View Report - Eastern District Planning Commission

Eastern District Planning Commission2012-2013Annual Report andFinancial Statements

Eastern District Planning Commission2012 – 2013Annual Report and Financial StatementsJune 2013

Eastern District Planning Commission2. Structure of the Eastern District Planning Commission2.1 Council Commission RepresentativesPort HawkesburyCouncillor Trevor Boudreau, ChairDeputy Mayor Brenda Chisholm-Beaton, MemberCouncillor Joe Janega, AlternateCouncillor Ken Anderson, (Chair to October 2012)Mayor Billy Joe MacLean, (Member to December 2012)Councillor Jim King, (Alternate Member to October 2012)Maris Freimanis, Secretary TreasurerRichmond CountyInverness CountyVictoria CountyAntigonish CountyCouncillor Shirley McNamara, MemberCouncillor Malcolm Beaton, MemberCouncillor Victor David, (Member to December 2012)Warren Olsen, AdvisorWarden Duart MacAulay, MemberCouncillor Alfred Poirier, MemberCouncillor Daniel Boudreau, (Member to October 2012)Joe O’Connor, AdvisorWarden Bruce Morrison, MemberCouncillor Athol Grant, MemberCouncillor Keith MacCuspic, (Member to October 2012)Councillor Paul MacNeil, (Alternate Member to October 2012)Sandy Hudson, AdvisorCouncillor Bill MacFarlane, MemberCouncillor Pierre Boucher, MemberDeputy Warden Owen McCarron, (Member to December 2012)Alan Bond, Advisor2.2 StaffDirector:John BainPlanners:Development Officer:Andrew JonesNathan MacLeodBeth SchumacherWanda RyanSenior Building/Fire Inspectors: Cyril LeBlanc Leon LeBlancBuilding/Fire Inspectors: David MacKenzie Harry MartellAssistant Building/Fire Inspector: Sean DonovanPlanning Technician:Bookkeeper/Receptionist:Auditors:Solicitors:Bryne ButtsTammy MacLellanGrant Thornton Chartered AccountantsPickup and MacDowell2

Eastern District Planning Commission3.06 Marine Centre Plan Amendment(Chéticamp)On August 8, 2012, staff received an applicationby Raymond Deveau to amend the ChéticampMunicipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and LandUse By-law (LUB) to permit a marine travel lift,marina, and boat repair and storage facility inthe Mixed Use (MU) Zone in Chéticamp. Theamendments involved text amendments to theMPS and LUB so the proposed uses would bepermitted and a rezoning so the entire sitewould be zoned Mixed Use (MU). As the MixedUse (MU) Zone currently permits very similaruses to those proposed, staff prepared a reportrecommending the amendments. The reportwas presented to the Chéticamp Area AdvisoryCommittee on February 22, 2013, the InvernessPlanning Advisory Committee on March 4, 2013,and passed by Council on April 8, 2013. Therewere no appeals of the rezoning. Staff arecurrently waiting for provincial review of thetext amendments before advertising theiradoption.3.07 Mattie Farms Limited (Tracadie)On March 28, 2013, staff received anapplication Mr. Ted Mattie, President and Mr.Ralph Mattie, Secretary applied on behalf ofMattie Farms Limited to rezone a portion oftheir property from Rural (R-1) to ResidentialMulti Unit (R-2) to allow the construction ofnine single unit dwellings on a single parcel of4land through a bare land condominium. Thetotal property is approximately 13.8 hectares(34 acres) in area and the area to be rezoned isapproximately 7.4 hectares (18.3 acres). Theproperty is bounded to the East by a privateroad and to the West by the waters of TracadieWest Arm. The property is located in theEastern Antigonish County Planning Area.3.08 Mount Cameron Estates Apartments(Antigonish)In February 2010, Mr. Ruhollah Shafiei, actingon behalf of Mount Cameron Estates, submittedpreliminary site plans for a large retirementdevelopment to be located in Mount CameronEstates. After significant negotiations with thedeveloper on March 6, 2013 Planning Staffreceived a revised application from S.F. SmithDevelopments Ltd. to enter a developmentagreement for a proposed retirement villagedevelopment. The proposed developmentinvolves construction of a two storey, 85-unitretirement living complex and 36 townhomeand semi-detached units with shareddesignated green space. The developmentwould be located within the existing Mt.Cameron Estates subdivision on Mt. CameronCircle in Antigonish Landing.Negotiations with the developer continued intoApril with a staff report completed in May.

Annual Report 2012 - 20133.09 Nova Construction Co. Ltd(Antigonish)On January 16, 2013, staff received anapplication from Nova Construction Co. Ltd. torezone several properties from Residential (R-1)to Gateway Commercial (GC-1) to permit a largehighway oriented commercial developmentnear the intersection of Highway 104 and Trunk7 at Keating Court. Since this location fallswithin the Residential Designation, staffprepared a report detailing three possibleoptions to address the proposed commercialdevelopment. Of these, staff recommended notpermitting the development in the proposedlocation on the grounds the site is in theResidential Designation. Other concerns aboutpermitting the development in the proposedlocation included the adequacy of site accessand potential land use conflict with adjacentresidential uses. The report was presented toPlanning Advisory Committee on April 16, 2013.The Committee directed staff to prepare areport regarding whether the developmentcould be accommodated through adevelopment agreement that would mitigatesome of the concerns about the proposed site.Staff are currently preparing the report.3.10 Off-Site Signage By-law (PortHastings)In response to Bill 51, which is also known asthe Community Control of Non-controlledaccessHighway Advertising Amendment (2011)Act, staff are preparing a by-law to address offsitesignage along public roadways in the PortHastings Plan Area. This by-law would prohibitoff-site commercial signage, and would enablemunicipal officials to remove illegal signage. Theby-law is currently being reviewed by provincialstaff, and has been discussed in draft form withthe Port Hasting Area Advisory Committee.3.11 Planning Strategy Review Fringe Area(Antigonish)The review of the Antigonish Fringe MunicipalPlanning Strategy and Land Use By-law is ongoing.Staff are currently writing a draft of thenew document. The Area Advisory Committeewas meeting on a monthly basis and the lastmeeting was July 2012. There has beenconsiderable input from the Committee andstaff can now proceed with writing the draftMPS. The Residential and Rural DevelopmentDesignations are complete and the IndustrialDesignation is now being re-written by staff.Once the draft Municipal Planning Strategy andLand Use By-law are completed it will bepresented to the public at Open House sessions.3.12 Planning Strategy – CentralAntigonish CountyThe Central Antigonish MPS and LUB wereadopted at a Public Hearing on March 19th,2013. The documents have been reviewed bythe Provincial Director of Planning and havebeen approved. The new documents featureHamlet zoning for the serviced communities inthe Central Plan Area; these communitiesinclude: St. Andrews, Lower South River,Heatherton and Pomquet. In addition, the newplanning document will include a Hamlet5

Eastern District Planning CommissionHighway Commercial zone to accommodate thelands around the new Highway 104. The noticeof adoption will appear in the newspaper onJune 12th, 2013.3.13 Planning Strategy Review InvernessThe plan review began in the spring of 2012 andis an on-going process with monthly AreaAdvisory Committee meetings being held. TheCommittee discusses which aspects of theexisting plan should be kept and which shouldbe improved, in order to adapt to the changingnature of the community of Inverness. The firstphase of the review process has beencompleted with a lot of good quality input fromthe Committee members. Staff have now begunto write a draft Municipal Planning Strategy andLand Use By-law. In March, the ResidentialSection was discussed and approved. Presently,staff are working on the Rural DevelopmentDesignation to be discussed at the nextCommittee meeting, which will be held on June12th, 2013.3.14 Planning Strategy – SW AntigonishCountyStaff are preparing a draft Municipal PlanningStrategy and Land Use By-law for the southwesternportion of the Municipality of theCounty of Antigonish. This new planning areawill essentially comprise the southwest cornerof the Municipality stretching from theboundaries of the Antigonish Fringe and CentralAntigonish planning areas to the municipalboundaries. The preparation of thesedocuments was chiefly prompted by publicconcern over the effects of development onLochaber Lake. However, the draft documentsare comprehensive documents addressing thesame breadth of issues as others in theMunicipality. Staff have finished drafting themajority of the land use policies of theMunicipal Planning Strategy and will soon begindrafting implementation policies. Significantresearch went into the Lakeshore developmentpolicies of the draft to identify best practices inother Nova Scotia municipalities and to tailorthose practices to the planning area3.15 Planning Strategies Victoria CountyWind Turbine MPS and LUBLPlanning Staff were directed to research andprepare a MPS and Land Use By-law pertainingto wind energy and its generation. This policywould allow for the controlled development ofwind energy within areas of the County wherethere is a sufficient amount of space andadequate safety for wind turbines.The Government of Nova Scotia’s 2010Renewable Electricity Plan and regulationsrequire that by 2015, 25% of the province’selectricity will come from renewable sources,including wind, biomass, tidal and solar power.In recent years, a number of wind turbineprojects have been constructed throughoutNova Scotia, with several more underconsideration currently. These facilities rangefrom single turbines to “wind farms”, consistingof many turbines clustered together.In response to some interest in Victoria Countyfor alternative energy projects the Municipalityhired a consultant to complete a Victoria CountyAlternative Energy Strategy Study. DistrictPlanning Staff took part in some of theconsultation meetings and a draft of this6

Annual Report 2012 - 2013document was presented to Council in January.Given some of the concerns with wind poweridentified in the study staff have completed adraft Wind Turbine Plan and By-law for reviewby Council and the general public.3.17 Scotian WindFields Inc. (Richmond)3.16 Public Complaint Resolution PolicyIn response to an investigation by theOmbudsman the Commission receivedcorrespondence dated May 4, 2012 outliningtwo general concerns to be addressed by theCommission. The Ombudsman requested weimplement a Complaint Resolution Process andthat they be given an update on the progress ofour Permit tracking system. The update of theTown Suite software was provided incorrespondence attached.At our Board meeting of May 24, 2012 it wasagreed that the Commission should indeed havea Complaint Resolution Process and that weshould be able to have the process in place bythe end of the year. The Ombudsman alsoprovided us with examples from the Province ofAlberta and we were able to find examples ofother Municipality Complaint processes whichhad been found acceptable to the Ombudsman.Staff were then directed to forward the Policy toour Solicitor for comments. Also theOmbudsman’s Office had asked for an updateon our progress and they were provided therevised policy and correspondence for review.The Ombudsman’s office also providedcomments (received November 21, 2012) onthe draft policy.At our last Board Meeting concern were raisedrelative to the possibility that the Policy givesthe impression of the Board having remedieswhich are actually not open to it. Our policy wastherefore tabled until our lawyers reviewed thepolicy with respect to the Commission’sjurisdictional authority. This file is ongoing.On November 28, 2012, staff received anapplication from Scotian WindFields Inc. torezone a portion of property from GeneralDevelopment (GD-1) to Wind Development(WD-1) to permit one 1.99 MW wind turbine inMartinique, Richmond County. As part of theapplication, Scotian WindFields also applied fortwo variances: one from a property line setbackand one from a watercourse setback. Thevariances were granted by staff on the groundsthey moved the turbine further from nearbyhomes and Highway 206 and did notcompromise the intention of the setbacks asidentified in the Municipal Planning Strategy.The variance from the watercourse setback wasappealed to Council. Council members voted touphold the variance decision on January 21,2013. With the variances granted, staffprepared a report recommending the proposedrezoning. The report was presented to PlanningAdvisory Committee on February 5, 2013, atwhich time the Committee defeated a motion torecommend the rezoning to Council by a tievote. The staff report was later presented toCouncil without a recommendation fromPlanning Advisory Committee. After significantpublic opposition at a public hearing held March25, 2013, Council voted to deny the applicationfor rezoning. This decision was appealed by theapplicant to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review7

Eastern District Planning CommissionBoard. The appeal hearing will be held June 12,2013.3.18 St. Peters Plan AmendmentLandlocked Parcels (Richmond)The owners of a property with no road frontage,landlocked behind the DNR railway right-of-waywish to subdivide their lot into two lots. The St.Peter’s MPS and LUB needs to be amended toallow the subdivision of a landlocked parcel ifthey can get access across the railway right-ofway.Due to lack of follow up and action, the filewas closed in April however a reapplication wasreceived late in the fiscal year.3.19 Subdivision By-law Amendments(Antigonish County)On September 18, 2012, staff received a requestfrom the Municipal Clerk of the Municipality ofthe County of Antigonish to prepare a reportregarding amending the Subdivision By-law toallow private road subdivisions in areas of theMunicipality serviced only by Municipal water.The report also addresses housekeepingamendments regarding the design of newprivate roads servicing six (6) or fewer lots andfor the posting of a maintenance bonds forprivately constructed public streets andservices. A staff report recommending theproposed changes was prepared and presentedto the Planning Advisory Committee on January29, 2013, and approved by Council March 19,2013. The amendments were reviewed andapproved by Service Nova Scotia and MunicipalRelations, and planning staff advertised theiradoption in the May 8, 2013 edition of TheCasket.3.20 Subdivision By-law Amendments(Victoria)After a staff review of the Victoria CountySubdivision By-law it was noticed that somesections of the By-law were in need of updatesor revisions. As such, staff decided to undertakea more thorough review of the By-law, andrecommend a number of updates. Some ofthese are policy changes to make VictoriaCounty’s standards consistent withneighbouring municipalities, and others updatereferences to new provincial legislation thatcame into effect since the By-law was approvedin 1995 and address issues in the recentlyadopted Baddeck MPS and LUB. A staff reportand draft by-law amendment is currently beingfinalized and will soon be brought to theCommittee.3.21 Trada Inc. Rezoning (Antigonish)On October 19, 2012, staff received anapplication from Trada Inc. to rezone a portionof property located at the corner of Beech HillRoad and the new Highway 104 corridor fromRural Development (RD-1) to a zone permittinga service station, touchless car wash, and fastfood restaurant with drive through. Staffprepared a report recommending rezoning theportion of property to the Gateway Commercial(GC-1) Zone. The staff report was presented tothe Planning Advisory Committee on February12, 2013, and approved by Council March 19,2013. The rezoning was advertised in The Casketon March 27, 2013 and was not appealed.8

Annual Report 2012 - 20133.2 Dangerous and Unsightly PremisesAntigonish CountyDangerous and Unsightly Premises files for theMunicipality of the County of Antigonish haveremained consistent for the past year. Therehave been four (4) new complaints received inthat time period. In three of the cases theproperty owners are currently working with theAdministrator and the Municipality to completeall required work and comply with staff lettersand recommendations. The fourth file iscurrently in the tender process to have thebuilding demolished.Inverness CountyDangerous and Unsightly Premises files for theMunicipality of the County of Inverness haveremained steady for the past year. There havebeen eight (8) files opened during this timeperiod. Demolition was recommended for sixproperties while the others files received repairand cleanup recommendations. The propertyowners with a cleanup recommendation areworking with the Administrator to comply. Theproperty with a repair recommendation hasbeen ordered by the Municipality to completethe work. Two Demolitions were completed bythe Municipality.Victoria CountyDangerous and Unsightly Premises files for theMunicipality of Victoria County during the lastfiscal year are almost all complete. Out of thethree (3) files, two have received demolitionand removal orders. The property owners forthe third file have complied with our initialrecommendation and have demolished andremoved the structure. With regard to the twodemolition orders, one property owner iscurrently working with us to have the mobilehome removed.Richmond CountyDangerous and Unsightly Premises for theMunicipality of the County of Richmond hasremained our busiest county regarding thenumber of files. On a positive note, just underhalf of the total cases were dealt with by theproperty owners themselves.Port HawkesburyDangerous and Unsightly Premises files for theTown of Port Hawkesbury have remainedconsistent with previous years. One case wasinvestigated during the last year and theproperty was ordered for immediate repair. Thework was completed through tender.Number ofcasesAntigonish Inverness Victoria Richmond PortHawkesbury4 8 3 18 1Orders 1 1 2 6 1OwnerCompliance3 in progress 2 in progress 21 in progress7CompletedthroughtenderNA 1 NA 4 1In progress 4 4 1 7 09

Eastern District Planning Commission4. Development Control4.1 Antigonish County4.1.1 Building Permits (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Residential Permits ValueNew 58 $ 15,774,800Mobile Homes 56 3,753,100Cottages 2 100,000Additions, Alterations and Renovations 27 1,768,000Garages and Accessory Buildings 59 1,479,600Multiple Units 2 816,000204 $ 23,691,500Commercial and Industrial BuildingsNew 10 2,548,000Additions and Alterations 9 814,00019 $ 3,362,000Institutional BuildingsNew 0 -Additions and Alterations 0 -0 $ -Other 17 $ 134,000Total 240 $ 27,187,5004.1.2 Subdivision Activity (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Applications Lots FeesFinal Plan 53 96 10,600.00Extra Lots -Tentative Plan 6 24 300.00Concept Plan 2 24Repeal - -61 144 $ 10,900.0010

Annual Report 2012 - 20134. Development Control (Continued)4.2 Inverness County4.2.1 Building Permits (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Residential Permits ValueNew 33 $ 6,930,000Mobile Homes 19 1,050,000Cottages 8 555,000Additions, Alterations and Renovations 67 1,458,145Garages and Accessory Buildings 61 843,900Multiple Units 0 -188 $ 10,837,045Commercial and Industrial BuildingsNew 18 $ 1,961,000Additions and Alterations 15 958,94533 $ 2,919,945Institutional BuildingsNew - $ -Additions and Alterations 1 40,0001 $ 40,000Other 21 $ 523,064Total 243 $ 14,320,0544.2.2 Subdivision Activity (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Applications Lots FeesFinal Plan 39 72 $ 7,800.00Extra Lots 9 $ 225.00Tentative Plan - - $ -Preliminary Plan - - $ -Repeal - - $ -39 81 $ 8,025.0011

Eastern District Planning Commission4. Development Control (Continued)4.3 Richmond County4.3.1 Building Permits (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Residential Permits ValueNew 30 $ 6,405,000Mobile Homes 12 523,000Cottages 4 295,000Additions, Alterations and Renovations 47 982,475Garages and Accessory Buildings 65 1,073,001Multiple Units 0 -158 $ 9,278,476Commercial and Industrial BuildingsNew 8 $ 1,497,000Additions and Alterations 11 2,070,00019 $ 3,567,000Institutional BuildingsNew 0 $ -Additions and Alterations 1 25,0001 $ 25,000Other 15 $ 70,000Total 193 $ 12,940,4764.3.2 Subdivision Activity (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Applications Lots FeesFinal Plan 40 87 $ 8,000Extra Lots n/a 53 1,325Tentative Plan 2 - 100Preliminary Plan - - -42 140 $ 9,42512

Annual Report 2012 - 20134. Development Control (Continued)4.4 Victoria County4.4.1 Building Permits (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Residential Permits ValueNew 25 $ 4,516,000Mobile Homes 5 310,000Cottages 0 -Additions, Alterations and Renovations 23 746,000Garages and Accessory Buildings 34 614,300Multiple Units 0 -87 $ 6,186,300Commercial and Industrial BuildingsNew 12 $ 1,331,000Additions and Alterations 13 564,60025 $ 1,895,600Institutional BuildingsNew 0 $ -Additions and Alterations 1 40,0001 $ 40,000Other 3 $ 90,000Total 116 $ 8,211,9004.4.2 Subdivision Activity (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Applications Lots FeesFinal Plan 23 49 $ 4,600Extra Lots n/a 2 50Tentative Plan - - -Repeals - - -23 51 $ 4,65013

Eastern District Planning Commission4. Development Control (Continued)4.5 Port Hawkesbury4.5.1 Building Permits (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Residential Permits ValueNew 0 $ -Mobile Homes 2 83,050Cottages 0 -Additions, Alterations and Renovations 6 66,000Garages and Accessory Buildings 2 13,000Multiple Units 2 565,37012 $ 727,420Commercial and Industrial BuildingsNew 0 $ -Additions and Alterations 4 150,8304 $ 150,830Institutional BuildingsNew 0 $ -Additions and Alterations 0 $ -0 $ -Other 0 $ -Total 16 $ 878,2504.5.2 Subdivision Activity (April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)Applications Lots FeesFinal Plan 2 5 $ 400Extra Lots n/a 0 $ 0Tentative Plan - 0 $ 0Preliminary Plan - 0 $ 02 5 $ 40014

Annual Report 2012 - 20134. Development Control (Continued)4.6 Development Summary4.6.1 Building Permits (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013)Antigonish Inverness Richmond Victoria HawkesburyConstruction Value $27,187,500 $14,320,054 $12,940,476 $8,211,900 $878,250Building Permit Fees $75,925 $47,276 $41,529 $23,363 $3,016Permits Issued 240 243 193 116 16Building Permit Revenues1.6%21.7%12.2%24.7%39.7%AntigonishInvernessRichmondVictoriaPort Hawkesbury4.6.2 Subdivision Activity (April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013)Antigonish Inverness Richmond Victoria HawkesburyFinal & Tentative Plans 59 39 42 23 2Final /Proposed Lots 96 81 140 51 5Total Fees $10,900 $8,025 $9,425 $4,650 $400Subdivision Revenues1.2%28.2%13.9%24.0%32.6%AntigonishInvernessRichmondVictoriaPort Hawkesbury15

Eastern District Planning Commission4. Development Control (Continued)4.6.3 Figure 1 – Building Permit Revenues (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2013)$90,000$80,000$70,000$60,000$50,000$40,000$30,000$20,000$10,000$02008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Port Hawkesbury Fees Inverness Fees Richmond Fees Victoria Fees Antigonish Fees4.6.4 Figure 2 – Building Permit Numbers (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2013)35030025020015010050-2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Port Hawkesbury Permits Inverness Permits Richmond Permits Victoria Permits Antigonish Permits16

Annual Report 2012 - 20134. Development Control (Continued)4.6.5 Figure 3 – Subdivision Fee Revenues (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2013)$18,000$16,000$14,000$12,000$10,000$8,000$6,000$4,000$2,000$02008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Port Hawkesbury Fees Inverness Fees Richmond Fees Victoria Fees Antigonish Fees4.6.6 Figure 4 – Subdivision Applications (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2013)90807060504030201002008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Port Hawkesbury Inverness Richmond Victoria Antigonish17

Eastern District Planning Commission4. Development Control (Continued)4.6.7 Figure 5 – Housing Starts (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2013)1601401201008060402002008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Port Hawkesbury Inverness Richmond Victoria Antigonish4.6.8 Figure 6 – Housing Starts Values (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2013)$30,000,000$25,000,000$20,000,000$15,000,000$10,000,000$5,000,000$02008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Port Hawkesbury Inverness Richmond Victoria Antigonish18

Annual Report 2012 - 2013Appendix A. 2013 – 2014 Operating EstimatesOperating EstimatesEastern District Planning Commission2013 – 2014Staff2013 – 2014Wages $627,742EI, CPP, Group Insurance $68,801WCB $10,169Pension Plan $31,387Membership Dues and Fees $4,000$742,099Administrative OverheadAdvertising $500Bank and Service Charges $2,000Computers $6,000Insurance $30,000Library $1,000Misc. Operating Costs $2,500Office Rent $27,600Office Supplies $7,000Photocopying $8,500Postage $4,000Telephone and Fax $13,000$102,100Travel and TrainingMileage Compensation $87,000Conference Fees and Expenses $18,000$105,000Additional FeesLegal $2,000Auditor $6,000Technical and Mapping $15,000Commission Expenses $7,000$30,000TOTAL $979,19919

Eastern District Planning Commission2012 – 2013continued: Page 22012 – 2013$944,203Building PermitsBuilding Permits Fees ($200,000)Subdivision Fees ($40,000)Miscellaneous Revenues ($3,500)E-911 Funding ($18,500)Net Budget $717,199Base Contribution (All Units) $35,000Total ContributionsAntigonish County $176,510Inverness County $172,533Richmond County $165,900Victoria County $135,928Port Hawkesbury $66,328Total $717,199Uniform Assessment Sharing Base (2013-2014)Municipality Assessment PercentageAntigonish $940,362,639 26.10%Inverness $913,934,566 25.37%Richmond $869,856,723 24.14%Victoria $670,688,442 18.61%Hawkesbury $208,177,918 5.78%$3,603,020,287 100.00%20

Annual Report 2012 - 2013Appendix B. Inter – Municipal Services AgreementINTER-MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENTEASTERN DISTRICT PLANNING COMMISSION1 APRIL 2006WHEREAS the Inverness Richmond District Planning Commission was established by Order of theMinister of Municipal Affairs dated 18 July 1991;AND WHEREAS the Town of Port Hawkesbury joined the Commission on 1 April 1993 by approvalof the participants and Minister’s Order dated 24 March 1993;AND WHEREAS the Municipality of the County of Victoria joined on 1 April 1995 by approval ofthe participants and Minister’s Order dated 4 July 1995, the Commission then being renamed the RuralCape Breton District Planning Commission;AND WHEREAS effective 1 April 1999, section 253 of the Municipal Government Act, S.N.S.1998, c.18 continued the Rural Cape Breton District Planning Commission as a body corporate anddeemed the Ministerial Order of 4 July 1995 an inter-municipal services agreement variable byagreement of all participating municipalities and without requirement for Ministerial approval;AND WHEREAS by agreement of all of the participating municipalities, the Municipality of theCounty of Antigonish joined for a term, from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006;AND WHEREAS the Municipality of the County of Antigonish has now asked to join theCommission permanently, effective 1 April 2006;AND WHEREAS by resolution of their respective councils, all of the participating municipalitieshave agreed to the request from Antigonish and to the terms and conditions hereunder, includingchanging the Commission’s name to the Eastern District Planning Commission;NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the services and payments described herein, theparticipating municipalities identified herein agree to amend their inter-municipal services agreement of1 April 2005 to provide as follows:1. In this Agreement:(a)(b)(c)(d)“Act” means the Municipal Government Act, S.N.S. 1998, c.5, as am.;“Commission” means the Eastern District Planning Commission;“participating municipality” means a municipality represented on the Commission;“District” means collectively the geographical areas of all of the participatingmunicipalities.2. The Commission shall be a district planning commission within the meaning of the Act with thepowers provided therein and more particularly described at section 255 of the Act.3. The participating municipalities are the Municipality of the County of Inverness (“Inverness”),the Municipality of the County of Richmond (“Richmond”), the Town of Port Hawkesbury (“Port21

Eastern District Planning CommissionHawkesbury”), the Municipality of the County of Victoria (“Victoria”), and the Municipality ofthe County of Antigonish (“Antigonish”).4. The Commission shall exercise its powers and responsibilities exclusively in and for the District.Commission Membership5. The Commission shall consist of 10 members, being 2 members appointed by Council for each ofthe participating municipalities.6. Participating municipality may each appoint one alternate member authorized to act for eitherof its regular member when that member is temporarily unable or unavailable.7. Each participating municipality shall notify the Commission of the names of its regular andalternate members as soon as possible after their respective appointments.8. Members, whether regular or alternate, must be municipal or town councillors for theparticipating municipality appointing them and their membership is subject to section 254 of theAct.9. Membership shall be for a one-year term from the effective date of that member’s appointmentor until a successor is appointed.Election of Officers10. Chairperson. Each year at the first meeting of the Commission after each participatingmunicipality has appointed its members, the Commission shall elect a Chairperson.11. The chairperson shall be an appointed regular member.12. Each chairperson shall hold the position for one year and selection for the position shall berotated among the participating municipalities annually to ensure each participatingmunicipality holds the chair for one year before the position returns to any other participatingmunicipality.13. Vice-Chairperson. The Commission shall elect a Vice-Chairperson at the same meeting at whichit elects the Chairperson.14. The Vice-Chairperson shall be an appointed regular member.15. The Vice-Chairperson shall hold the position for one year and shall perform the functions of theChairperson in the Chairperson's absence.16. The position of Vice-Chairperson shall be rotated annually among each of the participatingmunicipalities in the same manner as the Chairperson position, but the Vice-Chairpersonposition shall not be held by a member from the same participating municipality as then holdsthe Chairperson position.17. Secretary-Treasurer. The Commission shall appoint a Secretary-Treasurer from the staff of one ofthe participating municipalities.18. With the consent of his/her employer municipality, the Secretary-Treasurer shall hold office untila successor is appointed.19. The Secretary-Treasurer shall not be a member of the Commission and shall not have a vote atany Commission meeting.22

Annual Report 2012 - 2013Commission Meetings20. The Commission shall hold at least four meetings each year, held quarterly, one of which shall bethe Annual Meeting.21. Other meetings may be called from time to time by the Chairperson or by any two members.22. A quorum for a meeting of the Commission shall be six members, which must include at leastone member from each of the participating municipalities.23. Each member shall be entitled to one vote on any voting matter.24. A passing vote shall be a majority of votes at a properly constituted meeting where the majorityincludes a vote cast by a representative of each participating municipality.25. The Chairperson shall be entitled to vote on all questions arising before the Commission, but ifthe Chairperson does not vote at the time of the call for the question, the Chairperson's voteshall be lost.Auditor and Financial Report26. The Commission shall annually appoint a registered municipal auditor to be its auditor and, onor before 30 June of each year, shall provide councils for the participating municipalities with afinancial report for the preceding year signed by the Commission's auditor.Annual Reports and Estimates27. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Commission shall make an annual report tocouncils of the participating municipalities and shall submit to the clerk of each participatingmunicipality an estimate of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year.Financial Contribution28. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by all of the participating municipalities, the proportion inwhich each participating municipality shall contribute funds to meet the Commission's expensesshall be at a fixed base rate with the remainder of the budget contributed to in the sameproportion as the respective contributions of the participating municipalities to other objects ofjoint expenditure for their joint benefit and the operations of the Commission shall be deemedto be an object of joint expenditure by the participating municipalities.29. Notwithstanding Section 28 above, Victoria is not required to make a proportional sharepayment in respect of capital assets acquired by the Commission between 1 September 1991and 31 March 1995 inclusive and Victoria shall not have any claim to these assets in the eventthe Commission is dissolved in accordance with the Act.30. Notwithstanding Section 28 above, Antigonish is not required to make a proportional sharepayment in respect of capital assets acquired by the Commission between 1 September 1991and 31 March 2005 inclusive and Antigonish shall not have any claim to these assets in the eventthe Commission is dissolved in accordance with the Act.Services and Fees31. The Commission shall provide district planning services to its participating municipalitiespursuant to the Act and/or as delegated to it by any of its participating municipalities inaccordance with the Act.23

Eastern District Planning Commission32. Without limiting the foregoing, the Commission shall provide building inspection services to theparticipating municipalities in return for which each participating municipality shall pay to theCommission, addition to the regular contribution pursuant to Section 28 above, the amountsreceived by that participating municipality from fees charged for building permits.33. In the event a participating municipality does not charge fees for building permits at least equalto the Commission's prescribed scale of fees, that participating municipality shall pay to theCommission, in addition to its regular contribution pursuant to Section 28 above, an amountequal to the building permit fees that would have been receivable had the participatingmunicipality charged fees based on the Commission's prescribed scale of fees.34. The Commission shall staff four sub-offices, one in Inverness, one in Richmond, one in Victoria,and one in Antigonish, for the purpose of providing building inspection services.35. The Commission shall provide subdivision services to the participating municipalities in returnfor which each participating municipality shall pay to the Commission, in addition to the regularcontribution pursuant to Section 28 above, the amounts received by that participatingmunicipality from fees charged for subdivision applications.36. In the event that a participating municipality does not charge fees for subdivision applications atleast equal to the Commission's prescribed scale of fees, that participating municipality shall payto the Commission, in addition to its regular contribution pursuant to Section 28 above, anamount equal to the subdivision application fees that would have been receivable had theparticipating municipality charged fees based on the Commission's prescribed scale of fees.37. The Commission shall provide civic addressing services to the participating municipalities inreturn for which each participating municipality shall pay to the Commission, in addition to theirrespective regular contributions pursuant to Section 28 above, the amounts received from feesor paid by the Province for the said civic addressing.38. The Commission shall provide such other services to the participating municipalities in return forwhich the participating municipalities shall pay to the Commission, in addition to theirrespective regular contributions pursuant to Section 28 above, such amounts received from feescharged by the participating municipalities or otherwise received by them for the said services.39. The participating municipalities shall pay to the Commission their respective contributions andfees as set out here above, quarterly, with the Section 28 financial contribution to be paid inadvance for the next quarter.Withdrawal from Commission40. Withdrawal by any participating municipality from the Commission is governed by the Act.Effective date41. This Agreement shall have effect on, from and after 1 April 2006.42. This Agreement varies and replaces the parties' Inter-municipal Services Agreement of 1 April2005.NOW THEREFORE the parties hereto, by their duly authorized representatives, pursuant to resolutions oftheir respective municipal councils, have signed and sealed on the dates hereunder in witness to theiragreement:24

Financial statementsEastern District Planning CommissionMarch 31, 2013

Contents¡¢£¤¥¦§¨¢£¥¨©£¡¦¦¨¦¨¢¢¨¦ !"# $%&&'(') * $%&&'( + $%&',- . 0 $',(%&&'(') 1 2,&'(% 3"4 $%&',&(/

Independent auditor’s reportGrant Thornton LLP301 Pitt Street, Unit 2Port Hawkesbury, NSB9A 2T6T (902) 625-5383F (902) 625-5242www.GrantThornton.caTo the Chairperson and Members of Eastern District Planning CommissionWe have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Eastern District PlanningCommission, which comprise the statement of financial position as at March 31, 2013, and thestatement of financial activities, changes in net assets and statement of cash flows for the yearthen ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatoryinformation.Management’s responsibility for the financial statementsManagement is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financialstatements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for suchinternal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financialstatements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.Auditor’s responsibilityOur responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards.Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform theaudit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free frommaterial misstatement.An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts anddisclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’sjudgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financialstatements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditorconsiders internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of theconsolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in thecircumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of theAudit • Tax • AdvisoryGrant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

5entity’s internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accountingpolicies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well asevaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide abasis for our audit opinion.OpinionIn our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financialposition of the Eastern District Planning Commission as at March 31, 2013, and the results ofits operations, changes in net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordancewith Canadian public sector accounting standards.Port Hawkesbury, CanadaMay 23, 2013Chartered accountantsAudit • Tax • AdvisoryGrant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

G:8:;F;=:EHH?=8=@?8B8@:?I?:?;9 JKLMKNOKOPLMQR6S TUS6 VWXY TUST Z[O\K] ^_`abc dQ][Le fghgiag 789:;?9:

G:8:;F;=:EHH?=8=@?8B¤E9?:?E= PLMQR6S ¥—ibi_—bcbœœg`œ oLpR ƒKQKj€L‹eKp 789:;?9:

G:8:;F;=:EH@¨8=C;9?==;:899;:9 JKLMKNOKOPLMQR6S dNN[Lep[Mke[p 789:;?9:

G:8:;F;=:EH@89¨HBE¬9 JKLMKNOKOPLMQR6S ­i_˜gbœgª–g_˜gbœg«—i_bœ®bi–_bœ®g¯a—hbcgi`œ °•g˜b`—iŸ 789:;?9:

G@¨;²³B;9:E9:8:;F;=:EHH?=8=@?8B8@:?I?:?;9 JKLMKNOKOPLMQR6S TUS6 VWXY TUST Z[O\K] ^_`abc dQ][Le 789:;?9:

µE:;9:E:¨;H?=8=@?8B9:8:;F;=:9 PLMQR6StTUS6 X §b`a˜g¡•g˜b`— iœ 789:;?9:

µE:;9:E:¨;H?=8=@?8B9:8:;F;=:9Y ¦—ig ¡_˜g–—` †RKom„„jppjmNRLpLqTUtUUU[NpKQ[MKOmkKML]jN\ejNKmnQMKOj]‡j]R‘Lp]omLp]oMKOj]ÛNjmN£†RK 789:;?9: