Dartmouth viewplanes under study

[Takeo]

In case you missed it in today's paper:

--------------------------

HRM issues tender for consultant
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter
Sat. Jan 23 - 4:49 AM
Conflict that’s surrounded legislated viewplanes and proposed commercial or residential towers in Halifax has long affected the downtown core.

As a result, ambitious development plans have sometimes been put on hold, scaled down or scrapped.

Now, city hall is seeking a consultant to look at view protection in Dartmouth, says a proposal request from Halifax Regional Municipality. It says the successful firm must not only examine protected harbour vistas that exist, it’s to consider better or additional ones.

The municipality’s tender document says a consultant will be hired to identify a maximum of six candidate harbour views and "simulate (the) potential impact of development" in Dartmouth on such vistas. Simulation would likely be done with computer models.

City staff want to firm up the policy linked to views of Halifax Harbour from Dartmouth, a task that planning staff briefed regional council on about a year ago.

Municipal planner Mitch Dickey said Friday two official viewplanes exist in Dartmouth: one from the Dartmouth Common, established in 2000, and the other from the Brightwood golf course, designated in 1978.

"In addition, corridor views down numerous streets to the harbour are protected," the proposal request says.

Mr. Dickey said public input on the Dartmouth viewplanes study will be sought, probably in spring or summer. The issue will eventually go to the Harbour East community council.

According to the proposal request, available on the municipality’s website, "the purpose of the viewplanes is to maintain views of the harbour from . . . specific points" in Dartmouth. "This goal is implemented through restrictions on building height."

Mr. Dickey said the issue arose during planning for the multi-phase King’s Wharf project at Dartmouth Cove, on the site of the former Dartmouth Marine Slips. He said that development falls within the viewplane from the sloping Brightwood course.

"The (protected) viewplane . . . is actually not at the highest point in Brightwood, which is something we do want to look at," Mr. Dickey said. "There is a higher location (on the course), and there is a better view" of the water below.

On the Halifax side of the harbour, there are four designated viewpoints on Citadel Hill, Mr. Dickey said. From these four points, there are 10 viewplanes.

Asked about the controversy hooked to highrise projects in Halifax possibly hopping the harbour to Dartmouth, Mr. Dickey said city hall is simply seeking precision in its planning rules.

"It’s a major issue in Halifax and it always has been in Dartmouth to a lesser extent, mostly in terms of the confusion caused by the vagueness of the current protected viewplanes," he said. "Our hope here is to provide greater clarity where it is lacking."

The competition for the viewplanes study closes Feb. 9. A spokeswoman for the municipality said a consultant is required because city staff have enough on their plates.

Coun. Gloria McCluskey (Dartmouth Centre) told The Chronicle Herald that protected views in Dartmouth have been firmly established, but she’s not sure if more are needed.

She said the one from the Dartmouth Common goes back further than 2000, though she could not recall the exact year it was set.

"I’m hoping that when they do this study that they will go to different locations and find out whether in fact we are protecting what we should be," she said.

[Takeo]

So to sum up... the thinking is... that Brightwood view plane created a lot of controversy. How should we deal with that? I KNOW!!! Let's create MORE view planes!!! Six ought to do it!!! Let's spend tax dollars on a bunch of overpaid consultants to dream up six NEW view planes. That'll end all the controversy over view planes.

[Jonovision]

This is totally ridiculous. I can understand some view planes from the Commons. And maybe not enough exist now. I'm not sure where the one does exist at the moment. But we certainly do not need any new, let alone the existing view plane from Brightwood. It is a private property and should not be given exception. If we can have viewplanes from Brightwood than we can have viewplanes from private residences. There is no difference in my eyes.

[mcmcclassic]

This is totally ridiculous. I can understand some view planes from the Commons. And maybe not enough exist now. I'm not sure where the one does exist at the moment. But we certainly do not need any new, let alone the existing view plane from Brightwood. It is a private property and should not be given exception. If we can have viewplanes from Brightwood than we can have viewplanes from private residences. There is no difference in my eyes.

Agreed. I don't know why the city is taking steps to ensure that nothing tall gets built here! Downtown Dartmouth has some of the most underutilized land in the HRM, but by adding more viewplanes, nothing tall would ever be built there.

This city has to stop letting the opinions and desires of a very select few dictate what's best for the ~385,000 other people also living here.

[sdm]

total waste of time and space.

We need an election now, and hopefully that may yield better candiates to vote in. We need people with vision and some backbone.

This is so backwards in terms of development and economic growth its not even funny.

[spaustin]

Viewplanes should be reserved for unique places like Citadel Hill and the Dartmouth Common. Adding more without an actual reason or demand for them is really silly. What I do support is viewplanes in a more general urban design kind of way. When new development is proposed we should think about how views from public streets will be affected. Blowers Street in Halifax is a good example of what happens when no thought is given. Looking up Blowers, you're looking at the garage door of Cambridge Suites on one end whereas the entrance to Metro Park is on the other. It's bookended with ugliness and there is no reason why good design couldn't have addressed some of that.

Oh and I agree with what everyone else has so far posted, Brightwood should never have gotten a view plane because it's private property.

[hfx_chris]

As I recall during the public hearings, the majority of people who spoke had absolutely no problem with view planes being disturbed, including representatives from Brightwood. I think the only ones who cared were the folks who live in Admiralty Place, the stepped residential building along Alderney Drive.
The viewplanes from Brightwood should be scrapped. The viewplanes from the Dartmouth Commons, while nice, I don't think should hinder development. The only street-level viewplane I actually appreciate is the one down Portland Street. But I don't think that view is in any danger of being ruined.

[Barrington south]

this is sad and embarrassing

[Wishblade]

I thought the whole reason for viewplans in Halifax was because of citadel hill, and the history associated. Dartmouth should have no viewplanes. They make absolutely no sense.

[ZET]

The view from the Dartmouth commons (of Halifax) is amazing. The view up the harbor is already affected by queen's square and the seniors building. ZET

[worldlyhaligonian]

We should be able to sue the city over stuff like this. What a waste of time and resources.

[Empire]

The view from the Dartmouth commons (of Halifax) is amazing. The view up the harbor is already affected by queen's square and the seniors building. ZET

The view from Dartmouth Common is amazing and I think that the viewplanes in place protect that. Dartmouth common may have 10,000 visitors a year as opposed to the citadel at over 500,000. There is no other arera in Dartmouth that warrants a viewplane. I think the Brightwood viewplane is not so much for the members of Brightwood but really represents any view from that elevation. Even so, it is over the top and this exercise will no doubt expose that.

