[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.