Common use of Community Engagement Clause in Contracts

Community Engagement. The community engagement process is consistent with the intent of the HRM Community Engagement Strategy, the HRM Charter, and the Public Participation Program approved by Council as outlined in the staff report dated September 20, 2021. The level of community engagement was consultation, achieved through providing information and seeking comments through the HRM website, signage posted on the subject site, letters/ fact sheet mailed to 542 property owners within the notification area as shown on Map 2 (for Case 23746), and a virtual public information meeting held on June 10, 2021 (Case 22896). Comments received from the fact sheet mailout in October 2021 (Case 23746) regarding the removal of the (proposed) Bayview Road walkway were as follows: • Two emails in favour of removing the proposed walkway; and • Seven emails opposed to removing the proposed walkway. The virtual Public Information meeting held on June 10, 2021 (for Case 22896) regarding the requested amendments to the development agreement was attended by 44 members of the public. While the request to remove one of the pedestrian walkways was not specifically introduced to attendees of the meeting, the topic of encouraging pedestrian travel and cycling was discussed. Attachment D contains a summary of the comments from the meeting. The public comments received include the following topics, many of which were related to and considered at the time of the original approval of the agreements in 2018: • Comments re: traffic impacts of the Seton Ridge development on existing streets and overall neighbourhood. Specific traffic concerns on Briarwood Crescent may be dealt with separately; • Grading, drainage and the provision of berms near the Lacewood Dr./Seton Rd. intersection; • Concern re: any additional tree removal, protection of the pond, and design of the parks; • Questions and concerns related to blasting activities and noise; • Whether the provision of a new school or impact on existing schools was taken into consideration; • Questions regarding water pressure and the burying of electrical utilities; • Impact of density on existing neighbourhood and clarification of proposed population/ units; • Whether affordable housing will be provided; and • Questions/ comments over funding and costs related to a stand-alone heat plant. A public hearing must be held by Regional Council and Community Council before consideration can be given to the approval of the proposed MPS and development agreement amendments. Should Council decide to proceed with a public hearing on this application, in addition to the published newspaper advertisements, property owners within the notification area shown on Map 2 will be notified of the hearing by regular mail. Amendments to the Halifax MPS will potentially impact the following stakeholders: residents, landowners, and businesses.

Community Engagement. The community engagement process is consistent with the intent of the HRM Community Engagement Strategy, the HRM Charter, and the Public Participation Program approved by Council as outlined in the staff report dated September 20, 2021. The level of community engagement was consultation, achieved through providing information and seeking comments through the HRM website, signage posted on the subject site, letters/ fact sheet letters mailed to 542 property owners within the notification area as shown on Map 2 (for Case 23746), and a virtual two public information meeting meetings held on June 10Wednesday, 2021 (Case 22896). Comments received from the fact sheet mailout in October 2021 (Case 23746) regarding the removal of the (proposed) Bayview Road walkway were as follows: • Two emails in favour of removing the proposed walkway; November 18, 2015 and • Seven emails opposed to removing the proposed walkway. The virtual Public Information meeting held on June 10Monday, 2021 (for Case 22896) regarding the requested amendments to the development agreement was attended by 44 members of the public. While the request to remove one of the pedestrian walkways was not specifically introduced to attendees of the meetingAugust 28, the topic of encouraging pedestrian travel and cycling was discussed2017. Attachment D contains a summary of the comments minutes from both meetings. A mailout was also sent to area residents for feedback on the meetingrevised proposal in May 2020. Case 20110: Rezoning and Development Agreement Windgate Drive, Beaver Bank Community Council Report - 5 - November 8, 2021 The public comments received include support for non-disturbance areas between the development and adjacent properties and trail connections linking park assets in abutting neighbourhoods. Members of the public expressed they would prefer a standard form of subdivision, similar to Monarch Rivendale and Capilano Estates. Concerns raised included the following topics, many of which were related to and considered at the time of the original approval of the agreements in 2018: • Comments re: traffic Density, mix of housing including seniors housing in the form of townhouses and multiple unit dwellings, clustering of units and their compatibility with abutting low density rural subdivisions; • Traffic impacts and road safety – residents expressed concern about the design features of the Seton Ridge development on existing streets including narrow widths and overall neighbourhood. Specific no sidewalks, and requested traffic concerns on Briarwood Crescent may be dealt with separately; • Grading, drainage calming and upgrades to the provision of berms near the Lacewood Dr./Seton Rd. Beaver Bank Road – Windgate Drive intersection; • Concern re: any additional tree removal, protection of the pond, and design of the parksProposed road connections to adjacent subdivisions; • Questions Interruptions to services, including water supply and concerns related garbage collection, due to blasting activities and noiseconstruction activity; • Whether the provision Impacts on wildlife, natural corridors wetlands and watercourses including water quality of a new school or impact on existing schools was taken into considerationSecond Lake; • Questions regarding water pressure and the burying Presence of electrical utilitiessulphide bearing slates; • Impact of density Impacts on