[Halifax] MR Apartments (5665 Roberts) | 24 m | 8 fl | Completed
 

This proposal has been mentioned previously but it is now official. W.M. Fares Group has submitted an application for 2480 Maynard Street. The plan as detailed in the link below is to construct a 7-storey plus penthouse mixed-use building along Roberts and Maynard Streets. There will be 70 unts ranging from bachelor to live/work to 2 bdr+den penthouses. 3'000sq ft of commercial space along Roberts and two levels of parking accessed off of Maynard. The automotive repair shop at the corner will not be included in this project.

Case 19353 Initiation Report

*************************

IMO this project will blend in well with the neighbourhood while removing one of many blights on that block. 8 storey is the tallest in the immediate area however it will have minimal negative impacts and its location in the middle of a growing area on a moderately busy street calls for high density like this proposal.

Looks nice. Among the better ones planned for the area.

It'll be a strange clash, though, when this is finished and that Autopro is still occupying the corner, nestled right into the new building. At least Fares is planning on the eventual redevelopment of that site with a townhouse.

I know this area very well.
The whole block would have been well served if HRM had purchased the cabinet shop, the crappy auto and sign properties and the corner piece which was in poor condition until a new auto repair outlet took the place of the previous run down operation. A lot of the dross from Roberts to Charles could have been cleared out, cleaned up and then put out for proposals with a requirement for a development/s with a component of affordable housing for low income citizens.
Savage and his colleagues need to get serious about providing housing for people who presently rent private near-slums.

I am glad to see private developers continuing to redevelop derelict areas of the North End. I imagine that long time residents are benefiting from a more pleasant streetscape.

Luckily the concept of providing publicly subsidized housing in the North End is generally an idea from the distant past.

I'll settle for privately subsidised housing in the North End or anywhere else in metro. I believe those filthy socialists in the country adjacent to Canada have significant experience in the provision of such housing and have chosen to require the provision of such housing in private developments.
But then again, the Yanks have always been greater innovators than Canadians.

And yet you chose to live in Canada vs the US. We must have something going for us...

Are there not buildings in Halifax with provisions for low-cost housing? Did I dream this? Seems to me there's a large part of a thread on this site about that very topic.

Maynard is going to look a lot different in 5 years! Exciting times in the North End.

My understanding is that to qualify for density bonusing (ie. maximum height, etc) any residential building in the HRMbD area has to offer some form of affordable housing (I think the "grandfathered" developments on Barrington are exempt). I'm not sure how "affordable" is defined in this context, but I think it means that rent has to be X% below the average rent for apartments within a certain radius of the development.

I'm not sure if this applies outside of the HRMbD area yet, but I think the intent is that eventually it will.

So last Proposal for the year, I was wondering what it would be though I thought this one was already ago. I wonder if this the last one for this section for quite some time, it would be been nice if a similar development was put forward for the cyclesmith/NLC building, I find its odd they chose to build a one story box for that project

They didn't build a box; they renovated an existing 1960s box.

My career opportunity arose in Canada.
My comment was a reference to certain cities in the US which require any development to provide a percentage of units for lower income persons. The developer doesn't pick the units and doesn't pick the tenant/s - a seperate agency makes such decisions. In a condo the owners of units would't know which units were occupied by low income persons.
It was suggested to me, by a representative of a developer, that such a provision in HRM would be acceptable if it applied to all developments.
HRM has chosen to ignore such a provision and prefers to barter for the ill defined ' public benefit'.
At City Hall 'Be Bold' is regarded as a slogan, not a call to action.

I think you'll find everyone on here is in agreement with you on this.

I could be wrong, but I thought that in at least parts of Halifax, this is the approach. It's not necessarily required by law, but strongly encouraged, and many new developments (ie. the Mary Ann) do include such provisions. There are also developments such as the Bloomfield redevelopment and the two HTNS projects on Gottingen where affordable housing makes up a large percentage of the total.

Also worth noting that housing is technically a provincial responsibility. The province has recently launched a number of programs to support low-income households and the landlords of buildings requiring extensive repairs so that they do not have to (/cannot) raise rents to pay for the repairs.

You would be wrong.

There is no rationale for "affordable" housing units on SGR, Young Avenue, or any number of other high-end areas. Those occupants would stick out like sore thumbs and significantly devalue the saleability of the other units in the development. Perhaps we should do "poor doors" as has been done in NYC and other areas where property values are through the roof to keep the affordable units and their occupants well-separated from those paying market price.

One solution to this might be to give developers the option of either providing below-market units or paying the market value of those units into a fund that can be used for other affordable housing projects, like the Housing Trust of NS buildings planned for Gottingen Street. Incidentally, those have taken years to get off the ground because of a lack of funding and approval issues. The biggest threat to affordable housing in most expensive Canadian cities is NIMBYism. Housing here in Vancouver costs a fortune because 80% of the city is off the table when it comes to intensification through redevelopment. There's a lot of contention for that remaining 20%, so most people can't afford it. The suburban and exurban areas meanwhile are often not so great for low income people because they basically require private vehicles. Even in Halifax the situation is pretty bad; rather than building more apartments on the peninsula the poor people get to live in areas like Spryfield and Sackville and rely on terrible bus service. The only good thing is that the far-flung areas in Halifax are a 40 minute bus ride rather than a 1.5 hour bus ride.

I do think the idea of mixing people of different incomes does make some sense, but you also get more bang for your buck building affordable housing in areas with lower property values. Even the units developers are forced to build are not "free" -- affordable housing units cost developers more in the higher-end neighbourhoods and that income can be redirected into affordable housing.

The Mary Anne project :

September 2012 : Recommend that the Development Officer accept, as the post-bonus height public benefit for the development, the provision of residential units at a subsidized cost to contribute to housing affordability.

July 2013 : Recommend that the Development Officer accept, as the post-bonus height public benefit for the development, the provision of public parking facilities. :
" The proposal from the developer to provide an additional 71 spaces over the two sites far exceeds the LUB’s minimum public benefit requirement which would account for a total of between 5 and 7 spaces. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Regional Council adopt, by resolution, the bonus zoning agreement as provided in “Attachment A” of this report for the mixed-used development bounded by Queen, Clyde and Birmingham Streets in Halifax. "
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0730ca1016.pdf
Businesses on SGR wanted the parking spaces.

From the July 30 2013 Council minutes :
" Cllr Mason ....He advised that the developer will maintain the commitment under the terms of sale, that there will be a percentage of housing that will be below market cost. He clarified that since there is no provincial program that would provide subsidy support to low income housing on the site, there was a need to find an alternative to allow the bonus zoning.
In response to a question from Councillor McCluskey, Mr. Audas advised that there would be approximately 10 units of affordable housing in the development. "
The documents do not appear to contain a promise to provide such units.
Perhaps Cllr. Mason can provide a more complete answer. The letter from Fares contains no mention of any 'public benefit' other than parking.

Partially correct. Density bonusing, when it comes, in the Centre Plan area must be accompanied by affordable housing. The city has no choice there as the amendments to the charter passed by the NDP said affordable housing must be part of the mix. In the Downtown Secondary Plan (what we often call HRMbyDesign), density bonusing can be for any number of things. Affordable housing is just one of them. So far, the uptake from developers has been good on a lot of the other categories, but not on the affordable housing side. Not sure if they just don't want to include affordable units in their developments or its the problem of defining affordable on the city side or if it's a combination of both. So far, it seems ineffective and my hunch is developers aren't interested in doing it.

I think density bonusing for affordable housing is a good idea, but it seems unlikely that it will make a substantial contribution to affordability in Halifax. I'm not convinced that compelling developers to include affordable units would be the best approach either. We're not Vancouver. The scale of development is obviously a lot smaller here and the profits earned are less as well. Really, I think the city and province need to get back into actually creating affordable housing. Take the development of the old Sobeys site on Gottingen. That's been in the works for years now and, my understanding, is project financing has been one of the hurdles. What if there had been a city fund to help? What if it had planning priority? If the city had a revolving fund to loan money to non-profits who want to build housing and prioritized affordable projects in the planning queue, that would likely do a lot more than density bonusing or trying to force developers into building units. Just my two cents anyway.

Isn't the Jono St. Pats-Alexandra development 10 or 15% aforable houseing as part of their deal

You should know that what your suggesting is out of date since 1996. Municipalities in Nova Scotia have no role in building affordable housing beyond planning. This was changed when the Municipal Reform Act was adopted around the same time as amalgamation.

Housing NS is responsible for purchasing land and building/subsidizing affordable housing. Halifax does planning, so you see things like Bloomfield Master Plan that required a large affordable housing component.

By 'providing' I was referring to using the planning process.

We don't know how profitable the development industry has been. We don't know if they pay federal income tax, which is quite legal, but until HRM gets serious about negotiating we will never know just how profitable they are and how much we can extract in the way of benefits. A bit late now - the market is terrible, maybe more developers will have to use a subsidiary to buy up and mortgage their unsold units.
When I worked for the province I read several years of an annual report before sitting down with an oil company, rig company, supply vessel company representative. The Yanks were fine, the Canadians were much more arrogant.

Wait. So in the coming Centre Plan, there will be *no* density bonusing for proposals-- for example, no greater height allowances-- for *any* reason unless affordable housing is also a part of the proposal? Even if many other public benefits are included... no density bonusing?

I support affordable housing, but this seems like a blockheaded idea for a city that has struggled to promote even a meager amount of development on the Peninsula for decades.

Has there been even a modest study on the impact such a requirement might have on development in the Centre Plan area, especially since developers have, for obvious reasons, been hesitant from offering it in the HRMxD covered core?

The obvious reason is what someone123 mentioned earlier: NIMBYism. I mean, the SpiritPlace proposal was basically killed by northend NIMBYs because they feared it might bring young people and single moms to the neighborhood even though it was essentially a development for seniors (particularly in the BGLAD community).

If you are going to make affordable housing a part of EVERY development via density bonusing, then you better not be killing proposals based on lame/hare brained "public consultation" sessions where three people show up with placards to harangue the developer and strongarm community councils.

Thanks to you and Hali87 for bringing more clarity to this issue. :tup:

That's interesting, Colin. Which cities are these? Are they comparable to Halifax in size and population?

This is what happens when people elect left-leaning NDP council members like MasonWatts. We get the govt we deserve.

The optimist believes that we live in the best of all possible worlds;
the pessimist fears this is true. ;)

Planners have more knowledge than I and often give US cities/municipalities as examples. Such rules also include provision of housing for those with disabilities. We have to figure out how to maintain diversity of the population without pushing certain groups out of the urban core.
Time for HRM to bring together developers, planners and citizens in a public forum longer than a few hours. Waiting for the province or the feds is not the answer.

Here is a good link : http://wcel.org/density-bonus

" In many cases, a non-profit housing organization takes over the management of bonus dwelling units designated for non-market housing. For example, a 62-unit project in Sidney included the construction of six non-profit units in exchange for two of the market units. The non-profit units were allocated to the Capital Region Housing Corporation. "

and this paper :http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/u...line_final.pdf

http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/index....=%2Findex.aspx

and here : http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publicati...o/socio046.pdf

Thanks! :tup:

So council ok'd this to move forward, but there was some discussion about whether or not there should be a neighbourhood-specific set of planning rules. I didn't pay attention to council yesterday, but my second-hand gleanings are:

Watts, it seems, felt it was too big, and wanted to slow things down and look at instituting a set of design standards specifically for this area. I’m not sure why that would be desirable, since this area will soon be covered under the centre plan.

The Karsten and other councillors went on the offensive and the other extreme, saying that context is unimportant and saying “yes” to development is.

I wouldn’t agree with either of those perspectives (context is always important, but I think this project fits great in its context).

If anyone listened to the council stream or has any insight into this, I’d be curious to know any more, especially about Watts’ rationale for a local set of planning rules, or why some councillors deemed the project too dense. (I know a lot of people would dogpile on that notion, but six storeys on a residential side street IS quite significant, and would be considered pretty big in any city in the country. I've got no problem with it though.)

I'd like to think there's a higher rationale for Watts' suggestion but from what I've seen she's a classic BANANA councillor -- there is always one or excuse or another for why something shouldn't be built on the peninsula. Her opposition is not limited to projects on residential side streets.

I bet if someone came along with a proposal to build a 2 storey rowhouse development (with vinyl siding and faux brick) Watts would be ecstatic. It's all about that HUMAN scale with her it seems...

Honestly why fight every god damn development that comes through here? I bet if this were proposed in St. Catherine's or London (comparably sized cities to Halifax), there wouldn't be nearly the uproar. We are truly lucky that developers even bother building lots of stuff here because of the way the (vocal) public and council often treat them.

Oh there would definitely be opposition, guaranteed.

In fact, in London, they oppose three-storey buildings in the city centre..

In St. Catharines, four storeys gets their ire up, and council kowtows.

How many times must I insist that Halifax isn't uniquely anti-development before people believe me? Really, the degree of NIMBYism and opposition seen here is completely normal for any city. Visit the other local forums and read all the folks on there complaining about the same thing we complain about here.

In fact, on Ossington Avenue in Toronto (a major inner-city commercial street in a dense, city-centre neighbourhood) residents actually pushed recently for exactly what it sounds like Watts is advocating—a localized planning rulebook that would result in scaled-down projects. The local councillor championed it, and it was successfully passed.

What I'm curious to know is if anyone watched the meeting or has a sense of the particulars of the discussion. I don't understand what Watts was proposing because I just saw a few tweets about it. assume I would disagree with her on this, but I want to know the particulars of her argument before I decide...

Any quotes to support this assertion? Spirit Place was very explicitly aimed at retirees... were there honestly people who claimed that students and single moms would be living there? Everyone I know in the area who opposed the project opposed it because of its height, or because they wanted to see the church building preserved and reused.

I think NIMBYism/developer ambivalence is a major reason why affordable housing is required for density bonusing under the Centre Plan. If it was an option, and no developers wanted to do it, then there would be no affordable housing being built in the core, aside from the occasional non-profit project. This way, the affordable housing is (in theory) distributed geographically and if ALL new developments need to do it, then it's not as big a deal. It creates a culture in which people who move into new buildings do so knowing that not all of the people who live around them will be in their income bracket. I don't see anything wrong with this - I think (hope?) that the "people with money should not have to be exposed to people with less money" sentiment is exaggerated and that most people here do not think like this.

That said, I wish developers had the option to contribute into a fund for transit and AT infrastructure, either as an alternative to affordable housing, or as a separate bonus. This would increase the overall affordability of an area as well, because individual transportation costs could be lower.

Those were some solid examples of NIMBYism indeed. I get that we are no different than anywhere else in terms of NIMBYs, but I just don't understand what people want overall in a city in terms of density.

A big stink gets made over infill on the Penninsula, yet no one bats an eye (including council) when a bigger, taller, denser development is proposed in the suburbs (Mount Royale, Larry Uteck for example). Honestly those types of communities are what kill city centers - why aren't more people fighting them? The answer? They're usually not in anyone's backyard...

I guess there are fewer people around out there, and developments aren't right up against other people's property?

I know what you mean though—it does feel backwards to have 12-20 storey buildings going up on suburban arterials running our of town, and yet have spitting matches over the equivalent of walk-ups in the inner city. There were a few comments on social media referring to the Roberts/Maynard project indicating that "not all density is good density." This is true—that's what Frank Gehry's desire to drop three 80-90 storey towers onto one block of downtown Toronto is probably not such a hot idea. Locally, Skye would've been too much density in one place, in relation to the local market. (Not so much that it would've been too much density, but it would've dried up the condo market in other parts of town due to all the units it would've brought on-market).

But this is a low-rise infill project. It's at the tall end for a low-rise, but it's not like it's slamming extreme intensification down into a low-density area. It's a moderately dense project in the urban core. Which is why I'm curious to understand the rationale behind a neighbourhood-specific planning regime, and why the centre plan isn't considered sufficient...

Re: SpiritPlace - just go back and read that thread. Here's a great quote from Alp, who attending all public hearings:

Emphasis added mine. If some people are *explicit* in stating bigoted concerns about single moms, how much of the broader NIMBY sentiment might just be as bigoted, but implicit or veiled? How much of NIMBYism stated as being about these bizarre concerns about wind, shadows, height, but, in reality, are really about bigoted views on certain "unsavoury" groups moving into the neighborhood of wealthy property owners? I think you'd be naive not to realize a lot of NIMBYism is really a product of such attitudes. If you "burst into tears" about a new proposal but do not articulate the reason for your tears, I bet you all the money in your pockets it's because the person is ashamed of saying, explicitly, the true reason for those tears; they don't want to suffer the socia stigma of anti-BGLAD, anti-seniors, anti-single-mom, or anti-whatever they oppose...

As for the rest, I am also supportive of public housing and understand your reasoning about why you'd make it mandatory and no an option (for NIMBYism). But then, that only works if you don't ensure that entire developments are killed due to NIMBY concerns. Unfortunately, this has happened plenty in this city. Spirit Place is just one clear and obvious example.

Well, I have a feeling somebody who can't keep it together without bawling at a municipal planning meeting has some deeper issues. There are definitely some characters who show up to these things. I'd like to think the anti-single mother sentiment is a fringe thing.

The "I'll know it when I see it" attitude around density is problematic because people don't tend to clearly articulate what they want or what they think would be workable. There is no reasonable way for developers to make these people happy. This is my biggest complaint about Watts. Maybe I've just missed it, but she doesn't seem to have a vision for the urban core that works for anybody but current homeowners.

This human scale thing keeps coming up and to me is a non-starter. Human scale isn't just about the height of the building - it's about the design of the building at the street level (the street wall height, the uses at grade and how well the building blends with the street).

So you can have a 4 storey building (which some might say is human scale in terms of height) but I would argue isn't because the interface at the street and uses there are poorly designed and create blank walls or dead space. So really - why is it being discussed? My issue with the 'process' for planning applications is why even debate whether this should be evaluated at this point at all?

I'm not sure if this is the process (if I'm wrong, please advise) but as I understand it - you pay your fee and then administration does an 'initial review' and then recommends to council whether it should proceed. Council can say no and that's it - no go and I don't think applicants get their money back. That to me, seems wrong - the current process gives Council 3 'kicks' at the can to say no if that is the majority will. Initial application, 1st reading and then at public hearing. The only benefit (to council) of the ability to say no at initial application is that I don't believe it's appealable by the applicant.

To me - if you submit an application, there shouldn't be any initial application - it should just begin and be fully reviewed and go through the negotiation process. If there are complaints of how long DA's take - take this part out of the process. Council can still say no at 1st reading and at public hearing - so what is the impact of taking away the initiation report? Plus, staff resources are used more efficiently.

In terms of Watt's comments for the general area - this is an area where, to me, having any single detached dwellings is a bad idea. This should be an area where parcel consolidation is encouraged and rezoning to some level of multi occurs (particularly the houses along Woodwill and Harris). The tallest, most intense stuff should front to Agricola, with shorter as you get towards the block before Gottingen. 8 stories in terms of the existing context around there isn't out of the realm of possibility considering its all mainly 4 storey apartment buildings and older commercial/industrial uses.

You haven't missed her vision, because she really doesn't have one. She has a re-election strategy, not a vision. She just opposes every proposed development at every stage, at all times. I think she's decided that it's a winning re-election formula and just sticks with it.

And, unfortunately, she does keep winning.

And when a councillor is so cluelessly single-minded, then they become polarizing. Such an approach polarizes more fair-minded councillors, making them angry and more "pro-development" than they would otherwise be. And the happy compromise in the middle is lost.

Watts creates the same problems that the NS Anti Development Trust causes -- they oppose every single development, and so developers do not consult with them, or try to work out a compromise. They know that any such efforts will be useless. And so, developers are polarized against the Trust and also heritage issues more generally, and so a proper compromise is lost. It's more productive to sue and humiliate the Trust, because you cannot work with them. They will sue you and oppose you no matter what steps you take to preserve heritage.

I'm pretty sure the point of Centre Plan is that projects that meet the criteria (and are within the designated corridors) get approved more or less automatically. Similar principle to the HRMbD (CP is technically just another phase of HRMbD).

That being said, Windsor Street is not one of the corridors that the original Centre Plan was looking at. I think the goal is to have the to-be-adopted version be more comprehensive and cover the whole core region, but one of the underlying principles is that intensification will be greatly facilitated on some streets but strongly discouraged on most.

She was asking for a delay whilst the centre plan is put together and citizens ahve a chance to help decide what a neighbourhood looks like.
Such a project would be met with a resounding NO in Toronto and a resounding YES if on a main thoroughfare.
Too many of the councillors are of a mind to approve anything - and they live in an R-1 zone. They are adherents of "Build it and they will come. More development means more taxes. Just build anything, except where I live"

A very simplistic view of Cllr Watts and a view which ignores the recommendations of the planning staff.
What was the point of HbD if a speculator can agree to purchase/purchase a property outside the HbD boundary and then convince a council to change the rules and then build a property that would not be allowed under HbD ?
Most businesses like a certain degree of certainty when making investment decisions.
In this case,and any other case which is outside Hbd, the investor is competing against investors with property inside the area of HbD. If others get the same deal the densification outside HbD will be cheaper and defeat the purpose of HbD ?
Development in HRM is now akin to the wild west - anything goes. The councillors outside the core want these developments so they can then vote to get money for their districts. dalrymple and Hendsbee want HRM to spend millions on new water lines to parts of their districts and want all taxpayers to pay for the expansion - in effect bailing out sprawl in areas where the water supply is meagre or tainted.

Drybrain, it's entirely possible that Halifax is not "unique" in its NIMBYism-- I'm not yet entirely convinced, but open to the idea-- but I think there's a big difference in how effective NIMBYism is, in stopping developments in Halifax, as compared to Toronto.

We don't have hard numbers to compare (proposals stopped in Toronto vs Halifax) but my sense is it is quite rare for NIMBY hecklers to truly kill a proposal in Toronto if it has the support of city planners.

Normally, city planners support proposals unless they are uniquely invasive or precedent setting (like the Mirvish proposal).

Here's why the process is different: in Toronto, if it makes it to the Ontario Municipal Board (which, unlike NSUARB, has a rep for being developer friendly and approving most proposals that get to it) you can only appeal a decision of the OMB, if the board made an error of law. That's typically not what's at stake in a planning decision. It's usually a question of fact-- based on expert opinions, etc.

By contrast, according to the UARB FAQ, you can appeal the UARB to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, depending on how you'd like to challenge. Each of those court decisions, could lead to further appeals, cross appeals, further motions, etc, etc. The Supreme Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal to the SCC. That can take years to settle.

So in Halifax, the whole problem with the traditional DA process, was the risk, from the get go, that you could be tied up in litigation for years and years, fighting a well funded / wealthy / faux outrage machine, like wealthy Sound End property owners and their various advocacy vehicles, whether its the Heritage Committee, Heritage Foundation, STV, Friends of whatever they are friends with this week.

The appeals process in Toronto/Ontario is much, much, more limited. Without a question of law problem, you're not going anywhere. And if you can get the city planners to approve, your chances are pretty good. It's the difference between development certainty and development chill.

Yes, exactly.


I think we've discussed this here before, but I do disagree with this--the endgame here is the elimination of the historical housing fabric of the North End, which would be a disaster. Halifax only has a handful of good, intact historical neighbourhoods. There's so much room for peninsular and near-peninsular intensification that I don't think this is necessary, and I think it has the potential to ruin the process of incremental improvement that's already brought the neighbourhood quite far from its nadir. And if this actually happened (Agricola lined with eight-storey buildings and four-six storey buildings elsewhere) would make it the denses residential neighbourhood in Canada, probably--denser than the Plateau, but without the historical interest. I don't think it would be for the best.

In any case, as the neighbourhood becomes less renter-oriented and more homeowner-filled, it won't happen anyway because block consolidation will be increasingly difficult.

Yeah, but by the time something gets to the OMB it's probably been in the approvals/appeals stage for several years, and the OMB has a bad reputation for running roughshod over local council decisions. No one, as far as I can recall, really likes the OMB unless it rules in their favour.

And while it's rare for citizen opposition to truly kill proposals in TO, when those proposals fall within planning guidelines, but it's certainly not unheard of.

And it's rare here too, isn't it? When a project is legal and conforming to zoning, I can't think of many situations where it's been kiboshed. I can think of a bunch of situations, though, where council has permitted developers to exceed zoning. So I think it's a bad rap Halifax gets.

Spirit Place is a good example to the contrary though.

But in Toronto, first you have to meet with the councillor and the residents and lay out what community benefits you will provide to the adjacent community or how much money you will provide for projects in the community. The councillor decides how and where the money will be spent, whereas in Halifax the money gets shipped out of the adjacent community. And that is why there are so few appeals in Toronto. the developers know who they have to deal with and know the rules are the same for everyone. In HRM it's "Approve everything, we need the money"
If HRM council is willing to support such a process I am sure many people will be happy.

Read this :

" Mr. Ford dive-tackled a proposal to support an office-residential-retail tower in Adam Vaughan’s downtown ward. City staff recommended rejecting the original proposal; Mr. Vaughan put forward a motion to support a revised version of the proposal which, among other things, would put $1-million into city coffers for infrastructure work in the neighbourhood.

The mayor was not impressed.

“It’s wrong for him to be asking developers for this money,” he said. “If staff says ‘no,’ and the local councillor jumps in and says, ‘Hold on, partner. Gimme a million dollars and we’ll put it through council,’ why have staff ? ”

Negotiations for the $1-million, as well as other concessions such as changes to the building design, were done under Section 37, a piece of provincial legislation that allows for the city to negotiate community benefits in exchange for more height or density in a development than would otherwise not be allowed. Both Mr. Ford and his brother, councillor Doug Ford, have criticized the process in the past, characterizing it as an unfair way to exact cash from developers. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5832154/

That only happens for projects involving Section 37 though, which is just density bonusing by another name. Most projects don't involve a consideration of localized benefits, but are just approved or not approved based on planning principles for the zoning in question. Ford opposed section 37 because he's an ignoramus who doesn't understand anything about proper planning.

It's true though, I think, that some Haligonians and councillors have the mentality that we should rubber-stamp everything, no questions asked, which is silly. If TO council denies a development application, the Star isn't running an editorial the next day about how the city is chasing developers away and ruining the city.

Adam Vaughan and two other councillors raked in over $75 million, more than half the section 37 money, for their districts. In Toronto the density bonusing money doesn't get spent across the city. If we had the same rules here councillors may be more thoughtful about approving projects.

http://www.thegridto.com/life/real-estate/adam-vaughan/

Ha--I helped to edit that piece. (I worked at The Grid before it bellyflopped into oblivion last year like the rest of the print-media world).

But yeah, you're right that section 37 funds stay in the wards they're in. This actually can be detrimental, however--in Toronto, the city has been somewhat too reliant on section 37 funds to pay for basic stuff. Adam Vaughan's ward is one of the wealthiest wards in the city, and also home to a a disproportionate amount of the city's large developments. Which mean this his ward was raking in huge amounts section 37 cash, while wards in which residents were struggling to get basic services met got almost nothing. So it's not a perfect solution--it has the potential to exacerbate existing social inequalities within the city.

I think if the developer is providing a tangible benefit--streetscaping, public art, a playground, etc--in exchange for added density or a variance of some kind, it's logical to put that in the community affected.

But when it's cash, I think it makes sense to put it in a general pool for use city-wide. Otherwise you end up in a situation where there's a ridiculous amount of money to spend in one or two areas that are really popular with developers, and the you only have crumbs for other areas. We are all one city, after all.

Thank you! :cheers:

I think HRMxD has provided some development certainty in the core, but everything outside of it-- which must go by the traditional DA process-- it's a much different story. Outside the HRMxD zone, I don't think it's rare at all. The front cover of MetroNews is another example -- the latest Wellington proposal is being strongly opposed by NIMBYs. I bet it'll also die, like the last one.

The reason why NIMBYism is so effective outside the HRMxD area, is that we have zoning and planning rules that haven't been updated for almost half a century, so they offer no incentives or accommodation for more recent planning objectives -- density, density bonusing, etc-- and more modern development proposals. And, most importantly, since zoning and planning rules are so out of date, every single new proposal beyond a single unit house requires an MPS/LUB amendment to proceed.

That means, the amendment must be approved by Council-- which itself is subject to NIMBY pandering-- and also the DA must approved too, and the DA must go to community councils, where they can be killed by a majority (4 out of 6 votes, and the DA is dead). And, what is more, community councils have councillors local to the NIMBYhood and are thus more likely to pander to NIMBY complaints.

This forum is littered with killed developments due to NIMBY complaints. They're not hard to find.

Yeah, but that's non-conforming with the zoning, so that's a different issue. It bet that in most cities, a developer wouldn't have even bothered to bring it forward at that height. It probably will be quashed, but I don't think the outcome would be different in another city. (One difference with HFX and other cities that I've found is that developers are constantly bringing forward proposals in blatant excess of zoning. Then when they're shot down, we cry NIMBY. Skye is like the uber-example.)

But you're right in that the uncertainty around rules makes this possible, because sometimes these projects get approved. And the frustrating counter-example is that developers can do everything right, and still get their projects killed if a small group of people decided to raise a fuss about it.

But I think I have to brush up of my knowledge of local zoning before I get any deeper into this, though... the limits of my knowledge are being reached.