concerns me um because there's already been a development in

[35:26] which um um I approved

[35:30] um and it had problems with storm water management and it's on call back. Won't

[35:34] bring it up but I think we're familiar with it. that's further up the road. And

[35:39] um we were assured that the storm water would be handled and um it it actually a

[35:46] portion of that water drained into the environmental zone in the back in which

[35:51] there's a four season repairarian area back there. There's a stream that runs

[35:56] there essentially four seasons. when we had torrential uh rainfall through

[36:01] summer thunderstorms that that that creek just swelled and overwhelmed some

[36:07] properties further downstream. And so I want to know about the storm

[36:12] water management on this one. I know that one is being corrected. I know that

[36:16] it it was seen as not done properly and so there's a correction is underway.

[36:21] That's my understanding. Is that correct in regards to that property? But we're

[36:26] talking about this property and I want to ensure that the storm water

[36:30] management is handled properly on this property because of the fact that it too

[36:34] drains into that same repairarian area that four season creek down there. And

[36:40] so um my question is is I know this is early and there needs to be a storm

[36:44] water management plan but would the town be looking for the storm water to go

[36:50] into the storm water system of the town? In other words, into the underground

[36:54] system to be taken away. Is that what would be uh the thought? Because I'm

[37:00] very interested to make sure that the water leaving this property does not

[37:05] leave because it's sloped. Once you get onto this property a little bit, it's

[37:09] all sloped towards that repairing area. You understand my question?

[37:14] » That is a great question and and you're not the only one to think that. And I

[37:18] think a lot of uh the residents of Tro would have similar concerns and

[37:21] questions. Typically we receive and I won't speak to our acting director of

[37:27] engineering and public works here. He Jared can absolutely follow up on that a

[37:31] little bit more but we don't ask for that level of detail at this stage. It

[37:35] is something that is expected that once the developers do get so to speak the

[37:41] green light to proceed then they spend a lot more money on the engineering plans

[37:44] to determine what is a suitable storm water management plan for the site. And

[37:48] these are handled in a multiple of different ways, right? There's

[37:55] you see them on all of the different properties how they handle them a little

[37:58] bit differently. Some of them have storm water management ponds. Some of them

[38:01] have chambers underground that are buried. It's really sight dependent and

[38:05] I I'm not sure and maybe if you Connor if you have any insight into that how

[38:09] you're expecting to deal with that at the moment. But the you are right deputy

[38:13] mayor that we would ask that they are not going to dump all their storm water

[38:17] management either into the brook or into the town's system that there are um

[38:23] checks and balances so that the storm water flow is not exceeded or does not

[38:28] exceed what is there currently. >> Correct. Okay.

[38:31] » Um yes. So thank you Carla and just to add a bit more context to that but

[38:35] that's that's exactly it. will we will be uh required through the storm water

[38:40] management plan to balance those pre and postdevelopment flows. So there's a

[38:43] certain amount of flow happening into that that um water feature now. And to

[38:47] your point, all of the slopes are going to that. So there the water is flowing

[38:50] there. Um and there will be more storm water created through the development

[38:54] being more on the property with this property. Um uh the front portion of

[39:01] this property being covered by a significant portion of the building.

[39:04] Like likely what may happen from a storm water management um perspective here is

[39:08] as opposed to a pond within the property which happens in certain circumstances

[39:11] on larger properties there's underwater storage units essenti underground

[39:15] storage units that would likely go below the surface parking lot in this case

[39:19] that would store storm water and storm events and then it would discharge that

[39:23] storm water at a rate that exists today. Um so the impact on that feature is not

[39:28] changed. That's kind of the overall theory. Again, I won't get into the um

[39:33] design parameters of it. With the context of the site, that's very likely

[39:36] a solution for here. The ultimate solution that's required is that the

[39:40] amount of storm water going into that feature is is unchanged through the plan

[39:44] that's put >> and that that's the requirement and and

[39:46] that is usually done even after council approves a project is done with the uh

[39:52] added added requirement that a storm water management plan is done and the

[39:57] town okays that. So, I have confidence in that. But I want to make sure that

[40:02] » that you're going to get questions on that. Believe me, there's going to be qu

[40:05] people questioning, >> you know, where is that wa where's

[40:08] what's the plan for that water? So, it might not you might not have the details

[40:12] of the plan, >> but I think I think there needs to be

[40:16] » um I think I think you need to be ready to answer some of those questions

[40:20] because I have those questions and I'm sure people in the area have those

[40:23] questions as well. >> Absolutely. They're very valid. Um, the

[40:27] other thing is um I'm I'm just concerned about um uh uh the property next door,

[40:34] the private property, which is the cemetery and and the shadows uh of this

[40:39] building. So, I'd like to see a shadow study. I'd like to see uh where those

[40:43] shadows are going. Um that's a grass property. It's a essentially it's a

[40:47] landscape property. >> It's totally landscaped. And when you

[40:51] have a landscape property and that's what they do, I I'm I'm interested um

[40:56] whether or not did they will they receive notification of this? Being a

[40:59] property owner, they'll receive notification of this and so they'll be

[41:02] able to address this themselves whether that's a concern because growing grass

[41:06] in total shade is just about impossible. So that's that's a feature of their

[41:12] business and and so I I I think that's something that that they should be aware

[41:17] of. Yeah. Um

[41:23] the last question or I have is is it wasn't in our report but there's this

[41:30] kind of four and five story yet when you look at it there's four stories of

[41:34] residences so there's kind of five six I mean sorry as the building goes back the

[41:38] lot goes obviously slopes back and so it goes from five stories at the front to

[41:43] six at the back. Can you just explain to me that's in the parking area so how

[41:47] does that work? >> Yep. Um,

[41:48] » you mean it's it's a sliver, so you can't park a car in a foot of height.

[41:54] So, how does how does that all work? >> No, very great question, and I'm happy

[41:58] to try to provide some more context on it and any follow-up questions, please

[42:01] feel free. Um, so, as you mentioned, the site um slopes from Callback Street down

[42:06] to um the the water feature that um and the environmental zone that's on the

[42:10] property. So, and what we have done is cited the first um level of the

[42:16] residences above callback street and from the front perhaps if you could go

[42:20] to the rendering from the front Carla please. Uh this works too. So um what we

[42:26] have is a situation where those accessing the parking areas can either

[42:30] choose to go up about half a story to access the first parking level or they

[42:34] go down half a story to access the below parking level from callback street. But

[42:38] the lower parking level once you get in there and start driving into the site it

[42:42] becomes quite exposed as the grade falls off towards the water.

[42:46] » Okay. >> So the idea and the idea behind that is

[42:48] that we're trying to minimize the amount of excavation being next to a cemetery

[42:52] the amount of ground disturbance all that. So the idea is really to build

[42:56] this into the slope in a sense that it's kind of falls off and the parking then

[43:00] provides an access opportunity in the rear from that parking level to get some

[43:04] surface parking or to provide some additional surface parking and likely

[43:08] some storm water management systems with that as well.

[43:10] » So the building's essentially like this and the ground correct slopes and so the

[43:14] building is level but the the foundation slopes back like this. Absolutely right.

[43:20] Which gives you a higher height at the back than the front.

[43:22] » Correct. Um and so the and then the entrance is as as you had mentioned

[43:28] prior it's about 15 to 16 meters uh from the center line of the street that is to

[43:33] the entrance the one-story entrance. The building itself is just over 20 m set

[43:38] back I believe from the center line of the street. Okay.

[43:40] » Um >> the building proper like

[43:43] » yeah the fivetory portion of the building as it relates to callback

[43:46] street. So the intent there was to have with recognizing that you know the the

[43:51] building height and the street wall parameters and landing spa are intended

[43:53] to have that more human scale entrance and interface with the street. This is

[43:58] intended at really a smaller scale inviting entrance is really the intent

[44:02] here and then set back the larger form further from that. And then there is as

[44:06] mentioned that floor level that the um uh residence entrance is it contains

[44:12] primarily parking and you access an elevator to access the units above and

[44:17] then the entrance itself provides a barrier three path all the way to the

[44:20] sidewalk. >> Right.

[44:21] » Yeah. >> And and you know I'll compliment you on

[44:24] that design of the that entrance part of the building which is like a a onestory

[44:29] » correct >> high. you know, it it kind of matches

[44:32] the residence next door sort of as a as a frontage, you know, right? Where so

[44:36] you're not having a wall there, you're having a one-story section of the

[44:40] building and then four stories or five stories.

[44:43] » Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay.

[44:45] » Thank you. >> Thank you for your feedback,

[44:50] » Councelor McGrath. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of

[44:54] follow-up questions. Um, when we're talking about the setback, uh, I just

[45:00] want to make sure that I'm I'm clear on the deputy mayor's questions. We're

[45:04] talking about the building being 15 m back or 16 meters back and the height,

[45:09] but when I especially on this slide, it's that lobby that is 15 or 16 meters

[45:14] back from the street, but it is certainly not five stories there. So,

[45:18] it's really the 20 wherever it was. Uh, Carla, you know where? Yeah, that's the

[45:23] one. Thank you. It's really just that 21.2

[45:26] m back that is at the five stories, but it sounded like we were talking about it

[45:31] being five stories at 15 meters back. And I just wanted to make sure that we

[45:35] were clear on what we were discussing or if I maybe misunderstood something.

[45:41] » Um, yeah. No, sorry. Um, >> sorry. Yeah, happy to clarify. the 15 uh

[45:47] to 16 meter setback applies to the one story and the 21 meters and change

[45:51] applies to the fivetory portion. Yeah. >> Okay, perfect. Just wanted to be clear

[45:55] on that. And then I did have one uh question that I did uh I failed to

[45:59] follow up on uh the first time is on the rooftop usage. Um Carl, would we be able

[46:03] to go back to the uh slide that shows the rear parking? I think that one

[46:08] probably best illustrates uh that's the one. Thank you very much.

[46:13] So, just talking about like rooftop usage again, especially when it comes to

[46:17] storm water management. Some uh developments will use a green roof, for

[46:22] example, as part of their storm water management plan. Uh sometimes there are

[46:27] solar panels installed. Uh I noticed that this one is facing, you know,

[46:32] sloping toward the north, which makes it a little less uh keen for solar panels,

[46:37] but also concerned about any uh water or snow runoff from that building onto what

[46:44] is the only sidewalk on that side of the building for emergency uh egress and

[46:50] such. Um, is it has that been taken into consideration the possibility of either

[46:56] sloping the opposite way to take advantage of uh solar panels or a

[47:02] flatter roof to enable a green roof or any sort of mitigation if it's left in

[47:09] the current consu uh configuration to protect pedestrians on that sidewalk

[47:15] from falling uh snow and ice and and snow and such?

[47:19] » Absolutely. Um great great questions and and very valid observations. Uh so yeah

[47:24] the the intent around the roof design at this point is to be a single pitch roof.

[47:28] So that from to your point there will be storm water. The intent is for the rain

[47:32] to all fall to one side and drain that way. What isn't shown in the rendering

[47:36] itself will be a roof detail and edge at the detail that collects storm water

[47:41] similar to a drain. But this would be a much more probably sophisticated detail

[47:44] that is designed to capture the rainfall and rainfall events. and that would

[47:49] funnel into the storm system of the building that would eventually make its

[47:52] way to the storage um whether it's as I mentioned the storage unit under the

[47:56] parking lot or some other means um during those storm fall events. So there

[48:01] wouldn't be a condition of um falling kind of free falling storm water on the

[48:06] edge of that building. They would be captured in that way. I I do take your

[48:10] point as it relates to the pitch and its orientation and that's certainly

[48:12] feedback that we we will take away in consideration in the process with our

[48:15] team. Um and uh there I do see there's a good opportunity there as we continue to

[48:21] investigate the design. Um as it relates and that that certainly as relates to

[48:25] consideration for example of solar panels. Um the green roof piece is

[48:29] something that with the singular pitch it does provide um opportunities for

[48:34] efficient draining. Um flat roofs from a draining perspective can often be

[48:38] challenging and require a lot of details to drain all the storm water because

[48:42] it's going to a flat surface. how to manage that and drain it off the roof.

