Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns
It can't be just about approving everything - there are going to be times that staff will recommend against, that's just the way it is. They will have their reasons and to be honest, it's been weeks since I read the report.
One option which could've been considered was to approve the amendments, but pass a motion arising that required administration to work with the developer to reduce the mass of the building by x stories. Then when the DA came back if they weren't happy, they could've voted it down.
What I found a bit concerning though was this hang up with zoning. The zoning doesn't matter when a DA is in play. I know of a few examples where uses not normally allowed in zones were approved - there is an apartment building on Springvalle Avenue which is in an R1 zone because council decided to approve a DA there. So the zoning has no meaning...but they were very hung up on this.
|
I don't think HRM should "approve everything". But here is the basis for their rejection. There was no concern over "traffic, wind or shadows" based on studies done. Rather:
Quote:
|
Based upon a detailed review of the site, its low-density surroundings and the existing planning policies and zoning context, it is found that the proposal is too large and is too significant of a change for the area,
|
Source:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...eniors-complex
In other words, because of "low density surroundings" we can't have a slight mid-density development. Freaking 7 storeys, FFS.
Most of the fricking peninsula is low density. How are we EVER going to battle sprawl and meet pathetically low RP urban growth targets where any of these areas are off limits to even the most modest and meager forms of increased density? A freaking seniors complex in an abandoned church.
Just shameful. The entire thing. A clownish, embarrassing, pandering, and shameful excuse for municipal government.
I suppose people have figured out my opinion on this.