existing neighbourhood and clarification of proposed population/ unitsxxxxx; • Whether affordable housing will be providedStormwater runoff toward adjacent neighbourhoods; • Proximity of shared on-site wastewater treatment plants to existing homes and wetlands; • School capacity; • Buffering development from abutting properties; • Lack of transit and nearby services and amenities for seniors; • Impacts on property values; and • Questions/ Active transportation connections. In response to concerns and questions raised by the public, staff created a Frequently Asked Questions document as presented in Attachment E. This document was available on the application website as a part of the community engagement efforts. Public comments over funding have been considered by staff and costs related to a stand-alone heat plantaddressed where possible in the proposed development agreement. A public hearing must be held by Regional Council and North West Community Council before consideration they can be given to the consider approval of the proposed MPS and development agreement amendmentsagreement. Should North West Community Council decide to proceed with a public hearing on this application, in addition to the published newspaper advertisements, property owners within the notification area shown on Map 2 3 will be notified of the hearing by regular mail. Amendments to the Halifax MPS The proposal will potentially impact local residents and property owners. North West Planning Advisory Committee The application was presented to the North West Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) on January 7, 2016, November 1, 2017, and July 15, 2020. PAC reviewed the proposal on July 15, 2020 and recommended that the application be approved with consideration given to the Windgate Drive – Beaver Bank intersection, traffic calming, road connections, transit, parkland, and school capacity. At the July 15, 2020 PAC meeting, Deputy Mayor Xxxxxxxxx tabled a petition signed by 99 area residents requesting that the proposed development be adjusted to remove the proposed connection to Elise Victoria Drive. Residents expressed that a connection to Elise Victoria Drive would “become a main artery for vehicles travelling from Beaver Bank Road and Fall River instead of the quiet and peaceful dead-end street it currently is”. Staff advise that most of PAC’s concerns have been addressed in the proposed development agreement. Changes have not been made to the proposal in response to the following stakeholders: residents, landowners, and businesses.matters:

Community Engagement. The community engagement process is consistent with the intent of the HRM Community Engagement Strategy, the HRM Charter, and the Public Participation Program approved by Council as outlined in the staff report dated September 20, 2021. The level of community engagement was consultation, achieved through providing information and seeking comments through the HRM website, signage posted on the subject site, letters/ fact sheet letters mailed to 542 property owners within the notification area as shown on Map 2 (for Case 23746), and a virtual public information meeting held on June 10November 26, 2021 (Case 22896). Comments received from the fact sheet mailout in October 2021 (Case 23746) regarding the removal of the (proposed) Bayview Road walkway were as follows: • Two emails in favour of removing the proposed walkway; and • Seven emails opposed to removing the proposed walkway. The virtual Public Information meeting held on June 10, 2021 (for Case 22896) regarding the requested amendments to the development agreement was attended by 44 members of the public. While the request to remove one of the pedestrian walkways was not specifically introduced to attendees of the meeting, the topic of encouraging pedestrian travel and cycling was discussed2018. Attachment D C contains a copy of a summary of the comments from the meeting. A notice was also mailed to area residents in May 2020 advising of revisions to the proposal and requesting feedback on the most recent plans. The public comments received include the following topics, many of which were related to and considered at the time : • Compatibility of the original approval proposed semi-detached units and lot sizes; • The total number of units proposed; • Increased traffic as a result of the agreements in 2018: development; • Comments re: Existing road conditions including the lack of sidewalks and crosswalks; • Proposed road traffic impacts routes – all outgoing traffic directed through Lively Road and a one-way entrance from Xxxxxx Lake Drive; • Impacts on existing road infrastructure; • Effects on nearby xxxxx when new construction begins; • Impacts on property values; • Environmental concerns due to the former use of the Seton Ridge development on existing streets site as a race track and overall neighbourhood. Specific traffic concerns on Briarwood Crescent may be dealt with separatelypotential contamination of nearby xxxxx; • Grading, drainage Presence of shale and the provision possibility of berms near the Lacewood Dr./Seton Rd. intersectionarsenic; • Concern re: any additional tree removal, protection School capacity and lack of the pond, and design of the parks; • Questions and concerns related to blasting activities and noise; • Whether the provision of a new school or impact on existing schools was taken into consideration; • Questions regarding water pressure and the burying of electrical utilities; • Impact of density on existing neighbourhood and clarification of proposed population/ units; • Whether affordable housing will be providedchild care services; and • Questions/ comments over funding Tree buffers between the development and costs related to a stand-alone heat plantabutting properties. A public hearing must be held by Regional Council and North West Community Council before consideration they can be given to the consider approval of the proposed MPS and development agreement amendmentsagreement. Should Community Council decide to proceed with a public hearing on this application, in addition to the published newspaper advertisements, property owners within the notification area shown on Map 2 will be notified of the hearing by regular mail. Amendments to the Halifax MPS The proposal will potentially impact local residents and