[48:45] It involves a lot of systems to catch the water and move it out. So, in this

[48:49] case, it is a simple solution and with the proposed wood construction, it does

[48:53] align itself well with wood construction and the alignment of, you know, trusses

[48:56] and having those abilities to kind of have that slope roof condition. Um, and

[49:00] it's a bit of more of a residential in its character and and nature from its

[49:03] appearance by having more of a a pitcher style was kind of the design intent.

[49:06] That said, um I think there's some really valid and and good feedback in

[49:10] there as it relates to the orientation and the way we manage storm water within

[49:14] the roof that we'll we can consider moving forward. That was just a a bit of

[49:17] context around the design so far. >> Sure. And just another consideration um

[49:23] well the same consideration I guess I think back to our most recent winter

[49:27] here in Turo where a lot of people lost their gutters because of the ice dams

[49:31] and the >> severe severess of the you know the

[49:34] weather that we had. Um, so that's something if if there's a gutter there

[49:39] that like you said, oh, it's directing the storm water, that's all fine and

[49:42] good. But if there's chunks of ice, if that's if that gutter breaks free and

[49:48] there's chunks of ice falling, five, I know it can be up to six, but I'll be

[49:53] I'll be con forgiving and say five only. >> Five stories is still a long way for a

[49:58] chunk of ice to fall if it's going to hit somebody or even, you know, hit one

[50:02] of those uh those balconies or something. Um, so I would may want to

[50:07] caution that you want to consider that as well. Absolutely. Thank you. Yes.

[50:12] Thank you. >> Mr. Lauria.

[50:18] » All right. >> No problem.

[50:21] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you, Mr. Wallace. I think this question might

[50:24] be for Miss Connelly. I have a question regarding the requirements and the

[50:29] proposed 60 spaces for the parking. mainly just you know like is the

[50:34] applicant actually providing more parking than what is required and if so

[50:40] you know I'm kind of wondering if it's at the expense of amenity space or

[50:44] landscape. Um so if you can just like yes absolutely so the land use uh bylaw

[50:51] requires 53 spaces be provide be provided based on the number of units

[50:56] and bedrooms and the applicant is providing 60

[50:59] » okay >> total spaces. So they are above they

[51:01] have seven extra spaces that they have proposed

[51:05] there. >> Okay. Thank you. So I'm I'm just

[51:07] wondering if those um seven spaces are actually necessary

[51:12] » uh for this or if they could be used for more amenity space or landscaping.

[51:19] » Yeah, thank you and very great question. Um to to date what we've heard is that

[51:23] there is a fair demand for for parking for the uses. So the intent was to

[51:28] provide uh the amount of parking that is feasible within the means and parameters

[51:33] of the property within the rear parking lot. There's um 14 stalls currently

[51:37] envisioned. So there may be more opportunity for that to be reduced. The

[51:41] intent from a demand standpoint for the um building at this point is that

[51:45] there's more desire for parking than say maybe amenity spaces at this point. Um,

[51:49] that said, I think there there's opportunity for flexibility within that

[51:52] space within the building itself and the parking structure that that I believe

[51:56] it's we're not quite meeting the land use bylaw requirement within the

[51:59] building itself. Um, however, it's slightly exceeded by providing that rear

[52:03] parking lot. >> Okay. Yeah.

[52:04] » All right. Thank you. Of >> course,

[52:08] » Councelor Graham, >> I was just wondering your comment about

[52:11] u desire or demand for parking spaces. Where where is that coming from?

[52:18] Yeah. Um, thank you and happy to provide a bit more clarity on that. Just through

[52:21] through discussions that we've been having with um, a number of our clients

[52:24] and just there there seems to be still a fairly strong demand for for parking and

[52:28] providing parking. Within this case, I think there's there's opportunity for

[52:32] flexibility within that rear parking lot. Perhaps there may be demand for

[52:35] parking the parking stalls at this moment, but hopefully over time as

[52:38] things change that demand is reduced and surface parking lots are opportunities

[52:43] for that can be utilized as other spaces when demand does change because they're

[52:48] not as permanent say as an underground parking structure that you know it's

[52:52] permanently that use and it's often very difficult to become a different use when

[52:56] it's underground. In this case that that's our understanding just through

[52:59] conversations with our client and that's what why they provided us direction for

[53:02] this proposal. Um but there there is opportunity through that use for it to

[53:06] adapt over time as demand does change. >> Okay. Is that the trend we're seeing uh

[53:13] Miss Connelly that uh from my understanding I thought that parking has

[53:18] actually been underutilized in most developments these days in our town. But

[53:24] maybe I'm mistaken. >> I mean from my point of view it's really

[53:27] location dependent. For example, at the top of Young Street where we have the

[53:31] larger development being it's nearest stages of completion, they have all of

[53:37] their parking used, right? Because it's there's no public transit. It's up a

[53:42] fairly steep hill to get to the top of Young Street, right? So, the cars, there

[53:47] is a lot of parking. There are a lot of spaces filled at all times. Now downtown

[53:51] we'll see our parking lots maybe a little bit more emptied because people

[53:54] are walking and using alternative sources of or modes of transportation

[53:59] like bicycling or taxiing or they just don't have a vehicle. So I think

[54:04] currently the demand changes based on location and this callback street

[54:09] location is kind of on the cusp of it's it's fairly close to downtown but it is

[54:15] not in the downtown. So the demand for parking I would I would reference the

[54:21] people who are paying for it and building it rather than what I see

[54:24] anecdotally. Um, and if that's what they're saying, I mean, it does sound

[54:28] reasonable and plausible based on what I have seen. Yes.

[54:30] » Okay. Thank you, Miss Deloreier. I appreciated your observation there.

[54:35] » Yes. >> All right. Well, thank you so much. I

[54:38] don't really have much to add. I I think it's exciting the location, especially

[54:42] being close to the community college. I think that will work well for you and

[54:46] should hopefully help with parking. So that's great. Nice development. Um I

[54:51] think everybody made really good points and comments. So looking forward to

[54:55] seeing you at the next step next month. >> Thank you. Thank you for all your time

[55:00] and your feedback tonight. Appreciate it.

[55:07] » Okay. Senior planner Connelly is busy tonight.

[55:12] So, this is uh another project of Miss Conny's. Thank you. Uh 136 Wade Street

[55:22] uh commonly known as sort of the commercial district uh near Walmart. So,

[55:29] um go ahead, Miss Connelly, and let us know

[55:33] what you have. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh yes, this is

[55:37] kind of an unusual spot outside of the areas that we have been seeing or this

[55:42] committee has been seeing development proposals recently. Uh it is 136 Wade

[55:47] Road and you're like, "What's Wade Road? That's the Walmart." And you're right.

[55:50] Um it is actually in an existing developed area and these photos don't

[55:55] really give you that sense of where it's located, but it's an overview at the

[55:59] moment. It's an application brought forward by Studio MNA Incorporated on

[56:03] behalf of a numbered company. The application was made just a couple weeks

[56:07] ago in August and it is to construct a seven-story multi-use building with 70

[56:12] residential dwelling units and over 9,000 square ft of ground floor

[56:17] commercial space. So that um that process I'm recommending the expanded

[56:23] five-step development application review process. This is step one. So here we

[56:28] see the subject location. It is on the Walmart site. The Walmart is that really

[56:33] large building that straddles the town boundary with the county and it the area

[56:39] of redevelopment the overall site itself is like 6.62

[56:44] acres in area. This area of redevelopment or maybe that was hectares

[56:49] I'll check that but the area of redevelopment is 1.52 acres which is

[56:54] just over 6,000 square meters in area. The portion that is to be redeveloped,

[56:58] which is essentially all this grassy area to the north of the photo, um it

[57:05] has over a 100 meters of frontage on Wade Road itself.

[57:10] There is a little discrepancy you will note between and you'll see this more as

[57:15] we go through the presentation, but between the property boundary from the

[57:18] survey plan that we were provided as well as the property data layer that has

[57:22] been provided to us from the province. And I'll flip back so you see that blue

[57:27] boundary kind of cuts. You see in relation to the

[57:31] orange town and county boundary in relation to the property boundary that

[57:35] we currently have versus the survey plan boundary of the lot, which shows it a

[57:42] lot closer and a lot um it encompasses a lot more that grass space than is shown

[57:49] on our site location contextual photos at the moment. So I'll just make

[57:54] everybody aware of that fact. If you see a little discrepancy, we are aware of it

[57:58] too and we have flagged it for the province to hopefully fix their data

[58:02] layer because the surveyors uh are traditionally that's their job. They are

[58:06] normally [laughter] right. Um okay, but the building itself, you can see it

[58:10] there. It's highlighted in that dark green color. It is going to be just

[58:14] north of the existing Walmart building site. Um currently it is just a grass

[58:19] area. It's hard to really see where the site is on this aerial or the um street

[58:24] view photo, but you can see the Ros Eastling Center. This is taken from Wade

[58:28] Road. The Walmart is there. The Kent is there. It's a pretty commercial part of

[58:34] town. The lands themselves are within the regional service policy area and

[58:38] residential proposals or mixeduse proposals with more than 18 dwelling

[58:42] units must be considered by development agreement. The lands are also zoned

[58:46] regional service and are currently covered by an existing development

[58:50] agreement. Now, this makes it a little bit um of a trickier application because

[58:55] we will have to determine as we go through the review of this of this uh

[58:59] proposal whether we as a town discharge the existing development agreement

[59:05] either entirely or in part or um just kind of remove it from the site of

[59:11] redevelopment. And the ex it's important to note that

[59:14] the existing development agreement limits the uses to restaurants, uh,

[59:18] banks. There's like four uses that they can currently do there. So, an amendment

[59:23] is required. The proposal itself, as mentioned, is seven stories, 70 that's

[59:28] 70 residential units, so 51bedroom and 22bedroom units. The building itself

[59:34] will cover 18% of that um area of redevelopment. It's expected that less

[59:39] than 70% will be covered by parking and impermeable surfaces. I don't have exact

[59:44] calculations at this time for that. Huge amount of parking provided with this

[59:48] one. It's 131 spaces overall. 28 of them will be within the structure itself and

[59:54] 80 will be outside just for residential. So 80 total for residential only but 131

[1:00:02] to accommodate the commercial parking as well for those units. This is a parking

[1:00:06] ratio for the residential units of 1.14 spaces per unit. Amenity space for this

[1:00:12] is also being provided via top floor. That whole uh aqua green level at the

[1:00:18] top of the photo shown, that's top floor amenity. That's all amenity space. I

[1:00:23] have no details on what exactly that means or what will be in that space or

[1:00:26] how it will be used or programmed, but it's it's 436 square meters of space.

[1:00:32] Here we get a little zoom out of that site plan. So you get a better sense of

[1:00:36] the area that will be redeveloped. Lot of parking provided there. Walmart will

[1:00:41] remain as well as its giant parking lot and the other uh three

[1:00:47] three or four uh existing buildings there. There's three four total existing

[1:00:52] on the site. Um this is just a little zoom in to show this is from the

[1:00:58] applicant. So the Walmart is at the very bottom right of our photo here. The new

[1:01:03] proposed building is in the dark gray at the top as and it's accessory parking.

[1:01:10] We have some renderings that they have provided us. These are very conceptual

[1:01:15] like massing almost not a huge amount of detail but does give you a sense of of

[1:01:20] what's happening there. The Walmart for context. This is from Wade Road. Walmart

[1:01:24] is in the back. Here we see from more of an internal

[1:01:29] shot taken over maybe if you were standing at the Kent building looking

[1:01:32] toward Wade Road. Walmart again is to your right

[1:01:38] and this is from the air from Wade Road and Walmart in the back with the new

[1:01:43] proposed building.