[dartmouthian]

they should be getting rid of the brightwood viewplane, not adding new ones.

[City_of_Lakes]

The view from Dartmouth Common is beautiful! The picture on my computer background is a photo of Halifax taken from there lol. But the placement of MORE protected viewplains in Dartmouth is a ridiculous idea...

There must be a conspiracy going on.:sly: Pretty soon there will be protected zones in place that will allow people to demand King's Wharf to be stepped down dramatically in height.

[halifaxboyns]

There was a brief story on CBC tonight about this (along with Dan English's resignation as CAO).

Here is the link (http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Local_News/NS/ID=1539634970).

Now for my 2 cents:

I realize that many people in HRM see the viewplanes in two ways: Obstructionist or protectionist. Now; whatever your opinion - considering that the Citadell is one of the biggest tourist draws in Halifax - I will grant that some (not necessairily all) viewplanes there are worthwhile. I think we can have a fair bit of discussion about the 'George's Island' viewplane - which is also the one with a fabulous (note my sarcasm) view of the refinery. Is that one worth while? Perhaps, perhaps not. The two that cover the south end for the mouth of the harbour - it's a nice view; I miss it, I personally think it has value, but the heights allowed could probably creep up slightly with minimal disruption to view.

Now about Dartmouth. Let me first start off by saying, I grew up on the Halifax side; but I have nothing against Dartmouth - I've worked in Alderney Landing before and I loved going there for the Multicultural festival.

That being said, I think the Brightwood viewplane is the biggest and singlemost destructive viewplane for Downtown Dartmouth. It is the one that casts over most of Downtown and has capped height at an unbelievably short height. The only reason that King's landing made it through was because the rules were ambiguous and because it just barely was outside the Brightwood viewplane (BV). Now that being said - i do believe in the value of the ones from the common's park. It's a beautiful park and a beautiful view; which should be protected and considering what little developable land in those two viewplanes are covered (for now) - seems to be reasonable.

However, Brightwood has really stiffled downtown development in Dartmouth a lot and I think this project, may be quite short sighted given the potential that King's Wharf could have to spur and revive the area. However, I'm getting the impression from some friends of mine who work with HRM - that this may be a project that someone told someone, who told someone to do (if you get my drift).

I've done some research and there does not appear to be a Municipal Case number on the HRM website; however there is a link to the Planner managing the project from another case. I'm hesitant to post it unless the group feels this may be appropriate to provide some comments and feed back. Thoughts everyone? I realize it's easy to find - but I think if we're going to comment, it should be respectful and simply focus on the planning issues.

My hope is that we could provide comments - which could, if a report goes to council, be attached.

What does everyone think? There seems to be a strong negative feeling over this - perhaps we should mobilize some emails?

[fenwick16]

Yes, I think that a lot of thought should go into any emails that are sent. I watched the CBC clip, and I got the general feeling that there are very few young progressive people at the meeting (and few old progressive people). The biggest problem is that people in favour of development (the majority according to surveys) usually do not go to these meetings.

[Jonovision]

From todays Herald. It seems at least some of the people at the meeting realized the nonsense that is the Brightwood viewplane.


Viewplanes vs. development focus of Dartmouth meeting

Staff tells public session city wants to clarify sightlines in need of protection


By DAVENE JEFFREY Staff Reporter

Dartmouth residents and de velopers who attended a pub lic meeting Wednesday weren’t too concerned about protecting views from a city golf course.

“Brightwood by its nature is not public," said businessman Patrick O’Regan, a Dartmouth resident.

“You’re putting the needs of private members ahead of the public’s."

O’Regan was among fewer than two dozen members of the public who attended the evening meeting at the Find lay Centre in Dartmouth.

Halifax Regional Municipal ity hired CBCL Ltd. to study protected viewplanes from the Brightwood Golf and Country Club and the Dartmouth Com mon.

City planner Mitch Dickey said the study was needed to clarify the viewplanes and to look at others that may be worth protecting.

“We’re trying to protect important visual resources," Dickey said, while at the same time defining the view plane parameters so city staff can answer development questions.

The viewplane from the golf course cuts a wide swath across the Dartmouth water front.

Wide viewplanes hamper future development in areas like the marshalling yards, said Ross Cantwell of the Waterfront Development Corp., which is looking at building an apartment com plex on the Dartmouth water front near the Kings Wharf development.

It’s more cost-effective to build taller buildings on smaller parcels of infilled land, Cantwell said. There is room for a highrise or two to spike up, which would in crease the downtown pop ulation density while still preserving much of the view from the Common, he said.

And density is what is re quired for Dartmouth’s down town to come alive again, O’Regan said.

“Dartmouth is dying for rejuvenation," said developer Tony Maskine, a Dartmouth property owner.

Resident Trevor Parsons told the group he is concerned about the views from the Common and he worries that installing a soccer pitch there, as is being talked about, would limit the general pub lic’s use of the park and abil ity to enjoy the views.

But summer is a poor time to try to sample public opin ion, said resident John May.

And Frances Howard told the group she believes city staff ignore the opinions of Dartmouth residents and she’s not taking their stated intention to define the view planes at face value.

“I’m very suspicious they’ve got something up their sleeve," she said.

(djeffrey@herald.ca)

‘We’re trying to protect important visual resources.’

MITCH DICKEY

City planner

[Dmajackson]

I agree with the statements so far about HRM's apparent favourism toward Briightwood Golf Course which should not have any viewplanes to begin with let alone add more on. I'd have to see where the Commons ones are being added but I imagine I could support them in some fashion.

[Jonovision]

I was not able to attend the session last night, but I would advise everyone to send in their comments so they can be made part of the public record.

[halifaxboyns]

I added the link to the clip from CBC which if you pause it at the right time shows the expanded viewplanes proposal.

I'm sure if you email Mitch Dickey (the planner from HRM) he might be able to send out a PDF?

Brightwood has been the single worst viewplane affecting the downtown of Dartmouth and it will be something I suspect Councillor McClusky will fight to retain, expand and protect. While I don't agree with her, I can see her perspective - it would make the site better.

