[Halifax] The Johnathan (2600 Beech) | 16 m | 5 fl | Completed
 

Banc Properties has submitted a development application for a former gas station site at 6482 Chebucto Road (in the "tree district" between Elm & Beech). The plan is for a 5-storey mixed-use building consisting of 4'000sq ft of ground floor retail and 40 upper-level residential units. Parking is proposed to be underground and surface accessed via the rear along Beech.

This project will proceed under the LUB Amendment & Development Agreement process. Schedule "L" will first have to be applied to the lands before the DA can be considered for a mixed-use building like this. This process is standard in the North-End though rarer in this neighbourhood.

Case 19660 Details

http://40.media.tumblr.com/6ac7eecdf...dq8o1_1280.png
Halifax Developments Blog (Rendering courtesy of "Building Drawings" in link above)

The rendering for this building is great. This looks to be a great infill project along a major street in central neighbourhood which could benefit from some convenience retail!

About time we saw the site get developed.

I live right across the street from this. ITS TOO TALL!!!!!!

:haha:

Seriously, I think it looks great and have been fantasizing about a development on this long empty lot for years now.

Busy street that has been really abused in recent years by bad development approximately opposite this location. This is also a street that needs widening and I do not see any indication that land has been reserved for that.

The public information meeting will be held May 11th, 2015 at Maritime Hall (7pm, Halifax Forum).

How does the development process work here?
 

As I understand it the as-of-right development allows 3 storeys, and the requested agreement for 5 storeys goes through some kind of approval process. What are the mechanics of that process? How much influence does the public have on the requested variance approval?

I'm kind of disinterested except to be happy to see something being built. It looks like a good mix. The immediate neighbours are really unhappy about going to 5 storeys over the 3 allowed, though. They look at the shadow models and see their currently nice sunny yards in the dark for much of the year. Can't say I blame them.

Expect a lot of opposition for this one. They have their own FB group and everything.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/367894683393160/

Read the ridiculous letters against this on the FB page. Please tell them you don't mind!

All together now:

"It's TOO TALL!!!!"

As a gardener myself, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for those directly affected (although that may actually be just one or two houses). But really, we live in a city, on a main thoroughfare. I'm not too keen on the noise, especially the deadheading buses that seem to constantly parade up and down Chebucto, but I suck it up because- location, baby. We have a walk score of 97/98. We use our car two or three times a week, on the weekends only, mostly.

I THINK the public will have a chance to comment during information sessions and provide input directly to their councillors and planning staff. Those comments get compiled and included in planning staff's report to council. Council will make the call based on staff's professional opinion, comments of the public, and whether or not Gloria McClusky feels like punishing peninsular residents as retribution for projects she feels were unfairly foisted upon Dartmouth.

Went to the public meeting tonight. Along with all of the expected NIMBYism there was a glimmer of hope for this proposal. If the developer can address the onsite parking and the city can address the bad intersection then it might have a fighting chance.
I've been to far worse public meetings.

WSP is the applicant and the Traffic Study is by WSP, and the arrangement seems to be OK with HRM ??
No conflict of interest there at all.

That's not fair, that's not what she said. Her vote reflected her concern that staff are being inconsistent.



Posted Jan 14, 2015, 4:29 PM
Keith P.
Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,703

It doesn't excuse it, but I have noticed that as Gloria has aged, these kind of blunt, unfiltered comments come out of her more often. She was never particularly politically-correct anyway, so now it has just become worse. I have very mixed feelings on her. The opposition to the development on Prince Albert Road a few years ago, and scuttling Brightwood's plans to relocate a few years before that, was simply wrong. But she asks good questions, doesn't usually suffer fools and charlatans, and doesn't fall into the trend-of-the-day buzzword thinking that ones like MasonWatts do. This was a poorly-worded thing to say, but if I had to guess I would translate it into "I don't believe these planners are being consistent".

WSP is an Design/engineering firm who appears to have done all the design work, and filed on behalf of the applicant. given the documents receive review and feedback, all that happens is the comments go back to the design firm instead of the developer directly.

i see no issues with the traffic study.

This isn't uncommon at all. Big firms like Stantec do not only the planning but the architecture/design, urban realm and have qualified traffic engineers that can produce traffic studies.

The applicant typically has a pre-application/consultation with planning staff and an initial review is done. A commencement report with a recommendation is provided to council (either to proceed into the DA process or not). Council can chose one of the two options. If they chose not to enter into the DA process then the process stops and I don't believe there is an appeal.

Typically, Regional Council will chose to enter the DA process which is where the formal evaluation of the application (from City Staff) occurs. It is also during this process that a public information meeting occurs to gather public comments/opinions which form part of the staff report.

Generally if there are concerns with the application the staff would advise the applicant and they are given an opportunity to make changes to the application. If they don't - then the applicant may push forward with what they have and justify why the project stands on it's merits.

If the project changes - staff may go back out to the community and seek further feedback on the refined application (another public meeting). If the changes are minor, then they may chose to go forward without this option.

A staff report is put together and forwarded either to Regional Council (if there are amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy or Regional Plan) to facilitate the application or Community Council if policy to facilitate the DA area already in place. Staff can recommend approval or refusal of the proposed amendments/DA. Usually the first process is council deciding whether to hold a public hearing - in some cases they have defeated applications at this point, but typically they go to a public hearing.

When the public hearing is held council has a number of options - they can approve/refuse the application or send it back to staff for changes or further work. If an MPS amendment is involved, Regional Council must approve the MPS amendments and the Minister must sign them into law before the DA can come forward.

Eventually the DA would go to Community Council for approval. In most cases if there is a combined MPS/DA - a joint public hearing is held at Regional Council. If the DA doesn't require any policy amendments (the Policy is already in place) then a public hearing is held at the Community Council level.

There is no appeal to a decision of Regional Council to amend an MPS (I may be wrong on this?)...but there is a right of appeal on a DA approval/refusal. Depending on who decides the application (regional versus community council) reasons for refusal must be provided.

I may be missing pieces in the steps - I just did this from observation and memory.

I don't know that it's unfair. It's definitely what was reported. She has never (to my knowledge) clarified

Quote attributed to Waye Mason in his op ed piece in the Chronicle Herald: "... said she was voting for [the proposal] necause bad development in Dartmouth had been approved and 'now it's Halifax's turn.'" http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion...munity-council

Described as "Revenge Vote": https://www.halifaxjournal.com/2015/...t-development/

Not fair to protect HRM's citizens who aren't in a position to vote for her: "... city planners approved buildings that didn’t fit the guidelines in Dartmouth, [therefore] she couldn’t vote against it and face her residents."
http://m.news957.com/2015/01/14/city...t-development/

Voted out of "spite"
http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...d-out-of-spite

Bottom line - whether it was spite or because staff were "inconsistent" she felt it was a poor development and supported it anyway.

Herald letters to the editor today:

DEVELOPING STORY IN HRM | YOUR LETTERS