[1:01:47] So we have the parcade level again 28 spaces have been proposed at this time.

[1:01:52] that may change slightly just in incorporating the barrierfree parking

[1:01:55] spaces as is fairly common. Um but they have provided that we have ground level

[1:02:02] commercial that is also proposed for this site. So again over 9,000 square

[1:02:07] feet of commercial space. I have no idea if that's going to be one tenant, two

[1:02:10] tenants, 20 tenants. We don't have that level of detail yet. But it will be all

[1:02:15] entirely ground floor commercial except for that residential lobby entrance. The

[1:02:20] typical residential layouts have been provided. There's only one that is

[1:02:24] there, but it's a mix of one and twobedroom units.

[1:02:30] And the amenity space level, again, high level, not a lot of detail, just showing

[1:02:34] a big empty space that will be used for the tenants. So, again, I'm

[1:02:40] recommending the town's expanded five-step review process. Um the uh

[1:02:46] development application notice sign will be posted on the subject site in the

[1:02:50] coming after in the coming weeks after or around step two of the application.

[1:02:55] The information has and will continue to be posted on the town's website. This is

[1:03:00] expected to go forward next month for a step two review and a mail out will also

[1:03:05] be sent to the property owners with within 150 meters of the subject lands

[1:03:10] to provide uh the public hear no public hearing notice. Now we're a little bit a

[1:03:15] ways away from that but that is our process as we move toward step two and

[1:03:21] that concludes my presentation. Madam Chair,

[1:03:26] » thank you senior planner Connelly. Uh, Deputy Mayor Thomas,

[1:03:30] » I have a couple of questions for you. One is, um, it crosses the development,

[1:03:36] uh, also involves the county. So, can you explain to me how that works as far

[1:03:40] as the approval of this development, etc.

[1:03:42] » Sure. >> And also taxation. How does that work?

[1:03:45] » I can't speak about taxation. Uh, it will be something that will be brought

[1:03:48] up in the future as we review this uh, whole process with the existing

[1:03:53] development agreement. As mentioned, the actual now this is where the boundary

[1:03:59] is an important distinction because the building itself, if you look at the

[1:04:03] graphic that's up there, the new proposed building is entirely within the

[1:04:06] town of Truro. Some of the proposed parking that will service that building

[1:04:11] will be over the county boundary line. Um, I'm not sure how taxation will work,

[1:04:17] but we will be discussing and reviewing our options for the existing development

[1:04:22] agreement that covers the entire site and does span the town county boundary

[1:04:27] and how we will handle that with the dis potential discharge or um amendment of

[1:04:32] it. >> Do you know what the uh the zoning is in

[1:04:35] the county? Do they have zones like this?

[1:04:37] » They do have zones. I'm not sure exactly what the zone is at this at this

[1:04:41] » uh I can answer that. It's actually highway commercial, I believe.

[1:04:43] » Okay. Thank you. >> So, and it and it does permit parking as

[1:04:45] a permitted use in the zone. So, there wouldn't be any issue if it was the

[1:04:49] agreement was discharged, it would be a permittable use permitted use. Um, so

[1:04:55] there shouldn't be any issue there, but we do have to have some discussions with

[1:04:57] our c with our lawyer, town lawyer to make sure we proceed properly and do

[1:05:02] everything we required to do under the terms of the existing agreement. So,

[1:05:05] that that discussion is ongoing. Um, and we will have an answer to that and a

[1:05:10] path forward at the next meeting. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Uh the

[1:05:14] commercial space is there a requirement for for commercial space in this

[1:05:18] building >> in the Yes,

[1:05:21] » there is >> in the regional service there.

[1:05:24] » Is that why they have it there or is that is that something that they want to

[1:05:28] do? Do you >> just do you know

[1:05:29] » it just makes sense. I haven't >> Director Fox has had a few

[1:05:33] communications with the applicant as well, but I'm not sure if that actually

[1:05:37] has been brought up to date. Director Fox

[1:05:39] » like my question is can it be completely residential?

[1:05:42] » Yes, it can under the devel under the terms of development agreement it can be

[1:05:45] completely residential >> and they're aware of that.

[1:05:48] » Yes. Yes. No, they're their intent was that the ground floor be commercial

[1:05:51] given the location. Um they're also exploring a secondary option. I think

[1:05:55] they're hoping to uh see how this meeting went to get response like give

[1:05:59] some feedback um which we will provide to them and uh I think they may also be

[1:06:04] considering a hotel potential. So they they it may be either or but but this

[1:06:08] was the path they wanted to proceed with at this time.

[1:06:10] » So you're saying hotel and residential or just a hotel with commercial space or

[1:06:16] residential with commercial space? >> They may end up deciding they wish to

[1:06:19] proceed with a hotel and and we we're going to get more clarification on that

[1:06:22] too at the next meeting. But I think at this stage what they really wanted was

[1:06:26] initial feedback on the proposal to sort of set a path forward so they could

[1:06:31] » Yeah, it's a good project. It's a good area for development. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:06:38] Miss Connelly is the owner just from the like the map you have up

[1:06:44] right now we have all the sort of you know overlay on the survey of the the

[1:06:50] you know parking and buildings etc. Currently this pit is all owned by one

[1:06:56] developer who has created this sort of commercial

[1:07:02] development with Walmart etc. and they will also own the building or is this to

[1:07:08] be subdivided from the larger parcel? >> They haven't provided that level of

[1:07:13] detail yet if that if the intention is to subdivide it off from the larger

[1:07:17] parcel. Currently the entire thing is covered by that development agreement.

[1:07:21] So, in order to do a subdivision, well,

[1:07:27] we're getting into details here, but like it would be likely that if they

[1:07:30] were to sell it, they would sell it independently of the existing

[1:07:33] development agreement. So, that would have to be discharged from the site of

[1:07:37] redevelopment potentially, but there's been no talk of that. So, I'm not really

[1:07:41] sure if that is the intention in the future or if they would just continue to

[1:07:45] um use it and maintain it as as proposed,

[1:07:48] » a part of their development. Okay. Okay. We're not sure on that. Okay. Uh,

[1:07:52] councelor McGrath. Oh, sorry, Councelor Graham.

[1:07:57] » Um, I my preference or what one idea might be more grass, more green and less

[1:08:06] uh pavement and reducing the amount of parking

[1:08:12] and then thereby reducing the issue of crossing the county lines there.

[1:08:22] So, I'm just that's just a comment, I guess. Um,

[1:08:25] » we can certainly pass that along to the developer if you wish

[1:08:28] » because there's a lot of concrete and pavement up there as it is and

[1:08:32] maintaining as much green as we possibly could would be favorable.

[1:08:38] I second that, councelor [clears throat and cough] Graham. I

[1:08:40] think I was I was also going to mention that, you know, if we look at how many

[1:08:44] spaces are occupied in that development, you know, on a daily basis. It it just

[1:08:49] might be something to to think about, senior planner Connelly, that, you know,

[1:08:54] maybe some of those spaces could just be earmarked for the development, but, you

[1:08:59] know, it does come down to where the boundaries of the property are going to

[1:09:03] be and stuff. But I agree. So many huge parking lots with no trees and it's uh

[1:09:08] it's old-fashioned and doesn't look great. So

[1:09:13] » not only that, >> not only that, it's just

[1:09:17] » Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, we're all over the place here.

[1:09:21] » Yep. Not only that, it's just not conducive to healthy living.

[1:09:26] » Yeah. like unattractive is one thing, but healthy living for families and

[1:09:32] » people is important to consider. So, >> thank you. Sorry for the mixup on the

[1:09:37] mic. >> I'm going to let councelor McGrath jump

[1:09:42] in here because he was next. You go ahead.

[1:09:45] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I I just clarification again, you know, around

[1:09:50] this parking area and the you know the county Colchester town of Churro line

[1:09:55] there. Uh right now we're focused just on this area around building B. Is that

[1:10:03] exist is any of that existing parking there or is that all grass land at this

[1:10:07] point? >> So essentially uh from the aerial photo

[1:10:11] there you see what's there. So the the bulbous parking area, the loading area

[1:10:16] with the tractor trailer >> ends that is existing obviously um and

[1:10:21] is incorporated into the design that you can see

[1:10:25] » here on the on the rendering. So that will remain in addition to all of that

[1:10:29] is all new parking essentially that is provided and shown. So I'm just going to

[1:10:34] flip back and forth so you can see that. >> All right. So it the development in

[1:10:38] question is entirely within a currently grasped area. the driveway to access the

[1:10:44] building and the underground parking for the building. If you go back to the

[1:10:49] other one, that one, if you hold there for a moment, the underground parking

[1:10:52] entrance is there from that road that is also used as a service road for the

[1:10:58] tractor trailers and such to go into and out of Walmart.

[1:11:03] Is I guess it's trying to figure out too is it the same owners who own the

[1:11:09] Walmart? is do we can I I foresee potential conflict between residents

[1:11:15] coming and going especially if we got 70 units uh all this parking and you know

[1:11:20] potential conflict with uh larger trucks that would not currently be experiencing

[1:11:26] any residential traffic in and out of that area. Is that going to become a

[1:11:31] conflict point? I guess is where I'm trying to to head at. And I acknowledge

[1:11:35] you might not have an answer to that, but has any of your discussions with the

[1:11:39] client uh or the developer uh you know, has it, you know, fleshed any of that

[1:11:44] out? >> No, it hasn't. And you're right, that's

[1:11:47] not my area of expertise. It is important to note too that there are

[1:11:50] only 28 spaces that are going to be provided in that underground parking.

[1:11:54] So, it's not a huge amount of volume of cars and number of cars. And it is

[1:11:57] expected that the truck and trailer traffic would be offset or would not be

[1:12:02] using that driveway at the same time as the residential like leaving in the

[1:12:06] morning at 8:00 a.m. or 8:30 and then coming home at 5:00. That I think we

[1:12:12] would ask for clarification on that to make sure that it would not be a

[1:12:14] conflict or at least flag it to them. I'm not sure what they're planning on

[1:12:18] doing there, but that is a good and valid point to bring to their attention

[1:12:21] that there could be some concern there. Well, and that's that's you bring up

[1:12:25] another good point honestly about the timing of the truck traffic. Is that

[1:12:30] expected to mostly be in the middle of the day when people are at work or

[1:12:33] running errands or you know it's at school or is it going to be in the

[1:12:37] middle of the night when people are sleeping because I know there are

[1:12:40] overnight shifts at uh certain warehouses and such to do that receiving

[1:12:44] because that's when the things come in. Uh so that might be another uh item to

[1:12:50] follow up on. Um,

[1:12:54] other than that, I mean, I would ask my standard questions. There's really very

[1:12:59] little detail in this uh at the start. Um, I mean, I know it's step one, but

[1:13:04] it's still very light on details. We're not even sure apparently if this is

[1:13:07] going to be a mixeduse commercial residential or if it's going to be a

[1:13:11] hotel. Um, you know, there's a lot of uncertainty here, but I would want to be

[1:13:16] asking again, uh, affordable housing, uh, any of the infrastructure for, you

[1:13:21] know, electric vehicles, uh, bicycle parking, uh, any potential, uh, green

[1:13:27] roofing or rooftop solar on top of that large amenity space that is as yet

[1:13:33] undesated other than just as amenity space.

[1:13:36] Um, these are all questions I'd love to see answered by step two, if at all

[1:13:42] possible, if it even proceeds to a step two in its its current form. Again,

[1:13:46] acknowledging that this could potentially be something completely

[1:13:50] different depending on what the uh developer decides.