From the perspective of a private developer, it would also make the golf course that much more valuable should it be bought out. That being said, we are 17 years away from a new regional plan so who knows what could be on the radar if HRM's growth keeps increasing. If it were to grow to levels of over 10,000 people a year you'll see alarm bells go off.

[Keith P.]

Are viewplanes a concept unique to Halifax planning? I don't know if I've ever heard of them referenced anyplace other than here.

I believe they are in general a bad idea and as implemented in HRM are a very dumb concept indeed.

I cannot believe that HRM is wasting money trying to formalize and perhaps create new viewplane absurdity in Dartmouth. I find Dickey's comments very troubling as he sounds as though he is in favor of expanding viewplane regulations, which is ridiculous.

Any viewplane involving Brightwood is nonsensical. Not only is it a private club and thus exclusionary to the average citizen, it is certain to be developed sooner or later. Hence the viewplane is not the one you currently see at ground level, but will be at whatever is the height of what gets built there. Therefore it is unlikely to matter much unless they limit Brightwood to singe family homes, and even then I fail to see why those people's views should be considered special.

As for the Dartmouth Common... whatever. I would suspect that on any given day more people would be enjoying the view from whatever tallish buildings get built in these viewplanes than there would be using the common lands.

Just abandon this nonsense entirely and get on with ridding Dartmouth's downtown core and shoreline -- what should be its most valuable land -- of all those empty, dusty lots. It is incredible that such property is not developed.

[fenwick16]

I often think that the reason for all the viewplanes bylaws and other red tape is to purposely slow population growth (it certainly doesn't encourage it). I really think that for many councillors and residents, high growth is considered to be on par with cancer and must be eradicated. I would state their goal as - "Keep Halifax beautiful, don't let it become like Toronto!" It sounds great and can even be considered to be responsible growth by some. However, Torontonians can grow up in Toronto and expect to live there their whole life if they so desire, whereas many transplanted Haligonians and Nova Scotians will have to admire the beautiful scenery on the internet and occasional visits from afar.

So, as much as I would like to see the population growing by 10,000 per year, I think that it will be vehemently opposed by the anti-development crowd.

[Jonovision]

Viewplanes are not just a Halifax concept. They exist in many other cities. Two prime examples that come to mind are Vancouver and London. Although in Vancouver I believe they are referred to as view corridors. They are in place to protect views of the mountains from certain points around the city. I believe they are also under review at the moment. And in London, England there are view planes in place to protect public views of Saint Pauls Cathedral.

[JET]

Are viewplanes a concept unique to Halifax planning? I don't know if I've ever heard of them referenced anyplace other than here.
regulations, which is ridiculous.

Any viewplane involving Brightwood is nonsensical. Not only is it a private club and thus exclusionary to the average citizen, it is certain to be developed sooner or later. Hence the viewplane is not the one you currently see at ground level, but will be at whatever is the height of what gets built there. Therefore it is unlikely to matter much unless they limit Brightwood to singe family homes, and even then I fail to see why those people's views should be considered special.

As for the Dartmouth Common... whatever. I would suspect that on any given day more people would be enjoying the view from whatever tallish buildings get built in these viewplanes than there would be using the common lands.

Just abandon this nonsense entirely and get on with ridding Dartmouth's downtown core and shoreline -- what should be its most valuable land -- of all those empty, dusty lots. It is incredible that such property is not developed.

There was discussion about Brightwood being involved with a land swap with HRM and it being parkland. In that scenario many people get to enjoy the view. I don't want to see the refinery, but I do enjoy the harbour view. As for the commons, a lot of people go through in a day. It's not Desolation Row. JET

[halifaxboyns]

There is now officially a case (http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html) number.

[Dmajackson]

This is going before HECC next week;

Case 01367 (http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/documents/Case01367.pdf)

[halifaxboyns]

Looks like my dream scenario might be coming true. There was enough public input to get staff to propose to eliminate the brightwood viewplane.

I guess this is the first step - very interesting report.

[Keith P.]

Looks like my dream scenario might be coming true. There was enough public input to get staff to propose to eliminate the brightwood viewplane.

I guess this is the first step - very interesting report.

The most interesting part is the amount of effort and therefore cost it involved to do something which should be largely self-evident.

Really, due process is one thing, but the amount of time and effort involved in this is simply absurd.

The comments of some of the speakers at the public meeting show the absurdity of the process. One person -- scarily, a former Dartmouth alderman -- stated that nothing over 2 storeys should be built downtown. How ridiculous is that?

HRM really needs to look long and hard at their processes for this sort of thing and make a real attempt at streamlining the process to reduce the tremendous cost involved.

[Jonovision]

It sounds like something good could come of this. I was quite worried for a while that nothing would change. But the elimination of the Brightwood viewplane could drastically change the face of the downtown, which I think is a good thing. I think their suggestion to review other planning policies regarding building heights and massing is something the area really needs. Downtown Dartmouth could easily accommodate another 10,000 people if midrises and a few highrises were allowed.

[fenwick16]

One point that I noted in the report was an acknowledgment that narrow towers would preserve more of the view of the harbour than short buildings with large footprints (I am paraphrasing).

[someone123]

HRM really needs to look long and hard at their processes for this sort of thing and make a real attempt at streamlining the process to reduce the tremendous cost involved.

The planning process for a lot of this stuff is ridiculous. It often reminds me of the old story of three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Local homeowners are greater in number so they decide the fate of councillors and they force policies even for future developments where there is no opposing voice (it's not practical for a developer to oppose regulation of every lot just in case they buy in the future). 10 years later when somebody actually wants to build they're told that the issue has already been decided.

This happened for example to the empty lot behind the government building on Barrington near Morris Street. Once they learned that the government was in the process of selling they rezoned the lot for townhouses only. At best this means another lengthy bureaucratic step for the current owners if they want a reasonable development on that lot. At worst they'll never bother to develop it and we have another permanent parking lot.

[halifaxboyns]

For me; the difficulty with some of these regulations is how technical they can be. I mean if you asked me to calculate the building heights of a building in one of the viewplane from the point the viewplane casts down to the harbour I would look at you with a stunned look. These regulations are hopelessly technical and some people (both staff and developers) can't understand them.

My feeling would be that there could be a better system of regulation using building height modifiers much like what we use in Calgary. So when a land use is approved by council - only council can set the height. So for example a C-COR1 district could have a height modifier of 50 metres which would be shown on the land use map as C-COR1h50. You could do the same thing and the development officer cannot vary the height. This way it would be preset, only council could change it and you would end up having policy that would say why the height was established - to preserve the view. This would be far less technical on people to understand.