property owners. North West Planning Advisory Committee On June 24, 2020, the North West Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended that the application be approved with consideration of traffic calming measures, relocating the traffic signals to the intersection of Xxxxxx Lake Drive and Sackville Drive and designing the one-way entrance from Xxxxxx Lake Drive to minimise ATV use. The following stakeholdersinformation is provided in response to the motion of PAC. Case 21355: residentsDevelopment Agreement Lively Road, landownersMiddle Sackville Community Council Report - 4 - April 12, 2021 Traffic Calming Administrative Order 2015-004-OP respecting Traffic Calming is meant to respond to existing street conditions and driver behaviour and does not apply to new or proposed streets. New streets are designed in accordance with the most recent engineering standards which include requirements to mitigate concerns related to traffic volumes, travel speeds, and businessessafety. As a part of the detailed design of streets through the subdivision approval process, design elements such as curb bump outs and a one-way street design entering the development from Xxxxxx Lake Drive may be required to mitigate speeds within the development and limit traffic volumes on Xxxxxx Lake Drive respectively.

Community Engagement. The community engagement process is consistent with the intent of the HRM Community Engagement Strategy, the HRM Charter, and the Public Participation Program approved by Council as outlined in the staff report dated September 20, 2021. The level of community engagement was consultation, achieved through providing information and seeking comments through the HRM website, signage posted on the subject site, letters/ fact sheet 401 letters mailed to 542 property owners within the notification area as shown on Map 2 (for Case 23746), and a virtual public information meeting held on June 10Wednesday, 2021 April 20, 2022 (Case 22896Attachment D). Comments received from the fact sheet mailout in October 2021 The webpage was viewed a total of 876 times (Case 23746717 of these were unique) regarding the removal between January of the (proposed) Bayview Road walkway were as follows: • Two emails in favour 2022 and February of removing the proposed walkway; and • Seven emails opposed to removing the proposed walkway2023. The virtual Public Information meeting held on June 10, 2021 (for Case 22896) regarding the requested amendments to the development agreement was attended by 44 Approximately 15 members of the public. While public attended the request to remove one of the pedestrian walkways was not specifically introduced to attendees of the virtual meeting, the topic of encouraging pedestrian travel and cycling was discussed. Attachment D contains a summary of the comments meeting. Staff received 26 emails, and 5 phone calls from the meetingpublic. The public following comments received include and concerns were raised regarding the following topics, many development agreement proposal: • Concern that the population density and building heights are not in keeping with the character of which were related to and considered the surrounding neighborhood; the proposal is too dense at the time front of Shore Road and that multi units would be better located at the back of the original approval development, not in favour of the agreements in 2018: • Comments re: traffic impacts of the Seton Ridge development on existing streets and overall neighbourhood. Specific traffic concerns on Briarwood Crescent may be dealt with separately; • Grading, drainage and the provision of berms near the Lacewood Dr./Seton Rd. intersectioncommercial space; • Concern with limited bus frequency on Shore Road, that the community does not appear to be a priority for transit; • The existing zoning is adequate for the site; • Concerns that with previous rezoning and development proposals the community is weary of so many applications on the site; • Traffic concerns, impact on Shore Road which is narrow, whether the TIS took into account DND testing facility at Hartlen Point and other developments in area, and that the development will not meet national and international environmental commitments for reducing car usage; • Pedestrian and cycling links, seaside connection (opposite side of Shore Road); • Concerns regarding sea level rise, servicing, stormwater, environmental and emergency management issues; • Construction concerns re: any additional tree removalblasting, protection loss of trees, wildlife and views of the pondharbour; • Comments in support of the proposed development; that the proposal would bring new life to the community, provide more housing types that would be more affordable, and design of that the parksdensity is acceptable because it provides more housing types for people; • Questions The recreational space proposed looks nice and concerns related to blasting activities and noise; • Whether the provision of a new school or impact on that more hedge privacy between existing schools was taken into consideration; • Questions regarding water pressure and the burying of electrical utilities; • Impact of density on existing neighbourhood and clarification of proposed population/ units; • Whether affordable housing will properties should be providedconsidered; and • Questions/ comments over funding That renewable energy and costs related to a stand-alone heat plantaffordable housing should be considered in the development. A public hearing must be held by Regional Council and Harbour East–Marine Drive Community Council before consideration can be given to the approval of the proposed MPS rezoning and development agreement amendmentsagreement. Should Community Council decide to proceed with a public hearing on this application, in addition to a notice of the hearing published newspaper advertisementson the Case 23724: Rezoning/ Development Agreement 0000 Xxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Community Council Report - 5 - July 6, 2023 Municipality’s website at least seven days before the date of the public hearing, property owners within the notification area shown on Map 2 will be notified of the hearing by regular mail. Amendments to the Halifax MPS will potentially impact the following stakeholders: residents, landowners, and businesses.