[1:13:55] » But councelor McGrath, may I clarify and maybe with the whole committee? So if

[1:13:59] I'm clear, so we would you would be asking for them to

[1:14:03] clarify their intentions whether we'll be a completely residential building or

[1:14:07] will it be a mixed use commercial ground floor commercial with the residential on

[1:14:11] top or a hotel use or whatever. So before you would want to see that come

[1:14:15] back for a step two, they would want to clarify exactly what they're going to

[1:14:18] build on the site. Well, what we have in front of us today is a mixeduse

[1:14:23] commercial ground floor residential on top. And I would support something like

[1:14:28] that. I have long supported the the mixeduse uh model. I think it's it's a

[1:14:34] great way to reduce a lot of our car dependency. If you can just go

[1:14:38] downstairs, you've got the Walmart, you've got, you know, your shops, you

[1:14:42] got whatever. There's a lot there that you can easily walk to. Uh I love the

[1:14:47] mixeduse model. Um, but if it's going to be a hotel, that changes things

[1:14:54] entirely. If it's going to be entirely residential, I don't think that changes

[1:14:58] things much. I would still have the same questions. Uh, so it really for me comes

[1:15:02] down to what we have in front of us or is it going to be a hotel? And I don't

[1:15:06] know if it's a hotel, does that even come to us? A hotel is as of right in

[1:15:11] the resident or regional service if I'm not mistaken. The only reason it would

[1:15:14] come before the committee is because there may be and it's there's no

[1:15:17] requirement that it would be necessarily come back to the committee, but if

[1:15:19] there's an amendment to the development agreement to to to adjust the permitted

[1:15:23] uses in in the terms of the agreement, then it would have to come back for the

[1:15:26] committee. Uh there is also an option that we partially discharge the

[1:15:29] development agreement. Uh we may do that with or without the county coldester.

[1:15:33] These are all questions that we are currently looking [clears throat] at

[1:15:36] getting answers to from the town's lawyer who was just unfortunately away

[1:15:40] on vacation last week. So, we're going to pepper him with questions tomorrow to

[1:15:44] that effect. So, >> I'm sure he's looking forward to that.

[1:15:46] Um, so I guess with the developer looking for feedback from this committee

[1:15:51] and again acknowledging I am not the committee but just one member, I would

[1:15:56] support a mixeduse uh model in this area. I think it would be beneficial,

[1:16:02] but I would still want to know again the affordable housing, the rooftop usage,

[1:16:06] the you know storm water management plan, all of the the normal things that

[1:16:10] we we would be looking into um for any development within the town. And

[1:16:18] yeah, and I and we see we see where it goes from there, I guess. Thank you.

[1:16:25] » U Miss Deloreia. >> Um thank you, Madame Chair. I'm just um

[1:16:29] echoing counselor Scram's comments. I would like just to make a statement

[1:16:33] about a bigger picture here. I think this actually makes a lot of sense for

[1:16:36] this development because we have um the hospital, the community center nearby.

[1:16:42] Um however, if we are introducing housing in here, I'd like us to think

[1:16:46] what is going to look like 10, 20 years from now. Um because I don't think it's

[1:16:51] going to be forever a Walmart parking lot. So I just think that uh we should

[1:16:55] be looking at a bigger picture in here and um maybe get a little bit of the

[1:17:01] sense of you know like what is going to be 10 or 20 years from now um and just

[1:17:07] like echoing counselor's grams you know like an amenity space and greenery and

[1:17:12] just making it overall more enticing. Thank you

[1:17:20] » Deputy Mayor Thomas. >> Yeah, I'll chime in too. So, if you want

[1:17:23] to go back to that aerial shot, there's an aerial shot of Walmart parking lot in

[1:17:28] the area, and we can just see um the number of cars in the Walmart area,

[1:17:33] parking lot area, we'll call it the Walmart parking lot, but the whole area

[1:17:38] and how much free ashalt there is. And um I'm glad somebody brought this up

[1:17:43] because um we have new bylaws. It's my understanding that uh the new MPS and

[1:17:49] the land use bylaws when it comes to parking lots uh you can have so many

[1:17:54] spaces before you have some sort of island with some sort of um greenery or

[1:18:00] something. And I would love to see uh this area renovated uh to be far more of

[1:18:06] a pleasant um place to shop and a pleasant a more pleasant place to you

[1:18:12] know it increase the quality of of of the life of the town that it just wasn't

[1:18:16] like an you can land a plane in there I think right um so it should be it needs

[1:18:24] to be broken up a little bit to to be more pleasant and uh and if opening up

[1:18:29] the agreement allows for that. Um, I'm just going to, you know, put my two

[1:18:35] cents worth it towards that, you know, if we can make some changes. Yeah.

[1:18:39] » Yeah. We've >> discussed this 1970 kind of look to it

[1:18:44] and it needs to be >> uh updated to to a more recent um, you

[1:18:50] know, town planning vision. >> Yeah. Thank you.

[1:18:56] Can I just procedurally have a couple

[1:19:00] questions for um Miss Connelly and Mr. Fox. So, because this is a little bit of

[1:19:07] a it's a unique situation in that we aren't necessarily being presented with

[1:19:12] what the development might look like, which is fine. I I I don't think that's

[1:19:17] too hard for us to wrap our heads around. But just in terms of what's

[1:19:22] being asked I think in um with respect to the existing agreement

[1:19:30] um is not clear. Uh so my understanding is that you know this this parcel which

[1:19:37] is outlined in blue on this map that we're looking at is subject to a

[1:19:42] development agreement. And so what could take place is that the subject location

[1:19:48] is subdivided out and then presumably the development agreement that is the

[1:19:54] subject of the remainder is uh released from that parcel and then they may have

[1:20:00] something different as as far as what that development agreement uh says for

[1:20:06] that subject parcel location. But what might take place is that there is not a

[1:20:11] subdivision and this location um basically amends the entire agreement

[1:20:18] that applies to the larger piece. So if that is the case, I think we might find

[1:20:25] ourselves in a situation where we might want to revise other terms of the

[1:20:30] development agreement such as the parking lot itself, which I think we had

[1:20:34] discussed at a different um I don't know if it was the

[1:20:41] hospital annex building or something, but we definitely had this discussion

[1:20:44] before. But if either of you could just speak to those procedural aspects of

[1:20:50] this to give us a bit of guidance, that would be appreciated.

[1:20:54] » Okay. I I'm I think what uh the the situation we're currently facing is

[1:21:00] we're being asked by the developer for feedback on a specific proposal they put

[1:21:04] forward. It is it is admittedly one of two proposals that were discussed. Um

[1:21:08] but I think that's the one they want to get feedback on. So they're trying to

[1:21:11] get a sense for is the town prepared to support a development of this nature at

[1:21:15] that location. So that's kind of the question before the committee. The

[1:21:18] procedural matters dealing with the development agreement, uh how that gets

[1:21:22] discharged, partially discharged, amended are those are all three

[1:21:25] different options that could be presented. Uh those all have to have to

[1:21:29] be discussed with again the the town solister before I can give you better

[1:21:33] feedback on that because um there the county is a part a party a um a u party

[1:21:40] to the agreement. I think that's the proper terminology. Uh so there's three

[1:21:44] signatures to that agreement. One was the company for Walmart, the other was

[1:21:48] uh the town of Turo, and the other was the county Colchester. So how that gets

[1:21:51] discharged partially or otherwise is a is a question that has to be answered.

[1:21:54] We'll have an answer for that at the next meeting. But right now, I think the

[1:21:57] big question was that the developer simply wanted to proceed to this meeting

[1:22:01] so he'd get feedback or they could get feedback on is this proposal something

[1:22:05] that the committee would be prepared to support and that's pretty high level

[1:22:08] question but that's really all they were looking for and that's why I think

[1:22:12] you're not going to find a lot of answers to the questions you have but

[1:22:14] they were quite uh anxious to get it to this stage so they could get that

[1:22:18] initial feedback. >> Okay. And that's acceptable. I guess the

[1:22:22] only other thing I would ask is if we do say that we're agreeable, you know, to

[1:22:28] to moving on to step two and then the design changes such that it's a hotel

[1:22:33] versus a, you know, what we're presented with. Do do they go back to step one?

[1:22:38] » I would say yes, they would. If they go back to any step at all because again,

[1:22:42] uh, a hotel would be a permitted use in the zone. Um, and there would be no need

[1:22:46] to come to this committee unless there was a requirement to amend the

[1:22:49] development agreement. If the agreement is discharged, that doesn't even come

[1:22:52] back to this committee. Uh discharge of this agreement may be able to take place

[1:22:56] accuring to the the way the MGA is the municipal government act is currently

[1:22:59] written can be discharged in whole or in part by the town's chief administrative

[1:23:03] officer. Doesn't even require approval by council.

[1:23:06] » Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Uh, councelor Graham.

[1:23:10] » Um, I was just thinking about the, uh, commercial mixeduse component of the

[1:23:16] application and I would like some feedback from Miss Connelly or Mr. Fox

[1:23:22] um, or Miss Deloreier actually. Um, I feel that already Walmart pulls away

[1:23:28] from our downtown shopping experience to have mixed use there. Are we further

[1:23:34] depleting the opportunities for downtown shopping? Because I really understood

[1:23:40] that um mixed use was especially beneficial when it's in our downtown,

[1:23:46] but here we are putting one way out on Wade Road. And I'm I'm just looking for

[1:23:51] feedback or thoughts or comments on that.

[1:23:55] Um yeah, the the way the plan is currently

[1:24:00] written is we we do have a balance of we have commercial downtown. We have a very

[1:24:04] different type of niche market that we look for in the downtown core. So if you

[1:24:07] read through the plan the planning policies and if you recall from our plan

[1:24:10] review process there it's not meant to be we're only going to have commercial

[1:24:14] development in the downtown period. There's meant to be opportunities for

[1:24:17] commercial development to serve different types of markets in different

[1:24:20] areas of town. So a ground floor development that or sorry ground flooror

[1:24:24] commercial in this development may be catering to a regional service area like

[1:24:28] so people who come from all over and drive to Turo to to buy and do things

[1:24:33] while they're at Walmart and that's okay. Um it's not necessarily going to

[1:24:37] compete with the downtown. And that was the vision in the plan that both can

[1:24:41] happen. Um it's it's perfectly acceptable to have both types of

[1:24:45] opportunities for commercial development in the community and they're both

[1:24:48] supported by our policies. like there's nothing in there that says

[1:24:53] we don't want to see any more commercial development in the re in the regional

[1:24:57] service zone. So, we're we're very much in favor of continuing to have both

[1:25:01] types of commercial development.

[1:25:06] » Do we uh do we have any control over the types of commercial activity that would

[1:25:13] happen on that mixed use if it was there? Do we have input as to like what

[1:25:21] could be there or are we just going to have to accept whatever moves in there

[1:25:26] regardless? >> You had you had um input into that range

[1:25:30] of uses that would been permissible in this in the regional service zone when

[1:25:33] we did the plan review process. So if it was council's intent to restrict this to

[1:25:37] 50,000 square foot retail type uses only like large format retailing only if that

[1:25:43] was the intent and that should have been in the plan. The way it's currently set

[1:25:46] up is it allows for a mix because if you really look at what's in the regional

[1:25:50] service zone, especially on Roby Street, you have some small format retail as

[1:25:54] well as bigger box stuff. So, or large format retailing. So, it's not an

[1:25:58] exclusive zone that says you have to have this type of retail or this type of

[1:26:02] commercial use. It allows a range, a broad range.

[1:26:06] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:26:11] » Okay. Uh well, I think at this point we can uh unless there's other uh comments

[1:26:19] or questions, we can move I think we can provide the developer

[1:26:24] with the feedback that we are open to some sort of development at that

[1:26:29] location. I certainly don't think there's a you know anybody's saying that

[1:26:33] that would be inappropriate and then um we can wait to hear what they come back

[1:26:38] with uh in the future. Is everyone agreeable to that as our our message?

[1:26:43] Okay. Okay. Well, uh there are a few sort of

[1:26:49] procedural things left on our agenda and I actually am going to turn the chair

[1:26:57] microphone over to our uh vice chair, councelor McGrath, who's going to finish

[1:27:02] the meeting on my behalf. Uh I have to go pick up my husband from a far away

[1:27:09] location. So, I will see everybody at our next

[1:27:14] meeting and councelor McGrath will take over.

[1:27:40] Okay. Thank you to Madam Chair for turning this over. Uh,

[1:27:45] just as an FYI, no one has actually trained me on any of the technology here

[1:27:50] yet, so I'll be relying on Mr. Fox to help me out with a little bit of this.

[1:27:54] But we are moving on to item number seven on the agenda, the subdivision

[1:27:59] bylaw review, which I believe was Mr. McFersonen. If you were ready, take it

[1:28:02] away. Uh thank you and uh good evening

[1:28:07] everybody. So this presentation will cover the proposed amendments to the

[1:28:12] town subdivision bylaw. Uh so the subdivision bylaw currently

[1:28:18] includes an appendix. It's called the municipal services standards and

[1:28:22] specifications. And the purpose of that appendix is that

[1:28:26] it goes through all of the normal requirements uh for things related to

[1:28:32] municipal servicing. So things like road standards, sewer, water, these sorts of

[1:28:36] things. Um and so this bylaw is being amended as a part of a greater effort to

[1:28:43] take all those requirements and put them out into a separate uh document. And so

[1:28:49] the idea is that the amendments that I'll be covering with you today would be

[1:28:54] um appro or I guess implemented only after that new standards document has

[1:29:00] been created. So these are sort of pending but we're just getting them

[1:29:03] through uh planning advisory committee at this time. Um so in addition to that

[1:29:09] uh this subdivision bylaw was last amended in 1998. So some time has

[1:29:14] passed. Uh and this means that there are certain aspects of the bylaw that are in

[1:29:19] need of updating or there are errors and so staff has taken some time to go

[1:29:23] through and propose some housekeeping amendments. So um these amendments are

[1:29:29] nonsubstantive in nature. Um finally uh you'll see some uh updates to the

[1:29:36] bylaw's visual style as well as the way that the bylaw is structured. So the

[1:29:41] some of the nitty-gritty stuff like if it's section 2.3.1

[1:29:46] moving it in line with how the other towns or how the town's other bylaws are

[1:29:51] structured where it's 2.3A. So these sorts of things.

[1:29:58] So the process to amend the subdivision bylaw is the same process uh to adopt a

[1:30:03] planning document. Um in the case of this it's pretty straightforward. Um the

[1:30:09] planning advisory committee will make a recommendation to council and once that

[1:30:15] municipal services document is ready to go. Uh the project would proceed to

[1:30:20] council for them to set a date for a public hearing and then you would move

[1:30:22] on to the public hearing and through the appeals process. Um but you know that's

[1:30:27] the full process. So I'm going to jump into it. Um I'm

[1:30:32] happy to take any questions. I mean we've got quite a few items to go

[1:30:34] through. So, I'm thinking I'll just stop every 10 items just to see if anybody

[1:30:37] has any questions and then we'll proceed.

[1:30:40] Uh, I'm going to flag some of the stuff that uh comes up, but other things that

[1:30:44] are similar in nature, I'll sort of just be moving along, but as I said, happy to

[1:30:48] take any questions. Um, so the first one is to update the name of the provincial

[1:30:55] department of health. So, um, this is in the sections for for

[1:31:00] definitions, um, to change it to the Nova Scotia Department of Health and

[1:31:04] Wellness. Uh, number two is, and this, you'll see this come up quite a lot. Um,

[1:31:10] when this bylaw came out, um, the Municipal Government Act hadn't come out

[1:31:14] yet. It was in an earlier form called the Planning Act. And so this is an

[1:31:18] example where we're taking something from the former planning act, finding

[1:31:22] the equivalent section in the MGA, and then making that adjustment. So that's

[1:31:27] number two. Um number three is removing an outdated reference. So this is um

[1:31:34] something that no longer exists in the plan. And so uh oh, excuse me. Thanks.

[1:31:40] And so it's been removed.

[1:31:45] Uh number four is an update to a definition. Um and this is um

[1:31:52] something that was the former planning act. Um

[1:31:57] and yes, it's being changed to the municipal government act.

[1:32:02] Moving on to number five. Um so this is a um update to ref like a reference of

[1:32:10] the old municipal planning strategy. So um we see this section here that's

[1:32:15] that's been crossed out. Um so this is no longer part of the uh municipal

[1:32:20] planning strategy. So the original intent when that municipal planning

[1:32:25] strategy was written um

[1:32:31] was to uh excuse me I'm just going to read through this.

[1:32:35] Right. It was to separate the town into um serviceable and non-serviceable areas

[1:32:40] um where the objective is to keep things non-substantive. We've kept the original

[1:32:45] text um but we've gotten rid of a reference to something that's no longer

[1:32:50] in the town's municipal planning strategy. So um you know that part was

[1:32:54] cut out. Uh for number six, this is section 4.2. Um,

[1:33:01] so this one was about updating a reference to the old municipal planning

[1:33:05] strategy. So this one refers to secondary development areas. Uh, these

[1:33:09] areas no longer exist in town. Um, so those areas were really meant to refer

[1:33:15] to places where you would have on-site well and septic. Um, which those areas

[1:33:20] do still exist in town. They just have a different name in the current municipal

[1:33:24] planning strategy. So um, that was sort of adjusted. So now

[1:33:29] we're looking at the rural residential and watershed residential zones as

[1:33:33] opposed to those secondary areas because they no longer exist. Um and just

[1:33:37] another thing that I'll call out is uh and you'll see this come up a lot. Um

[1:33:43] this bylaw and many bylaws refer to different provincial departments. Um but

[1:33:48] those departments tend to change, right? Like the names of departments, they

[1:33:51] change every other Sunday. Like they're very very uh malleable. And so we've

[1:33:57] changed the reference to be a little bit more generic so that it's able to stay

[1:34:00] current. Uh that was number six.

[1:34:05] And then number seven is for section 6.2. Uh and the purpose

[1:34:12] is to update outdated uh responsibility of the Nova Scotia Department of Health.

[1:34:17] So this specifically is referring to the on-site well and septic regulations. Um,

[1:34:22] this used to be managed by Nova Scotia Health. Today, it's managed by Nova

[1:34:26] Scotia Environment. As I mentioned, these responsibilities tend to change

[1:34:30] over time, and so we've made the wording generic to make sure that it's able to

[1:34:34] be current into the future.

[1:34:40] Uh, number eight is to update the name of the parks and recreation department

[1:34:44] for the town. And so it's been made relevant. Uh for number nine, which is

[1:34:50] section 6.3, it is to update the um responsibility

[1:34:57] of a uh provincial department. So in this case, it's Nova Scotia Health

[1:35:01] again. So we've just updated it to make it generic so that it's able to stay

[1:35:05] current. And we'll cover number 10 here. So it's

[1:35:09] just to replace gendered language. So it uses the word him. we have developed an

[1:35:14] officers that are not male. So, it's been updated to be generic. So, that's

[1:35:18] number 10. So, I'll just stop to see if anybody has any questions about anything

[1:35:22] that we've covered so far.

[1:35:27] » I don't see any questions from the committee, Mr. McFersonen, but I did

[1:35:30] have one quick question on the uh the gendered language. I think with that

[1:35:33] one, the development says replace him in this section with the development

[1:35:38] officer. In my reading of the existing bylaw, it would say basically the

[1:35:42] developing the development officer something something something the

[1:35:45] development officer again is kind of jumbled in very very uh quickly there. I

[1:35:51] mean, we could just say, you know, I think it's the development officer would

[1:35:54] if it's, you know, it would be filed by the development officer, maybe just

[1:35:57] filed by same or filed by them, something so we're not just throwing

[1:36:01] development officer development off like peppering it in multiple times just as a

[1:36:07] piece of potential uh constructive criticism.

[1:36:10] » Yep. We can definitely go through and make sure that that's uh written a way

[1:36:15] that's a little less cumbersome.

[1:36:19] Okay. We'll continue. Um, this is another

[1:36:23] example of uh, uh, former planning act and so it's

[1:36:28] referencing sections in uh, the former planning act that have been converted to

[1:36:32] the municipal government act. So that's number 11. Keep moving.

[1:36:38] Another example, a reference to the former planning act. That's number 12.

[1:36:42] Uh, number 13 um, has to do with the the simplicity of the language. And so there

[1:36:47] were some typos in this section. Um, there were some sort of archaic word

[1:36:52] wording like henceforth and and these sorts of things and there

[1:36:56] were some structural issues in the way that it was written. So it was just

[1:36:59] totally rewritten but the overall intent and meaning is is the exact same. So we

[1:37:04] uh we covered that and uh spoke about what the intent was and rewrote it in a

[1:37:09] way that's a little bit more clear. Uh number 14,

[1:37:15] this is another reference to the former planning act. So it's just been

[1:37:18] converted. Number 15, another example of the parks and recreation department. The

[1:37:23] name since been changed and so it's been adjusted.

[1:37:27] Uh 16 is another update to the former planning act. And 17 is uh an update to

[1:37:37] a reference to appendix B. So appendix B is the municipal standard specifications

[1:37:43] document. So as I discussed, we're taking that out and moving it to its own

[1:37:47] uh separate document. So instead of saying appendix B because that's going

[1:37:50] away, you say going to this document. So that's the purpose of number 17.

[1:37:59] Number 18. Uh this is sort of an odd case. Um when you look at some of the

[1:38:03] older bylaws that towns have, sometimes the numbering sort of works in a way

[1:38:08] where it'll say uh I wish I could quickly show it. Well, I guess it would

[1:38:14] be possible, but it'll say 9.4 4 and then right next to it 9.4.1 which is a

[1:38:20] typical normally you would have 9.4 and then some text and then you would go

[1:38:24] down to 9.4.1 4.1. And so this has been adjusted to be more

[1:38:30] in line with the way that the town structures our um sections. Now,

[1:38:35] um and then in addition um number 18 also updates the uh responsibility of

[1:38:42] the Nova Scotia Department of Health just like the previous ones.

[1:38:45] Uh 19 is another reference to appendix B. So that's been changed to reference

[1:38:50] the new document. And 20 >> um Jacob, pardon me. I just want to

[1:38:54] clarify one item. I just want to make sure that it is intended to say

[1:38:57] subdivision bylaw amendments at the top of the screen. Is that correct?

[1:39:02] » Yes. >> Okay. So, I just want to make that clear

[1:39:04] to everybody that we're not amending the municipal planning strategy here. We are

[1:39:07] just amending the subdivision bylaw. So, just a typo, I'm assuming, or left over

[1:39:11] from previous presentation. But >> I can't believe I missed that.

[1:39:15] » Just want not a big deal. I just want to be clear that that's the case.

[1:39:18] » It's in front of me this whole time. Um, okay. So number 20 is to remove

[1:39:24] redundant clauses. And so these are clauses that would be moved over to the

[1:39:28] specifications document. And so we don't want them in both documents at the same

[1:39:32] time because they may conflict. And there's no need to duplicate them. Sort

[1:39:35] of the whole point of moving them out. And so that's number 20. I'll just stop

[1:39:39] to see if anybody has any questions at all.

[1:39:42] » Anyone?

[1:39:46] » I see no questions. Mr. McFersonen, please continue.

[1:39:48] » Okay, we're almost halfway there.

[1:39:52] This is uh number 21. And so this has just been moved to the new document. And

[1:39:57] so the idea is that we're just um redirecting um some of the the text

[1:40:04] that's been stricken out here because it would be moved to the uh new

[1:40:08] specifications. Stock

[1:40:15] number 22 um is to it involves um removing a uh section and then replacing

[1:40:23] it. Um and the idea is that um some of the subject uh the subsections would be

[1:40:29] redundant because they would be featured in the municipal uh specifications

[1:40:33] document.

[1:40:38] Number 23 um so this is to remove a redundant clause. So same case it would

[1:40:46] be moved. Number 24 is to redirect. So instead of referring to appendex B, it

[1:40:54] should be referring to u the municipal specifications document.

[1:41:02] 25 is the same uh same as 26.

[1:41:08] 27 reference to former planning act. Fix that. 28 uh is the name of a provincial

[1:41:15] regulation. And so that's been updated as there's a new name

[1:41:21] 29. Um, so this is amended to delete a clause. And the idea is that you're

[1:41:28] removing a reference to schedule A that's not actually featured in schedule

[1:41:31] A. So it refers to, I believe, soil types. When you go to schedule or when

[1:41:36] you go to schedule A, it just doesn't appear at all. And so it's been removed.

[1:41:41] Uh, since it doesn't serve a purpose. Number 30 is to update references to the

[1:41:46] former planning act. So that's our 30th. I'm just going to check make sure nobody

[1:41:50] has any comments. Okay, that's great.

[1:41:58] Number 31 is to remove an outdated reference to the former planning act.

[1:42:02] Again, number 32, the same. Number 33.

[1:42:08] Um, so this is another one that's to be moved to the municipal specifications

[1:42:12] document. So it's deleting multiple sections uh which was done in

[1:42:15] consultation with engineering and public works to make sure that we're sharing

[1:42:20] responsibilities of the documents appropriately.

[1:42:23] » Uh Mr. McFersonson, I do have a question on that one. Those sections mostly refer

[1:42:28] to uh restricting road widths. I'm just curious why we are removing those or

[1:42:34] perhaps that would be a a question for engineering since they're sitting there.

[1:42:41] uh there'll be a municipal uh there'll be a spec design specifications for

[1:42:46] that. They'll be included in that document instead of in this one.

[1:42:48] » So the document that we're appending to the and the municipal services standards

[1:42:52] and specifications this this information is going to be moved into that instead.

[1:42:56] » Right. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

[1:43:00] » Yeah. Please continue. >> Thank you.

[1:43:05] » Uh number 34 is the same. It's just redirecting to that standards document.

[1:43:09] Uh 35 former planning act just another case of updating to the MGA

[1:43:16] 36. Uh so this is another case where you have some u strange numbering that's

[1:43:22] been addressed. So um this is um should really say 12.1A.

[1:43:28] Uh but regardless the actual uh amendment is to um remove appendix G and

[1:43:35] I'll cover that near the end. some of the appendices have been removed. Uh so

[1:43:41] number 37 um is to just update another forming former planning act to the

[1:43:48] municipal government act. 38 is the same.

[1:43:54] 39 is is a bit of an interesting one. Um,

[1:43:59] essentially what's happening is that there's a municipal planning strategy

[1:44:03] policy, uh, and that's been updated to the new municipal planning strategy

[1:44:08] policy, the actual effect of that policy is slightly different. But where the

[1:44:15] intent of that section is to essentially remind that the policy exists when doing

[1:44:21] subdivision, um, the effect is essentially the same. And so the number

[1:44:28] of lots uh that it describes is different but the intent to connect to

[1:44:32] that policy is the same.

[1:44:38] Uh this is number 40. So this is another example of removing uh road width

[1:44:43] specifications. And so you know there's something that uh needs to be moved to

[1:44:48] the specifications document as we discussed.

[1:44:51] 41 is to remove an outdated um reference to appendix B. And so, you know, as

[1:44:58] usual, it goes to the specifications document. And the last one, 42, is to

[1:45:03] delete multiple appendices. So, I'll just go through it there. Uh, one is a

[1:45:07] document that shows all of the parts of the former planning act, at least most

[1:45:11] of them, that were used in this bylaw. That's not something that the town does

[1:45:14] for its uh bylaws anymore since those things are amended, and so you'd have to

[1:45:18] keep them up to date. Um, so it's really not a requirement, so it's been removed.

[1:45:23] Um, appendix B is the municipal standards document. So, of course, that

[1:45:26] will go because it'll be its own thing. Uh, appendix C is the street naming

[1:45:31] policy. So, another example of something that is available, doesn't need to be

[1:45:35] attached to the um, standards document. It's not a practice of the town to write

[1:45:39] bylaws this way anymore. >> And G is the Parkland rededication

[1:45:43] policy. So, exact same thing. It's a policy that already exists and can be

[1:45:47] accessed. uh apart from this one. So that

[1:45:52] concludes all of the items covered and so I'm happy to have any discussion or

[1:45:57] answer any questions and uh concludes my presentation. Thank you.

[1:46:00] » Thank you Mr. McFersonen. Committee, do we have any questions for planner

[1:46:03] McFersonen?

[1:46:09] » I think you've got an easy night, sir.

[1:46:15] Um Mr. Fox procedurally is are we following

[1:46:20] a four-step process for this or is this first and second reading? I assume this

[1:46:24] comes back to committee. >> So the idea here is that we'd be looking

[1:46:27] for a recommendation from the committee to go to council. So it's just uh um so

[1:46:33] recommendation to that we take this set of amendments and we recommend the

[1:46:37] council approve the amendments and go through that that process of of the

[1:46:41] under the MGA for approval of a bylaw. So that's that's what we'll be looking

[1:46:44] for. I think part of the part of the motion should likely include and I'm

[1:46:49] going to put Jared a bit on the or the director of public work acting director

[1:46:52] of public works on the spot a little bit, but part of that recommendation

[1:46:55] should include that the the subdivision bylaw likely not get adopted as amen as

[1:47:01] proposed. The amendments to subdivision bylaw not get adopted as proposed until

[1:47:05] such time as the municipal standard specification document is is also in

[1:47:10] place and ready to to go. Is that kind of where we under?

[1:47:14] Yeah, that would be correct. We want to have both in place. Yep.

[1:47:17] » And I think that's actually in the uh the recommendation that the planning

[1:47:21] advisory committee recommend the council direct the engineering and public works

[1:47:24] department to draft the accompanying municipal standard service

[1:47:27] specifications document. Okay. So the recommendation would come

[1:47:32] forward. I I had a couple of items that I uh provided to Mr. McFersonen ahead of

[1:47:37] the uh meeting including a couple of other you know some additional uh

[1:47:42] instances of gendered language uh some things were somewhere where it says

[1:47:46] primary secondary or when the requirements of the MGA like some things

[1:47:52] that didn't really make sense now I've provided him with that list I don't know

[1:47:56] does that need to be amended and put before the committee again before it's

[1:47:59] recommended to council or would that be something that he could send a draft to

[1:48:05] the committee

[1:48:08] afterward, how do we um if they're min if they're minor type

[1:48:13] typographical errors, if that's what we're looking at, I don't think that's

[1:48:16] substantive in nature and as long as the committee's in agreement that those be

[1:48:20] included, then I don't think that's a problem that he takes that as and

[1:48:24] incorporates those into the amendment package that goes before council

[1:48:27] provided this committee's in agreement with that incorporating those changes.

[1:48:30] » Okay. So then I guess the question to Mr. Mcerson, have you had a chance to

[1:48:33] look through that list? And would you agree that they are mostly

[1:48:36] unsubstantive? >> I would. Yes. And I have.

[1:48:38] » Okay. Committee, are you all agreed? >> And just for my own peace of mind, could

[1:48:43] an updated version possibly be sent to the committee uh prior to it appearing

[1:48:50] before council just so that we committee has the opportunity to review uh in case

[1:48:55] there's anything of uh concern? >> Yes.

[1:49:00] » Yes. >> Great. Thank you. And then we are

[1:49:01] looking for a motion then

[1:49:06] move >> sorry moved by councelor Graham and

[1:49:10] seconded by uh Miss Deloreier as read earlier. Uh all in favor of the motion

[1:49:17] please signify by saying I. >> All opposed.

[1:49:22] Motion is carried. Thank you committee and thank you Mr. McFersonen.

[1:49:27] We move on to the next item on our agenda which is the public notification

[1:49:31] process. Mr. Fox, I assume this is with you.

[1:49:35] » Yes. Yes, it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh one second here.

[1:49:43] Is that good there? Okay. Um so yeah, you may recall a while back, I believe,

[1:49:48] uh it was you, Mr. Chair, that raised this at council uh or perhaps at this

[1:49:53] committee. I can't recall now. It's been a while, but this the issue of of uh I

[1:49:57] guess the big issue was uh during one of the development applications, I believe

[1:50:01] it was Wade Road, uh there was a concern expressed by a member of the of the

[1:50:04] gallery that they're a tenant in a development and did not receive

[1:50:08] notification. Uh so the request was made that staff investigate um how um uh we

[1:50:16] do our we conduct our mailouts so that if there is there an opportunity to

[1:50:19] include um tenants as in addition to what we currently do which is property

[1:50:24] owners in the mail process. So just a bit of background on this um so the c

[1:50:29] town currently notifies residents about development applications in their

[1:50:32] neighborhood by sending a letter to all property owners within 150 meters of

[1:50:37] development application. We also post a development application notice sign on

[1:50:41] the subject property. In some cases there's two signs or even I think we may

[1:50:44] have done three in the past but typically it's one or two signs uh if if

[1:50:48] there's a lot of frontage. Uh we also post information about the proposal on

[1:50:52] the end upcoming meetings related to the proposal on the town's website and also

[1:50:56] on social media. So that's our current kind of process that we do. Um to create

[1:51:02] a mailing list uh for the mail out the town currently relies on the provincial

[1:51:06] assessment role. So that's provincial property data. Uh this is the only

[1:51:10] up-to-date and regularly maintained listing of residents in a given

[1:51:13] neighborhood that includes both names and mailing addresses. So what we don't

[1:51:17] have access to through provincial property data is the names of tenants.

[1:51:21] Uh so this has been sort of the default that we've always done is we rely on

[1:51:24] those assessment roles because that gives us a nice list of of the property

[1:51:28] owners plus their addresses plus that gets tied to all of our property

[1:51:33] information that we maintain at the town. So, it's a night nice neat package

[1:51:36] that's all internal that we can maintain. Well, we don't maintain it,

[1:51:39] but that we can access and that we can use to create mailing lists. So, we do

[1:51:44] not have an access to a current listing that includes tenants together with

[1:51:48] their mailing addresses. So, there is no listing out there anywhere that I'm

[1:51:51] aware of uh that's current and updated regularly that would include all the

[1:51:56] names of tenants in the town of Truro, including uh and sorry, tenants and

[1:52:01] homeowners, property owners, together with their mailing addresses. So we

[1:52:04] don't have access to that. So consequently only property owners have

[1:52:08] been not are currently notified by mail. Um so concern has been expressed that

[1:52:13] only property owners and not tenants receive this notification and the

[1:52:16] committee uh has asked staff to investigate options for including um I

[1:52:22] don't know why my is my mouse doing that and everybody else is that's getting

[1:52:25] odd. Um uh so PAC has asked staff to investigate options for including

[1:52:30] tenants in future mailouts and the following is a summary of those

[1:52:32] findings. So, actually our summer student spent a lot of time this year

[1:52:35] doing some research with Canada Post. Uh, so thanks to him for putting a lot

[1:52:39] of this information together. Um, so in terms of cost, just just to give you an

[1:52:44] idea of where we currently stand in terms of what we do typically right now,

[1:52:47] a typical mailout involves about a 100 addresses and that usually costs around

[1:52:51] it's under $200 typically and the cost per item including printing is around

[1:52:56] uh$150 per item. Uh, and the town charges the

[1:53:00] developer just for the cost of the postage. So we don't charge them for the

[1:53:03] cost of the printing, just the postage. So that works out to be about a$125 per

[1:53:06] item that we pass the cost back to the developer on. Um so that's typically

[1:53:11] where we are. So again, we're around about a 100 mail 100 addresses typically

[1:53:16] get caught within that 150 uh meter mail radius and it usually cost again around

[1:53:21] $200. Um so we looked at a few options and

[1:53:26] Canada Post does offer a few different options for sort of targeted mailing.

[1:53:29] So, one of them is a neighborhood mail and the next one, and I'll explain what

[1:53:33] these are in a second. So, there's there's a personalized mail option, and

[1:53:37] there's also postal code targeting. Um, so the first one I want to talk a little

[1:53:42] bit about is neighborhood mail, which is where you send bulk mail to all

[1:53:45] addresses within a Canada Post mailing route. I think this would be something

[1:53:48] that you might see where you get flyers and things like that mailed to a bulk

[1:53:51] delivery. We've also used bulk delivery in the past for when we did a planning

[1:53:56] planning consultation where we would have sent postcards and things to every

[1:53:59] mailing address in the town of Churo, for example. So, we've done things like

[1:54:03] this in the past. Um, this method would allow the town to send a letter to all

[1:54:07] residents within one of Canada Post's mailing routes. Um, so the area covered

[1:54:12] by the mailing route is predetermined and cannot be altered. So they define

[1:54:16] their their mailing routes and we would just be saying, okay, well there's a

[1:54:19] development application in this particular mailing route, we would

[1:54:22] include that. But because 150 meters may include a couple other mailing routes,

[1:54:26] we would include those. Um, and some mailing routes are quite large and

[1:54:30] extend beyond town limits. Often they would encompass an area with a radius of

[1:54:34] 1 kilometer or more. So it becomes quite a large area that would be would be

[1:54:39] gathered if we use that concept, the idea of a neighborhood mail out option.

[1:54:43] So the mail routes are too large really for our purposes and many of the

[1:54:46] addresses that would be included would be well outside of the area impacted by

[1:54:49] a proposed development and perhaps even outside of the town. Uh and cost would

[1:54:54] be about it's not terribly expensive when you have large numbers of items. Uh

[1:54:59] so you're looking at about uh 25 cents per item when you incorporate in the

[1:55:02] printing costs. Uh but because of the large number of recipients uh that would

[1:55:06] be included in the mailing group, mailouts would routinely cost well over

[1:55:09] $1,000 with this option. And I think another risk which I didn't mention here

[1:55:13] but I think is a very important thing to take consideration as well is you kind

[1:55:16] of would if you inundate every address in town with a public notification

[1:55:20] notice for a development application that happens to be a kilometer from your

[1:55:24] home. You may end up desensitizing the public to getting these notifications

[1:55:28] and people wouldn't it's going to be really difficult for them to decide

[1:55:31] which ones are important and which ones have nothing to do with them. So I want

[1:55:35] to be really cautious about maybe overdoing it a little if we go a route

[1:55:38] like this as well. Um, so the other option that was talked about was

[1:55:43] personalized mail. And this isn't really something that this is just basically we

[1:55:46] would have to maintain a list of people who would be on this. So it's just like

[1:55:49] anybody mailing a letter. So we would have to maintain a database that had all

[1:55:52] the uh names and addresses of every resident in the town of Churro. We don't

[1:55:56] have access to that information. So we don't per currently possess or have

[1:56:00] access to such a database and the town doesn't really have the resources in

[1:56:03] place to create or maintain one. So this isn't really something that we would be

[1:56:07] considering. Uh the last option is postal code targeting which is I think

[1:56:11] the more promising of the three options that have been suggested. Uh postal code

[1:56:15] targeting um allows mailouts to all residents within a specified list of

[1:56:19] post postal codes. Uh so postal code targeting would allow the town to send a

[1:56:24] mail out to all residents within a within the within a list of postal codes

[1:56:27] that maybe um would fall within a certain distance of a of a development

[1:56:31] application. So what Canada Post does is provide mapping that defines each of the

[1:56:35] postal codes in Truro. So they can provide this. Um they're not it's not

[1:56:39] it's something we kind of had to dig for and talk to people. It's not something

[1:56:42] readily available on their website. Um so town staff could then take this

[1:56:47] mapping of each postal code and identify the postal codes that may fall within a

[1:56:51] given radius of development. So if we knew there was a development on West

[1:56:54] Prince Street, for example, we could look at the map and say if we draw a

[1:56:58] circle around that, a radius around that of 150 meters, it would pick up maybe, I

[1:57:03] don't know, seven, eight, nine postal codes. And then we could create a mail

[1:57:06] mail mailing list um for every well would just include every address within

[1:57:11] that those postal codes. So so Canada Post would then send out a generic mail

[1:57:15] out to every single person within those every single address within those postal

[1:57:19] codes. Um so development notices then could be sent out including both

[1:57:24] property owners and tenants within those postal codes. So again one of the more a

[1:57:28] very promising sounding option for us. It is well suited to the needs of the

[1:57:32] town. It would allow the town to target specific neighborhoods and properties

[1:57:35] within a defined radius of a development application. And postal code targeting

[1:57:39] does require a minimum of 100 items. So they have a specified minimum they'll

[1:57:43] set this up for. And that's consistent with the number of notices that we

[1:57:46] typically send out. Um now there is some drawbacks to this option. So the minimum

[1:57:51] mail out is 100 is 100 items but costs are higher when you reduce like if you

[1:57:56] do a bulk mail out that sorry a postal code targeting mail out for 500 or a

[1:58:02] thousand your costs become much lower. When you get into a 100 items they

[1:58:06] become quite expensive. So for 500 items for example the costs are 40 42 cents

[1:58:11] per item. That doesn't include taxes and printing. But if you do it for a much

[1:58:15] smaller smaller amount, they didn't even give us this option because you know

[1:58:20] they don't typically deal in numbers smaller than 500 even though they do

[1:58:23] allow the 100. Uh your costs are going to be much higher. It requires special

[1:58:28] printing of envelopes and content. So these all have to be done by approved

[1:58:32] smart mail print partners. And there's a printer in Halifax. I suspect it's

[1:58:36] probably Advocate Printing and Publishing. And there's printers in

[1:58:39] Halifax that are the closest printers to Turo that would be able to do those

[1:58:42] types of printing for us because it requires envelopes printed with

[1:58:46] barcodes. I think they actually also print and and stuff the envelopes. So

[1:58:51] you'd have to give them the content. Um and your cost can be in excess of 60

[1:58:56] cents per item. And that's again based on 500 items. I suspect it would be

[1:59:00] substantially more expensive with smaller volumes. Uh so postal code

[1:59:04] mapping and the other issue here is that postal code mapping would have to be

[1:59:08] maintained and updated by town staff and would require consistent and regular

[1:59:11] communication with Canada Post. Um which isn't always something that because it's

[1:59:16] a third party, it makes things a little bit more difficult. And also dealing

[1:59:20] with uh a separate printer is also a bit of a challenge as well. And there would

[1:59:24] be some potential time lags there associated with that. If if we're

[1:59:28] dealing with trying to get stuff to a printer and trying to get stuff out in

[1:59:31] the timing provisions we have under our current five-step process, it may end up

[1:59:35] extending our process by could be month or months if we're trying to deal with

[1:59:39] external printers. Um so just in summary, postal code targeting is the

[1:59:44] only suitable of the op of the three options. Uh it does meet the town's

[1:59:48] needs and would allow the town to notify both property owners and tenants of a

[1:59:52] development application in their neighborhood. Uh postalo postal code

[1:59:55] targeting costs are a little uncertain and we weren't really able to kind of

[1:59:59] narrow them down anymore because there was a lot of uncertainty around anything

[2:00:02] below 500. Um and until we actually get into a situation where we had one uh and

[2:00:08] do all the leg work involved in setting that all up, we're not going to really

[2:00:11] know what those numbers are. uh but they are expected to be quite a bit higher

[2:00:14] than our current approach due to the small size of our typical mailouts. Uh

[2:00:18] and also as I mentioned relying on an outside partner to update maintain

[2:00:22] postal code mapping may cause delays and require additional staff resources and

[2:00:26] there's also a concern about the requirement to use a third party printer

[2:00:29] in Picto or in Halifax that will cause likely cause delays and require

[2:00:33] additional staff resources to coordinate. Uh so just in conclusion um

[2:00:39] uh town's current approach using combination of assign social media

[2:00:42] mailouts has always been effective at spreading the word and allowing all

[2:00:44] residents to engage in the Dublin process. Uh using the provincial

[2:00:48] property data to generate the mailing list has been used in use for over 20

[2:00:52] years now and has proven to be a reliable and accurate source of

[2:00:55] information. It's also kind of industry standard for municipalities across Nova

[2:00:59] Scotia. And also I just got confirmation Toronto does the same thing with Ontario

[2:01:03] property data. They don't there's no there's no magic solution out there

[2:01:06] where we can maintain an accurate list of tenants.

[2:01:09] » Mhm. >> Um so during this time of the last 20

[2:01:12] years that we've been doing this, there's been no evidence provided that

[2:01:14] would suggest that the town's current approach has been ineffective at

[2:01:17] notifying the public of a development application in their neighborhood and

[2:01:20] staff do believe that the current process is effective and it's

[2:01:24] recommended we maintain the status quo. And that concludes my presentation.

[2:01:30] » Thank you for that, Mr. Fox. Just a question on the postal code targeting.

[2:01:35] If there are tenants in that postal code radius that the

[2:01:41] mailout went to that home to the tenants, are we also potentially missing

[2:01:47] the property owner? if they don't live in that area, they simply own the the

[2:01:52] pl, you know, if it's a private home that's rented out, does that homeowner

[2:01:56] then potentially miss out and will we have to also do the existing mail out to

[2:02:01] the >> Yeah, I suspect you would be correct and

[2:02:03] I didn't think about that's a good point because we would have to we would miss

[2:02:06] the the property owners. It would just be the address.

[2:02:09] » So, we would possibly have to do both which further complicates and uh and

[2:02:14] increases costs. >> Yeah. Um and I think one of the other

[2:02:19] options we could consider um is we could look at uh maybe some sort of policy. I

[2:02:25] would hesitate hesitant to suggest a bylaw, but a requirement that landlords

[2:02:29] who receive notification of a development application are required to

[2:02:32] post notice of the application in their lobby in a common area in their

[2:02:35] buildings might be another option. Something to that effect. We can

[2:02:38] investigate that a little bit more as a potential option. Um yeah, because they

[2:02:43] do receive the notice as the landlord. It's just whether or not they pass it on

[2:02:46] to their tenants is another question, >> right? I think that might bear some uh

[2:02:50] bear, you know, be worth some investigation. Uh we have questions. Uh

[2:02:55] councelor Graham. >> Um sir, a question comment. Um

[2:03:00] so your comment in your conclusion um says that we're um there's no data or no

[2:03:07] evidence that it hasn't has not been effective. Well, I beg to differ there

[2:03:12] in that we had residents tell us that the me method was ineffective, which is

[2:03:17] why it came to the committee in the first place because they hadn't been

[2:03:20] receiving the information and they weren't able to participate in a way

[2:03:25] that was um successful for them. >> So, I guess I would counter to that

[2:03:30] because they were at the meeting. So, they were here present not notifying us

[2:03:34] that they hadn't received notification of the meetings. So I would argue their

[2:03:38] presence in the in the gallery suggested contrary that in fact they were aware of

[2:03:42] the application and and were able to participate because that's that

[2:03:46] application if it's windro I'm pretty sure that's what it was that's only

[2:03:49] going to uh it's going to public hearing now so they're they've been well

[2:03:53] informed of the application process early on in the in it.

[2:03:58] » Okay. Um I think that one individual may have

[2:04:03] been speaking on behalf of others in her uh

[2:04:07] there's rowousing there that uh and many of them um were unaware and she may have

[2:04:13] been speaking on behalf of others who hadn't been aware. Um, I also like to

[2:04:20] look at the issue through an EDIA lens. And uh when I do that, I feel that uh by

[2:04:26] not communicating in the same way with all of our residents within a certain

[2:04:32] radius, we aren't thinking through an EDIA lens because we are only um

[2:04:38] communicating by mail out with people who pay taxes in that case. And we would

[2:04:44] not be, you know, looking through the NDIA lens in that case. And and I guess

[2:04:49] I would also point out that probably the most effective means we have of

[2:04:53] notifying any resident of a development application in their community is likely

[2:04:57] not the mail out anyway. It's likely the sign. Um and social media is also

[2:05:01] another option. So there are multip this is only one part of a multifaceted

[2:05:06] approach to how we notify residents of a development application. Um, and I I

[2:05:10] guess you gota I mean we could hand deliver notices like how far do you go

[2:05:15] in reasonable and and how much do we spend of towns taxpayer dollars or the

[2:05:19] developers resources to do a proper notification if and I use the word

[2:05:24] proper like I don't mean to say proper but one that everyone thinks is ex

[2:05:28] extensive or exhaustive enough to get the word out. Um I think we're currently

[2:05:33] doing that. I mean we could go further. Yes, it could be better. Yes, like I

[2:05:36] said, we could hand deliver notices to every property in town, but we don't

[2:05:39] have the resources to do that. I think what we're currently doing with the

[2:05:43] three different approaches, social media, town's website, but also and then

[2:05:48] the signage and then the mail out to the property owners, we're covering all the

[2:05:51] bases because property owners really the intent there when you mail to a property

[2:05:55] owner is you get those absentee landlords or the landlords that live in

[2:05:58] Halifax or Toronto, they're getting notification of it as well. Mhm.

[2:06:02] » Um the people that are directly impacted by it that live in the neighborhood are

[2:06:06] going to see the sign. If they don't see the sign, well then it's not probably

[2:06:10] not affecting them. >> I don't know. Um the last comment uh or

[2:06:18] question I have on the subject is with regard I understand the cost and I

[2:06:23] understand that that is a consideration. I wonder if we could reconsider the fee

[2:06:27] structure so that the developer does bear more of the cost to uh consider

[2:06:34] this option. I mean they are their pockets can

[2:06:39] sometimes be quite deep. Would that be a barrier? Is that why

[2:06:44] you're hesitant? >> Uh no I'm also I'm a little hesitant

[2:06:47] because it's not always a big developer that does a development agreement

[2:06:49] application. So we do have people who are adding you know

[2:06:55] We've had some pretty small development agreement applications in the past. So

[2:06:57] it I mean we tried to eliminate that. Most of most of it now goes through site

[2:07:01] plan approval uh the smaller stuff but it doesn't mean that we're still not

[2:07:04] going to see someone come forward to do an amendment who doesn't have the means

[2:07:08] of a large development corporation behind them.

[2:07:11] » So >> it's true. Um I I understand what you're

[2:07:15] saying, but many of our developments or the vast majority I would say that are

[2:07:20] not through site plan development agreements are multi-million dollar

[2:07:25] developments. A couple more thousand dollars really isn't going to

[2:07:29] » So and that's true in this climate of every cost we pass along to developer,

[2:07:34] we have to be mindful of where that ultimately gets paid. So we try and keep

[2:07:38] development costs low for the reason that where they end up being coming out

[2:07:42] of the pockets of the tenants who actually end up in the building. So in

[2:07:44] an effort to keep cost down we try we do as a town our pro our approach has been

[2:07:50] to keep the cost minimal for the application process the to get the

[2:07:54] approvals and do all that. Um and there's a lot of negative

[2:07:59] press and media around the idea of uh putting all these fees structure in

[2:08:04] place that you end up driving up the cost for the development. So being

[2:08:08] mindful of that, we do try and keep the cost low uh for the developer when they

[2:08:12] come in to make application for a development.

[2:08:15] » Thank you. >> Okay. Next up, we have Deputy Mayor

[2:08:19] Thomas. >> Yeah. The only I just want to say that I

[2:08:23] agree with your conclusions. I think it's a I think it's a reasonable

[2:08:26] conclusions to after listening to your report. The only thing that I would add

[2:08:32] and it might be more profitable and be better at notification is uh and I'd

[2:08:39] like to cons you to consider um uh increasing the signage somehow. So

[2:08:45] sometimes those development agreement signs are 2 by3 or so and u you know

[2:08:52] they're nailed to a tree or whatever and you know they're not that visible and I

[2:08:57] was just wondering uh would we consider expanding those so that they're more

[2:09:03] substantial in other words they would be a larger sign even with um some sort of

[2:09:10] rendering of the proposed project for the site so people can see the design,

[2:09:15] see the proposed uh what's being proposed and then say, "Oh, well, you

[2:09:22] know," and so that gives them an introduction to the the project and they

[2:09:28] can go online for further information. That's the only suggestion I have is

[2:09:31] just expanding that signage so it's more prominent and uh so people in the

[2:09:36] neighborhood and I think you're right. I think this is the the best way to notify

[2:09:40] people is through through signage and I think our signage could be better and uh

[2:09:47] from a you know uh having more information and more visual information

[2:09:51] rather than just the writing on it. Um but actually a depiction of what's being

[2:09:57] proposed. I think that that has I think that'd be a far better way of getting

[2:10:03] people notified than than sending it out to postal codes. So, and I I don't

[2:10:09] disagree. I've had I do like the idea of having um the image on the signage. The

[2:10:14] challenge we always has we always Sorry. We always

[2:10:18] we always have is that >> it changes.

[2:10:21] » Yeah. So, we're putting up a sign that shows

[2:10:24] » you can say that. >> Yeah. It's just that usually when we're

[2:10:26] trying to get people here is that step two and we don't want to show them a

[2:10:29] picture of a a box like like what you know what you see that you know

[2:10:32] » I know I know I didn't say it wasn't wasn't fraught with problems. [laughter]

[2:10:37] But >> but I do I don't disagree that we could

[2:10:39] have a larger sign and we could look at how if is there a way to make them more

[2:10:42] visually like pop a little bit more. >> Um

[2:10:45] » but even if it was said you know it's proposed a you know a sixstory building

[2:10:50] it's going to look something like this or it was being proposed as a fourstory

[2:10:53] building or because people s are sort of get excited about the size and the the

[2:10:59] bulk and the mass of the building. If they could have some sort of idea about

[2:11:02] that, then that would, you know, say, well, you know, it's appropriate or gee,

[2:11:07] I don't think this is appropriate and uh and and it would get them to go on to

[2:11:12] the website to learn for more information.

[2:11:15] » That's just a suggestion. I I'll leave it at that.

[2:11:22] Further to the deputy mayor's point about the signs and any sort of

[2:11:27] representation, um I mean we put this information on the

[2:11:31] town website. Is it possible to put a QR code or something on the sign that leads

[2:11:37] to the town website that somebody walking by could be like, "Oh, what

[2:11:40] what's this about?" >> Yeah, we did do that. We had did that

[2:11:43] for a long time, but I don't think we do it anymore. We kind of stopped, got away

[2:11:46] from it. But we can certainly do it again. It's not a problem to add the QR

[2:11:50] code. Um, and if we make a bigger sign, it might be

[2:11:54] » Sorry, you guys have >> No, you were right. The QR code does

[2:11:58] appear on the mail letters, but they're not on the development application sign,

[2:12:02] » right? So, so we might be able to to I'll look into options for adding that

[2:12:06] again. Um, and maybe looking at a slightly larger sign to see if that's

[2:12:09] something that's feasible. I don't know. Like, right now the signs are 24 by 36,

[2:12:14] 2 feet by 3 feet, I think, is the standard size. I'll have to make sure

[2:12:18] like we we work with local printers. I'd rather I want to be really careful that

[2:12:21] we don't force every printing job to go to Halifax or something like that as

[2:12:25] well. But we'll we'll um we can come back with a few options on what that

[2:12:30] might look like and some potential designs, I guess, to I'm hesitant to do

[2:12:33] design by committee, but we can certainly give you an idea of maybe what

[2:12:37] we're thinking would be a better format for the sign and maybe something a

[2:12:40] little bigger. Again, trying to keep in mind that we're, you know, trying not to

[2:12:44] make cost to be too cost somewhat cost effective with the money

[2:12:48] that's being spent.

[2:12:51] » Yeah. Yeah. And they do. >> Yeah.

[2:13:02] » You know, the big sign here and I think particularly if there's a

[2:13:06] depiction of the proposed development on it, but I understand the problems around

[2:13:11] that. So, I'll just leave that. Yeah. And one of the things we looked at in

[2:13:14] the building bylaw, I believe, was when they do a hoarding around a site that we

[2:13:18] did ask them to have details about the proposal, contact information, and

[2:13:22] perhaps like rendering of the proposal, but I could look at that because that

[2:13:25] would be a little more appropriate time to well, not really appropriate because

[2:13:29] I guess it's already approved at that point. Anyway,

[2:13:32] » can you but what can't what can't you know another option might be to put up

[2:13:36] the sign and leave >> you know there's a blank area on the

[2:13:39] sign that then is has a sticker that you put off when you get to get to section

[2:13:45] you get to >> you know just before the public

[2:13:48] » you know when we're at stage three walk over and you put that on that that area

[2:13:54] there and everybody knows now what is being proposed and it has on it also the

[2:14:00] date of the public hearing Angie and I remember doing the stickers

[2:14:03] on the first signs we used to do. So there you go.

[2:14:05] » Okay, that's what you're laughing. >> It was the lettering though. It was

[2:14:07] lettering. >> Oh, lettering. Well, anyways, those are

[2:14:10] so I think we can be quite creative, right? And the change the sign can

[2:14:15] evolve as the project evolves and and and what the information that it gives

[2:14:20] can evolve as the process evolves. >> It's a little more work, but I don't

[2:14:25] think it's it's uh I think it's less expensive than this mail out. and I

[2:14:30] think it could be more effective.

[2:14:34] » Uh, any other questions for Director Fox on this topic?

[2:14:39] » I have one procedural type question. Mr. Fox, you said you can take this away. Do

[2:14:44] you need an an additional motion to investigate that or can that work be

[2:14:48] done under the uh continuation of the previous motion?

[2:14:51] » I think I'm struggling to recall when it was raised. If it was raised at at this

[2:14:54] committee or if it was raised at council. If it was raised at council, we

[2:14:58] should probably have a recommendation from the committee if and

[2:15:02] I don't recall when it was raised. [sighs]

[2:15:05] » I know that I raised it and it was in relation to the um the the wind road.

[2:15:15] » Uh but I think I think it may have been made at the council

[2:15:20] » following >> I think it was made at the following

[2:15:22] council meeting. So we could I don't know. Do should we ask for a

[2:15:27] recommendation from committee then to continue the investigation

[2:15:32] » or can you continue on with the previous motion from the council meeting?

[2:15:37] » I think we stay with the status quo that's set out in in the municipal

[2:15:40] planning strategy for the the notification process which is what we

[2:15:43] currently do but investigate options for um increasing the visibility of the

[2:15:48] signs and and enhancing the information on the signs.

[2:15:53] Okay. Uh, does somebody want to make that motion or recommendation

[2:15:57] for council to ask staff to look into re revisiting the impact of the

[2:16:05] development agreement signs?

[2:16:09] Mr. Delore has moved. Do we have a seconder?

[2:16:14] Deputy Mayor Thomas seconds. Uh, any discussion on the motion?

[2:16:19] All in favor, please say I. All opposed.

[2:16:25] Motion is carried. Thank you, committee. Next up on the agenda is our next

[2:16:32] meeting, which I assume would be September 28th if it is. Yes, September

[2:16:37] 28th. And we are looking for a motion to

[2:16:40] adjurnn. Moved by Councelor Graham. Thank you,

[2:16:45] committee. We are adjourned.

Town of Truro Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - Monday, August 31 2026

Transcript