But I think (in the end); I share Jono's opinion - this will end up being a positive thing. I also think that Fenwick's paraphrasing is quite right - with thinner buildings at the higher levels, I suspect you will see more people get on board with development because the effects could be offset.

[Dmajackson]

Regional Council will be talking about the changes on Tuesday and presumably approve the starting of public consultation necessairy to move forward;

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/110208ca1021.pdf

[halifaxboyns]

Hennsbey wasn't too happy about removing the viewplane from Brightwood - he wants to get the lands to make it a park. Wile wants it kept - Gloria McClusky is willing to get rid of Brightwood. I'm shocked.

[halifaxboyns]

Well the project moves ahead for further public engagement and consultation.

[halifaxplannermitch]

Just to let folks know that HRM is looking for public comment on views from the Dartmouth Common. A public open house is being held on April 20 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm. Details are available at http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

The city, working with CBCL Ltd, have selected 6 candidate views from the Common. The views will each be ranked & prioritized, based on public input. Once the preferred views are identified, development scenarios for the vacant waterfront lands along Alderney Drive will be prepared & modelled. A report will then go back to council that recommends new/revised viewplanes, while also providing for realistic development scenarios. The issue of a viewplane from Brightwood Golf Course will be dealt with at another public meeting in June.

It would be great if Skyscraper folks could attend and held determine what views might be worthy of protection!

[Empire]

Just to let folks know that HRM is looking for public comment on views from the Dartmouth Common. A public open house is being held on April 20 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm. Details are available at http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

The city, working with CBCL Ltd, have selected 6 candidate views from the Common. The views will each be ranked & prioritized, based on public input. Once the preferred views are identified, development scenarios for the vacant waterfront lands along Alderney Drive will be prepared & modelled. A report will then go back to council that recommends new/revised viewplanes, while also providing for realistic development scenarios. The issue of a viewplane from Brightwood Golf Course will be dealt with at another public meeting in June.

It would be great if Skyscraper folks could attend and held determine what views might be worthy of protection!

Does anyone know how many people use the Dartmouth Common on a yearly basis? The Public Gardens sees ~5000 per day.

[hoser111]

Does anyone know how many people use the Dartmouth Common on a yearly basis? The Public Gardens sees ~5000 per day.

I'm guessing 3! :)

[worldlyhaligonian]

Just to let folks know that HRM is looking for public comment on views from the Dartmouth Common. A public open house is being held on April 20 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm. Details are available at http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

The city, working with CBCL Ltd, have selected 6 candidate views from the Common. The views will each be ranked & prioritized, based on public input. Once the preferred views are identified, development scenarios for the vacant waterfront lands along Alderney Drive will be prepared & modelled. A report will then go back to council that recommends new/revised viewplanes, while also providing for realistic development scenarios. The issue of a viewplane from Brightwood Golf Course will be dealt with at another public meeting in June.

It would be great if Skyscraper folks could attend and held determine what views might be worthy of protection!

It is possible that there will be no viewplanes established? I ask this question to not be rude, but to establish why this whole process is being initiated.

The idea of viewplanes imposes somewhat arbitrary rules for development in downtown Dartmouth. The original concept of viewplanes for Halifax was centered around the citadel, but I don't see any legitimate reason for viewplanes for Dartmouth.

My only concern is that this debate is about "what viewplanes" instead of "viewplanes", yes, no, maybe a few.

I am concerned because any legislation generated will clearly support anti-development attitudes in downtown Dartmouth going forward.

I know someone123 will agree with me.

[Keith P.]

It is possible that there will be no viewplanes established? I ask this question to not be rude, but to establish why this whole process is being initiated.

The idea of viewplanes imposes somewhat arbitrary rules for development in downtown Dartmouth. The original concept of viewplanes for Halifax was centered around the citadel, but I don't see any legitimate reason for viewplanes for Dartmouth.

My only concern is that this debate is about "what viewplanes" instead of "viewplanes", yes, no, maybe a few.

I am concerned because any legislation generated will clearly support anti-development attitudes in downtown Dartmouth going forward.

I know someone123 will agree with me.

I dunno about that, but I certainly do, and I agree totally with your views (pardon the pun).

If Dartmouthians want to look at Halifax, they have numerous vantage points from which to do so. The Dartmouth Common has no claim to deserve having any viewplanes protected. The entire concept seems deeply flawed if not totally asinine. HRM should be begging for any development in the wasteland that is downtown Dartmouth. Imposing arbitrary and unjustified barriers to such development seems completely absurd.

[fenwick16]

I can't see any advantage to additional viewplanes. I think the number of viewplanes should be reduced in both Dartmouth and Halifax. Having viewplanes bylaws results in highrises being built at strange angles, unusual geometry and generally stifles development.

It makes more sense to me to have height designations for various parts of Dartmouth like the HRM-by-Design in Halifax (but less restrictive) and have provisions for overriding height limits through development agreements (allow taller buildings whenever agreed upon by Council).

As opposed to the decade old statistical prediction of declining growth in the HRM, the population is increasing. Now isn't a time to create obstructions to growth.

[Empire]

Viewplanes in Dartmouth are a non-starter. No one uses the Dartmouth Common, there is no one downtown, and there is simply no justification for any viewplanes in Dartmouth. Part of the justificaion in Halifax for viewplanes is for a view from the waterfront to the citadel. Having said that, I never want to hear about a viewplane from Brightwood again.

Recommendation: Abolish all viewplanees in Dartmouth. Many more people will enjoy views of Halifax harbour from highrises then the current number of zero that gaze out to sea.

[Jonovision]

Viewplanes in Dartmouth are a non-starter. No one uses the Dartmouth Common, there is no one downtown, and there is simply no justification for any viewplanes in Dartmouth. Part of the justificaion in Halifax for viewplanes is for a view from the waterfront to the citadel. Having said that, I never want to hear about a viewplane from Brightwood again.

Recommendation: Abolish all viewplanees in Dartmouth. Many more people will enjoy views of Halifax harbour from highrises then the current number of zero that gaze out to sea.

I'm not entirely against view planes. I use the Dartmouth Commons quite often being as how I work right next door. And there are many people who go through the park on their ways to and from work either in the office buildings around or to get to the bus terminal. There are also a lot of people in the summer that just chill out on the hill overlooking the harbour. It's a gorgeous view and I think one or two viewplanes could be considered. There are not a whole lot of developable lots in between the Commons and the water. There is one site owned by WDCL but the rest is all CN and they are not giving up any land any time soon in downtown Dartmouth. If the viewplanes were done correctly they could still leave room for a tower or two on either side of them.

[Empire]

I'm not entirely against view planes. I use the Dartmouth Commons quite often being as how I work right next door. And there are many people who go through the park on their ways to and from work either in the office buildings around or to get to the bus terminal. There are also a lot of people in the summer that just chill out on the hill overlooking the harbour. It's a gorgeous view and I think one or two viewplanes could be considered. There are not a whole lot of developable lots in between the Commons and the water. There is one site owned by WDCL but the rest is all CN and they are not giving up any land any time soon in downtown Dartmouth. If the viewplanes were done correctly they could still leave room for a tower or two on either side of them.

I think a concession should be made. Perhaps 3 viewplanes. All three from Dartmouth Common and narrow.

1. Looking to the mouth of the harbour.
2. Looking to the citadel.
3. Looking to the bridge.

In return for the 3 viewplanes density bonusing would apply and allow greater height outside the viewplanes. Views from Brightwood would be protected throught the 3 viewplanes.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I think a concession should be made. Perhaps 3 viewplanes. All three from Dartmouth Common and narrow.

1. Looking to the mouth of the harbour.
2. Looking to the citadel.
3. Looking to the bridge.

In return for the 3 viewplanes density bonusing would apply and allow greater height outside the viewplanes. Views from Brightwood would be protected throught the 3 viewplanes.

Yes, if they are going to in effect restrict some development, they must allow for taller development in other areas.

Jono - My concern is that like 20-30 years from now this legislation will be used to thwart other developments in Dartmouth, as has been seen in Halifax.

[someone123]

The main problem I see is that this process tends to be hugely slanted in favour of a small minority of current residents. A group of a few residents can call up their councillor and suddenly the city is contemplating a policy that will force 3,000 people to live somewhere else, ironically depriving them of the lifestyle and views that others are trying to keep for themselves (I think many people are okay with this because they think of it in terms of depriving "greedy developers" of money -- but even if this is true it is a small part of the story).

The idea of viewplanes has some merit but to make a reasonable decision many factors need to be considered. I can think of a few:
-Is it a public view? (Brightwood is NOT -- why is the city involved?)
-Is it a unique view? (We have huge stretches of waterfront open to the public on both sides)
-What is are the real costs of having the viewplane? (Generally huge even though there's little money spent up front)
-How many people actually take advantage of the view? (This is the benefit to be weighed against the costs. Because it already exists we can easily measure this)

A viewplane from a well-used park that only cuts across one or two small publicly-owned lots is probably reasonable. A viewplane that nobody knows of that cuts across 10 blocks is not.

[Keith P.]

Really, though, a lot of laws both municipal and otherwise get put in place because of small minorities yet when taken as a group have a huge effect on the population at large. It is the infamous "squeaky wheel" effect that govts seem to always pander to.

Be it "for the children", or the environment or other more fringe causes, govts seem unable to resist such appeals. As a result we have laws like these viewplane provisions along with other equally absurd and largely unnecessary laws like the ban on weed and feed, measures to restrict cats or allow chickens, stiffer penalties for drinking and driving if kids are in the car... one could go on and on. All of these pander to interest groups but really are either unnecessary, ineffective, wrong-headed or merely symbolic. Every law that gets passed brings with it more cost, more bureaucracy, and in many cases, restricts peoples freedoms unnecessarily.

We need a lot fewer laws, not more.

[someone123]

Be it "for the children", or the environment or other more fringe causes, govts seem unable to resist such appeals. As a result we have laws like these viewplane provisions along with other equally absurd and largely unnecessary laws like the ban on weed and feed, measures to restrict cats or allow chickens, stiffer penalties for drinking and driving if kids are in the car... one could go on and on. All of these pander to interest groups but really are either unnecessary, ineffective, wrong-headed or merely symbolic. Every law that gets passed brings with it more cost, more bureaucracy, and in many cases, restricts peoples freedoms unnecessarily.

One problem in the HRM is the culture of public consultation. The idea seems to be that if you can achieve consensus in public consultation you get fair policies. This is incorrect. Many people cannot comment in these forums. For example, people who will be looking for an apartment in 5 years in Dartmouth but don't know it yet cannot attend the viewplane hearings. They are nevertheless affected.

Another very common problem is concentrated vs. distributed effects. If you have a policy that is worth $5,000 to one person and costs everybody else $2 you will get one person speaking in favour and probably nobody who cares enough to speak against (it takes a lot of time and effort -- well over $2 worth). This continues until the tax bill becomes a classic "death by a thousand cuts" scenario.

The drunk driving stuff is like this (actually slightly worse due to social stigma -- you will get painted as being "for" drunk driving if you are against cruel and unusual punishment). There's a small group of people who suffered some kind of tragedy and are now irrationally bent on restricting alcohol consumption. Everybody else suffers when you can't even go out at night anymore because of overzealous police officers and the threat of prison for having a BAC that is 0.001% over the limit. Here in BC the liquor laws are draconian and I doubt that they are based on any rational argument or statistics.

[Keith P.]

The drunk driving stuff is like this (actually slightly worse due to social stigma -- you will get painted as being "for" drunk driving if you are against cruel and unusual punishment). There's a small group of people who suffered some kind of tragedy and are now irrationally bent on restricting alcohol consumption. Everybody else suffers when you can't even go out at night anymore because of overzealous police officers and the threat of prison for having a BAC that is 0.001% over the limit. Here in BC the liquor laws are draconian and I doubt that they are based on any rational argument or statistics.

Very well said. I think you have described the absurdity around liquor laws extremely well. Being against ridiculous excesses in such laws does not mean that you are in favor of drunk driving -- but that is how such a stance would be positioned by these groups. The same is true over the absurd excesses imposed upon smokers - being against some of the craziness does not mean you are in favor of smoking, but no politician dares to take that stance.

[FuzzyWuz]

....threat of prison for having a BAC that is 0.001% over the limit.

prison for a bac that is one ten thousandth of one percent over the limit? I kinda think that you can't even measure an amount that small. Exaggeration does not help your point.

[someone123]

prison for a bac that is one ten thousandth of one percent over the limit? I kinda think that you can't even measure an amount that small. Exaggeration does not help your point.

Err.. that's a thousandth of a percent and it's standard to give lab tests in PPM. The law just defines a threshold.

In practice I believe they round down by 0.01% using standard measurement instruments. Some of them are horribly inaccurate, so you could get in trouble for being well under, though I don't know how often those results are thrown out in court.

A second offence over 0.08 is up to 30 days in prison (first is 1-3 years of no license and a fine). Some lobbyists (e.g. MADD) want that changed to 0.05.

We could debate whether or not this is a good thing but my point is that the creation of legislation in this area has been incredibly one-sided. I've never seen an actual debate about this topic despite the fact that many people receive criminal convictions without having actually caused any damage.

[halifaxplannermitch]

There are 2 viewplanes now set from the Common. One is a wide angle of the mid harbour and downtown Halifax, the other is a narrow view of Georges Island. The viewpoint point is from the path below the ballfield. The problem - the 1970's mapping is wrong. You can't see George's Island from the viewpoint. And, the broader panorama limits building heights on all the vacant lands (city parking lots & CN lands) along the waterfront to 30'. Which basically prohibits development on one hand, while the local plan encourages development on the other hand. Not a great result.

The direction from Council is to look at other view options, while bearing in mind we need to provide for major development opportunities. So, a selection of the best views from the Common (which is used by hundreds a day, & growing) will be presented. Questions we'll ask - What features are appreciated from different parts of the Common? What makes a good view? Is it a wide angle? Are there features within a wide view that can be singled out, to protect a narrow corridor view? People need to tell us what they think - whether there should be no view planes or 10. The input will all be presented to Council. The 4 best views will be computer modelled to provide for development on those key sites.

The perception is that viewplanes prevent development - which admittedly is largely the case now with the Common view because it is so wide & because the view angle hits the harbour near the shoreline. But, to think about what happens elsewhere, the City of Vancouver has extensive protected viewplanes looking from the south across the city core to the north shore mountains. Have a look - they still allow major projects: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/listing.htm

The hoped for outcome here is balance - to achieve that city staff & council need broad input from varied people & groups. Which is why I'm here, asking people on this forum to attend on Wednesday & help determine what happens! OK, I'll shut up now.

[someone123]

The direction from Council is to look at other view options, while bearing in mind we need to provide for major development opportunities. So, a selection of the best views from the Common (which is used by hundreds a day, & growing) will be presented. Questions we'll ask - What features are appreciated from different parts of the Common? What makes a good view? Is it a wide angle? Are there features within a wide view that can be singled out, to protect a narrow corridor view? People need to tell us what they think - whether there should be no view planes or 10. The input will all be presented to Council. The 4 best views will be computer modelled to provide for development on those key sites.

Something else to consider is that new buildings can easily enhance a view if they are well-designed. Part of the charm of urban views is that they have development. 95% of Nova Scotia has ocean views with no development.

How are you getting answers from people? Are you just asking questions like "is a wider angle good?" or are you showing them pictures of views? Often people don't actually know what they like -- they have an abstract idea that doesn't perfectly model what they like in practice.

Another good exercise that sometimes happens in Vancouver is giving people options within a certain framework. For example, you tell people "given the need to fit 1,000,000 square feet in this area, how would you arrange buildings to get the best view?" Questions like that are far more realistic because they capture actual trade-offs. If your question ignores costs then the answer won't be useful.

It should also be said that many of the Vancouver views that are preserved are also somewhat silly, and Vancouver has a serious housing shortage exacerbated by development restrictions that cut down on the housing supply. I know this first-hand since I live there. The idea of cutting down on downtown building heights to preserve mountain views for example doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- there are tons of unobstructed views of the mountains. Those laws only exist to pander to a very small minority in very specific parts of the city.

[fenwick16]

Since many people living in a city are people who like cities, there will be a large portion of the population who will like going to the Dartmouth Commons and Halifax Citadel Hill to look down on the city. So actually the view of Halifax from the Dartmouth Commons is one that people might enjoy more than the one of George's Island. Also many will like to look down on Dartmouth and see the new towers going up (so the city isn't blocking the view but is a part of the view).

When I lived in Halifax, and a few times when I went back, I would sometimes go up to the Citadel Hill not only to see the fort but also to see the city buildings. I think the most impressive view was the southern view - http://kentsauter.com/images/NovaScotia/Halifax/Halifax-Skyline.jpg (source: http://kentsauter.com/pages/photopages/novascotia2008.html ). This southern view is especially impressive at night. The first time I saw this view, many years ago in the mid 70's, I was awestruck.

Personally, I wish that the viewplane bylaws on both sides of the harbour were abolished so that the municipality could develop naturally and people could view the evolving city with all of its buildings.

[FuzzyWuz]

I've never seen an actual debate about this topic despite the fact that many people receive criminal convictions without having actually caused any damage.

Maybe you don't know what it's like to lose a loved one to a drunk driver. I have no sympathy for someone who gets nailed for being a smidgen over the limit. no sympathy, no respect, no patience, no time. And it's not about restricting someone's right to drink. it's deciding to get behind the wheel. Don't paint it as drinkers rights. I practiced that right till I was in my thirties and realized that I was done with it. Anyone who wants to drink is free to do so. I celebrate your freedom.

[halifaxboyns]

Another good exercise that sometimes happens in Vancouver is giving people options within a certain framework. For example, you tell people "given the need to fit 1,000,000 square feet in this area, how would you arrange buildings to get the best view?" Questions like that are far more realistic because they capture actual trade-offs. If your question ignores costs then the answer won't be useful.

This is very similar to an exercise we did here in Calgary with the Plan It (Municipal Development Plan) during the Plan It summit. There was a select group that attended the 'build it' workshops, where everyone was split into groups with a giant aerial photo of an area and stats on how many people and jobs had to be fit into the area. Two groups (one of which I was in); actually had the area that lost population. But we had pieces we had to fit and we could decide on how we wanted to fit them.

It's a very visual exercise and it gets people thinking and I found it very interesting. I still have pictures of it and I think its still on the Plan It Twitter feed somewhere?

While I appreciate Keith's point of view - consultation is a key part of the process. People may not understand what a viewplane is, but it can be explained in a way that people could understand (either through diagrams or visual models). I think viewplanes have a place in HRM. One of the unique things I like about about home is that some of the views are preserved - it's not about getting big for the sake of being big. Growth has been organic and well organized (for the most part).

I think Mitch's point is well taken, there is a negative note attached to a viewplane but I think it's also made the city very interesting in how it's layed out. Also, for me, I think back to one of Keith's comments about the fact there is little to no demand for office development. So by not having a viewplane, would we really have that many more towers? I don't know.

Personally, I agree with the previous comment about the Brightwood viewplane - there isn't much point. But as Mitch points out the common's use in Dartmouth is growing and with King's Wharf being built, I suspect those numbers will skyrocket as more people move in.

For me, I think the way forward is to remove the viewplane that doesn't work for George's Island, adjust the other common VP so that some development can occur on the CN lands, but the view is maintained from perhaps a few higher points and remove the VP from Brightwood. This opens up the DT for more development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, Brightwood should not have a viewplane... they can already see buildings and its not public land.

[halifaxboyns]

Did anyone make it to this? I'm affraid my flight home didn't get in until just before 10 and I got the days mixed up.

[Jonovision]

There is a survey online for this. It closes on the 6th.

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01367Details.html

Some interesting concepts in there. One of the options is a Varied Building Line viewplane. What a novel idea, a viewplane that lets buildings get built?!

[beyeas]

Thanks for pointing that out! I went and filled it out now.

[someone123]

Awfully vague and leading survey -- they've already chosen their "principles" it looks like!

I do like the idea of the varied building line. One of my problems with the viewplanes is that they create ugly "tabletop" skylines. However, it might not be easy to determine which buildings can be higher than others.

[halifaxboyns]

I have completed the survey as well - i'm not happy about the idea of keeping the brightwood viewplane; regardless if it's a golf course or anything.

[beyeas]

yeah I wasn't a fan of their survey questions, so I made sure to make my views clear (especially in relation to brightwood, and adding any more viewplanes) in the free form comments!

[Dmajackson]

Another report on this project;

http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/documents/10.1.3DowntownDartmouthViewplanes.pdf

[fenwick16]

Another report on this project;

http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/documents/10.1.3DowntownDartmouthViewplanes.pdf

By reading the comments, the option of abolishing the viewplanes seems to be as popular an opinion as any other. However it wasn't mentioned as alternative. It seems as though the choice was made in advance - that viewplanes will be maintained.

Once viewplanes are implemented, it is almost impossible to eliminate them. I realize that viewplanes already exist in Dartmouth, but now is an excellent time to minimize such unnecessary red-tape. I hope that the people involved in this study realize that they are affecting the future development of Dartmouth and that they won't take this responsibility lightly. Is this study being undertaken to appease the minority? As a person stated recently in the a local newspaper, Nova Scotians want to be fair to everyone including the viewpoint of a few people, but democracy means accepting the view of the majority (I have paraphrased it, but I agree completely with their sentiment).

[halifaxboyns]

By reading the comments, the option of abolishing the viewplanes seems to be as popular an opinion as any other. However it wasn't mentioned as alternative. It seems as though the choice was made in advance - that viewplanes will be maintained.

Once viewplanes are implemented, it is almost impossible to eliminate them. I hope that the people involved in this study realize that they are affecting the future development of Dartmouth and that they won't take this responsibility lightly. Is this study being undertaken to appease the minority? As a person stated recently in the newspapers, Nova Scotians want to be fair to everyone including the minority, but democracy means accepting the view of the majority (I have paraphrased it, but I agree completely with their sentiment).

I don't have a problem with maintaining the viewplanes from the Dartmouth Commons, what I had a huge issue with was Brightwood - which is the biggest obsticle to development covering about 80% of downtown Dartmouth.

If you look at the existing viewplanes from the Dartmouth Commons (all excluding Brightwood), the impact is really not much - it covers mainly the low density development down the hill to the waters edge and the railway yards. The potential that CN is ever going to move that railyard so that any other type of development could occur is pretty slim.

If you remove the brightwood viewplane - you open up 80% (or more) of downtown for bigger, better development. If it's a choice between keeping the ones from the Dartmouth Parks and dropping Brightwood (as a compromise), I'm fine with that.

[fenwick16]

I don't have a problem with maintaining the viewplanes from the Dartmouth Commons, what I had a huge issue with was Brightwood - which is the biggest obsticle to development covering about 80% of downtown Dartmouth.

If you look at the existing viewplanes from the Dartmouth Commons (all excluding Brightwood), the impact is really not much - it covers mainly the low density development down the hill to the waters edge and the railway yards. The potential that CN is ever going to move that railyard so that any other type of development could occur is pretty slim.

If you remove the brightwood viewplane - you open up 80% (or more) of downtown for bigger, better development. If it's a choice between keeping the ones from the Dartmouth Parks and dropping Brightwood (as a compromise), I'm fine with that.

Thanks for clarifying that. Based on your explanation, I am ok it with it also.

[halifaxboyns]

Thanks for clarifying that. Based on your explanation, I am ok it with it also.

Well just to clarify, I'm basing my comment on the current viewplanes. From the report, it looks like they may be changing the locations somewhat and clarifying how the view is determined, but the main plus is dropping Brightwood. That, to me, is huge.

So just to clarify how the current viewplanes affect downtown Dartmouth, I've attached a screenshot of the viewplanes from the HRM mapping system. I was apparently wrong about the affect on the low density housing, there is virtually none. The affect is mainly on the rail yards and Alderney Landing. But still, that's not really a big deal because as I said, I doubt CN is moving their rail yard anytime soon.

The big vp from the top is obviously Brightwood. So as I pointed out; a huge amount of downtown opens up with it being removed (I would guess even more than 90% now that I look at it).

Here is the diagram:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6044/5907702592_ea3c71f3f4_b.jpg

[fenwick16]

Well just to clarify, I'm basing my comment on the current viewplanes. From the report, it looks like they may be changing the locations somewhat and clarifying how the view is determined, but the main plus is dropping Brightwood. That, to me, is huge.

So just to clarify how the current viewplanes affect downtown Dartmouth, I've attached a screenshot of the viewplanes from the HRM mapping system. I was apparently wrong about the affect on the low density housing, there is virtually none. The affect is mainly on the rail yards and Alderney Landing. But still, that's not really a big deal because as I said, I doubt CN is moving their rail yard anytime soon.

The big vp from the top is obviously Brightwood. So as I pointed out; a huge amount of downtown opens up with it being removed (I would guess even more than 90% now that I look at it).

Here is the diagram:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6044/5907702592_ea3c71f3f4_b.jpg




Thanks for posting the illustration. Unfortunately, some of the new views being considered (from further back in the Dartmouth Commons) will cover some of the Brightwood views. Hopefully, those alternative views will not be included in the study. Views B and E seem to be the top two candidates and would probably have the least impact on future development.

[halifaxboyns]

That was the other part of my clarification that I didn't post (it was late). I guess we'll have to wait and see what the process does and what views they map. But even if some of the brightwood viewplane gets covered again - if you look at how much it covers, if even 70% becomes 'viewplane free' that's still an impressive amount of area.

[beyeas]

HRM ponders view from Dartmouth park
CBC News Posted: Jul 8, 2011 9:11 AM AT

Dartmouth councillors are taking steps to protect the view of Halifax harbour from the Dartmouth Common.

On Thursday, the four politicians on the Harbour East community council selected four view planes to use as a guideline for future developments.

It means people in the park would see the harbour, not a building.

Coun. Gloria McCluskey loves the views from the Common.

"It's beautiful in that Dillman park," she said. "I'm not so fussy about looking over at Halifax. But to look out at the harbour, it's wonderful."

...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/07/08/ns-dartmouth-common-view.html

[Keith P.]

HRM ponders view from Dartmouth park
CBC News Posted: Jul 8, 2011 9:11 AM AT

Coun. Gloria McCluskey loves the views from the Common.

"It's beautiful in that Dillman park," she said. "I'm not so fussy about looking over at Halifax. But to look out at the harbour, it's wonderful."


Gloria may have been joking with her comment about Halifax. But I heard her say it, and she sure didn't SOUND like she was joking. And that parochialism speaks volumes about the problems we face with HRM and our useless council.

[mcmcclassic]

Is there a phobia for "fear of tall (over 3 stories) buildings"? Cause our city seems to have it. Seems smart to put the tall towers on the Dartmouth side- that way Phil Pacey can have his heritage gems not ruined by the sight of change.

[Keith P.]

IIRC, the Paceys under the umbrella of the Heritage Trust opposed the Kings Wharf towers in Dartmouth at the public hearing. Too TALL!!! was their complaint. I believe they may have been the only persons, perhaps with one other naysayer, to speak against it, while the preponderance of speakers were strongly in favor. I believe the HT thinks that seeing tall structures from Citadel Hill is just as bad as having tall structures block said view.

[halifaxboyns]

IIRC, the Paceys under the umbrella of the Heritage Trust opposed the Kings Wharf towers in Dartmouth at the public hearing. Too TALL!!! was their complaint. I believe they may have been the only persons, perhaps with one other naysayer, to speak against it, while the preponderance of speakers were strongly in favor. I believe the HT thinks that seeing tall structures from Citadel Hill is just as bad as having tall structures block said view.

As I recall you maybe mostly correct. I think there were a few cranky old people from the adjacent high density building that opposed it too, but they were obvious nimbys. If memory serves, King's Wharf was given an almost unanimous approval.

The HT trust game on tall buildings has been their standard catch all argument, which more and more progressive minds on council are obviously ignoring. But my feeling on their 'game' is to play it and play it hard. The HT and Bev Miller all argued that Quinpool and Agricola areas are where tall buildings should be, because they wouldn't impact the view. So I say, let's play that game. Do a huge policy and design exercise and let those areas go to 40 stories. Because the Pacey's will be the first ones out to say they are against it, particularly Quinpool - since they live a couple blocks up from it. Then you can firmly establish that they are just a nimby group.

[halifaxboyns]

Well the proposed viewplane changes are now before Harbour East Community Council in this (http://www.halifax.ca/Commcoun/east/documents/HEMDCCpro01367DDViewP130606good.pdf) report. Looks like the Brightwood Viewplane is being blown away and 4 viewplanes from the commons are being retained. Interesting proposal...

[fenwick16]

Well the proposed viewplane changes are now before Harbour East Community Council in this (http://www.halifax.ca/Commcoun/east/documents/HEMDCCpro01367DDViewP130606good.pdf) report. Looks like the Brightwood Viewplane is being blown away and 4 viewplanes from the commons are being retained. Interesting proposal...

It seems as though the Brightwood viewplanes are just being replaced with other viewplanes in order to curb development. Allnovascotia.com interviewed a HRM planner and it seemed evident that the point was to protect Dartmouth from developers.

[Drybrain]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say: I understand the Citadel viewplanes and support them (with some qualifications).

I have NO idea why anyone would consider it important to see George's Island from a golf course in Dartmouth, however.

[ILoveHalifax]

I don't think that many people use the dartmouth Common, that we need to start preserving view plains from there. Why don't we just let people enjoy the views from the towers we could build along the waterfront. This city has too many view plains.

[Keith P.]

It seems as though the Brightwood viewplanes are just being replaced with other viewplanes in order to curb development. Allnovascotia.com interviewed a HRM planner and it seemed evident that the point was to protect Dartmouth from developers.

Yes, because the empty gravel lots and rundown old buildings are such an asset... :???:

[someone123]

I have NO idea why anyone would consider it important to see George's Island from a golf course in Dartmouth, however.

I understand why golfers or the families who used to go tobogganing would like this view to be preserved. Viewplanes like this are fundamentally unbalanced though; they're trading off extremely valuable property rights, development potential, and good planning for a large district so that a comparatively small number of people can have a better view on private property.

The fact that something like that would fly in HRM shows just how messed up the political process at City Hall can be. In some cases decisions come down to 1 or 2 councillors (happened all the time in the Harbour East CC) who may run unopposed or may win with only a couple thousand votes (this may be better now with the larger districts), so special interest groups have a disproportionately large amount of power. If you can get, say, 500 people voting on an issue, you can severely damage a councillor's chances of being re-elected and by extension you can hijack a committee or community council, or even regional council if most councillors don't really care about the issue at hand.

[Empire]

We never seem to have an issue with completely blocking a harbour view with trees.

Trees block harbourview:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.663865,-63.567713&spn=0.000004,0.001813&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=44.663779,-63.56762&panoid=yJrx09QYSfPrgspKrTF6KA&cbp=12,203.23,,0,0