Community Engagement. The community engagement process is consistent with the intent of the HRM Community Engagement Strategy, the HRM Charter, and the Public Participation Program approved by Council as outlined in the staff report dated September 20, 2021. The level of community engagement was consultation, achieved through providing information and seeking comments through the HRM website, signage posted on the subject site, letters/ fact sheet and 496 letters mailed to 542 property owners within the notification area. The application received 949 unique webpage views and the average time on the page was 4:31. In terms of written responses and phone calls, 11 email Case 23374: Development Agreement 000 Xxxxxxxx Xx. and 2 & 0 Xxxxxxxxxx Xx., Xxxxxxxxx Community Council Report - 3 - October 14, 2021 comments were received and 4 phone calls. In the interests of continuity with the community, the same notification area was used for this application as shown on Map 2 (for Case 23746), and was used during the 2020 MPS amendment process. Due to the large number of community members wishing to participate in a virtual public information meeting meeting, two meetings were held on (June 101 and June 2, 2021 (Case 228962021). Comments received from the fact sheet mailout in October 2021 (Case 23746) regarding the removal of the (proposed) Bayview Road walkway were as follows: • Two emails in favour of removing the proposed walkway; and • Seven emails opposed to removing the proposed walkway. The virtual Public Information meeting held on June 10, 2021 (for Case 22896) regarding the requested amendments to the development agreement was attended by 44 members of the public. While the request to remove one of the pedestrian walkways was not specifically introduced to attendees of the meeting, the topic of encouraging pedestrian travel and cycling was discussed. Attachment D C contains a summary of the comments from the meetingmeetings. The public comments received include generally included the following topics, many : • The design has improved since the last public meeting for this project held in 2017; • Negative impacts of which were related increased traffic that the new development will bring to the area and considered at the time validity of the original approval traffic study; • A concern for the lack of parking proposed with the development; • Concerns regarding the impacts of construction on traffic and nearby properties; • The impact of the agreements in 2018: • Comments re: traffic impacts of the Seton Ridge development on existing streets the privacy and overall neighbourhood. Specific traffic concerns views from adjacent properties especially those on Briarwood Crescent may be dealt with separatelyMicmac Drive; • Grading, drainage More people living in the area would be supportive of local businesses and help with the provision short supply of berms near rental units in the Lacewood Dr./Seton Rd. intersectionarea; • Concern re: any additional tree removal, protection Lack of public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure to support the pond, and design of the parksdevelopment; • Questions and concerns related The development offers a housing option that is limited in this area especially for seniors looking to blasting activities and noisedownsize; • Whether A unique building design that adheres to the provision of a new school or impact on existing schools was taken into considerationCentre Plan design principles; • Questions regarding water pressure The right-hand turning lane is necessary and the burying should be included as a part of electrical utilitiesthis development; • Impact The removal of density on existing neighbourhood and clarification of proposed population/ units; • Whether affordable housing will be providedmature trees from the site is a concern; and • Questions/ comments over funding and costs related to a stand-alone heat plantThe development would beautify the Waverley Road / Montebello Drive corner. A public hearing must be held by Regional Council and Harbour East – Marine Drive Community Council before consideration they can be given to the consider approval of the proposed MPS and development agreement amendmentsagreement. Should Community Council decide to proceed with a public hearing on this application, in addition to the published newspaper advertisements, property owners within the notification area shown on Map 2 will be notified of the hearing by regular mail. Amendments to the Halifax MPS will potentially impact the following stakeholders: residents, landowners, and businesses.

Community Engagement. The community engagement process is consistent with the intent of the HRM Community Engagement Strategy, the HRM Charter, and the Public Participation Program approved by Council as outlined in the staff report dated September 20, 2021. The level of community engagement was consultation, achieved through providing information and seeking comments through the HRM website, signage posted on the subject site, letters/ fact sheet letters mailed to 542 property owners within the notification area as shown on Map 2 (for Case 23746), and a virtual two public information meeting meetings held on June 10Wednesday, 2021 (Case 22896). Comments received from the fact sheet mailout in October 2021 (Case 23746) regarding the removal of the (proposed) Bayview Road walkway were as follows: • Two emails in favour of removing the proposed walkway; November 18, 2015 and • Seven emails opposed to removing the proposed walkway. The virtual Public Information meeting held on June 10Monday, 2021 (for Case 22896) regarding the requested amendments to the development agreement was attended by 44 members of the public. While the request to remove one of the pedestrian walkways was not specifically introduced to attendees of the meetingAugust 28, the topic of encouraging pedestrian travel and cycling was discussed2017. Attachment D contains a summary of the comments minutes from both meetings. A mailout was also sent to area residents for feedback on the meetingrevised proposal in May 2020. Case 20110: Rezoning and Development Agreement Windgate Drive, Beaver Bank Community Council Report - 5 - November 8, 2021 The public comments received include support for non-disturbance areas between the development and adjacent properties and trail connections linking park assets in abutting neighbourhoods. Members of the public expressed they would prefer a standard form of subdivision, similar to Monarch Rivendale and Capilano Estates. Concerns raised included the following topics, many of which were related to and considered at the time of the original approval of the agreements in 2018: • Comments re: traffic Density, mix of housing including seniors housing in the form of townhouses and multiple unit dwellings, clustering of units and their compatibility with abutting low density rural subdivisions; • Traffic impacts and road safety – residents expressed concern about the design features of the Seton Ridge development on existing streets including narrow widths and overall neighbourhood. Specific no sidewalks, and requested traffic concerns on Briarwood Crescent may be dealt with separately; • Grading, drainage calming and upgrades to the provision of berms near the Lacewood Dr./Seton Rd. Beaver Bank Road – Windgate Drive intersection; • Concern re: any additional tree removal, protection of the pond, and design of the parksProposed road connections to adjacent subdivisions; • Questions Interruptions to services, including water supply and concerns related garbage collection, due to blasting activities and noiseconstruction activity; • Whether the provision Impacts on wildlife, natural corridors wetlands and watercourses including water quality of a new school or impact on existing schools was taken into considerationSecond Lake; • Questions regarding water pressure and the burying Presence of electrical utilitiessulphide bearing slates; • Impact of density Impacts on existing neighbourhood and clarification of proposed population/ unitsxxxxx; • Whether affordable housing will be providedStormwater runoff toward adjacent neighbourhoods; • Proximity of shared on-site wastewater treatment plants to existing homes and wetlands; • School capacity; • Buffering development from abutting properties; • Lack of transit and nearby services and amenities for seniors; • Impacts on property values; and • Questions/ Active transportation connections. In response to concerns and questions raised by the public, staff created a Frequently Asked Questions document as presented in Attachment E. This document was available on the application website as a part of the community engagement efforts. Public comments over funding have been considered by staff and costs related to a stand-alone heat plantaddressed where possible in the proposed development agreement. A public hearing must be held by Regional Council and North West Community Council before consideration they can be given to the consider approval of the proposed MPS and development agreement amendmentsagreement. Should North West Community Council decide to proceed with a public hearing on this application, in addition to the published newspaper advertisements, property owners within the notification area shown on Map 2 3 will be notified of the hearing by regular mail. Amendments to the Halifax MPS The proposal will potentially impact local residents and property owners. North West Planning Advisory Committee The application was presented to the North West Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) on January 7, 2016, November 1, 2017, and July 15, 2020. PAC reviewed the proposal on July 15, 2020 and recommended that the application be approved with consideration given to the Windgate Drive – Beaver Bank intersection, traffic calming, road connections, transit, parkland, and school capacity. At the July 15, 2020 PAC meeting, Deputy Mayor Blackburn tabled a petition signed by 99 area residents requesting that the proposed development be adjusted to remove the proposed connection to Elise Victoria Drive. Residents expressed that a connection to Elise Victoria Drive would “become a main artery for vehicles travelling from Beaver Bank Road and Fall River instead of the quiet and peaceful dead-end street it currently is”. Staff advise that most of PAC’s concerns have been addressed in the proposed development agreement. Changes have not been made to the proposal in response to the following stakeholders: residents, landowners, and businesses.matters: