[Dartmouth] Bridge Tower (30 Pelzant) | ? m | 11 FL | U/C

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

Is it not harmful if developers do not follow development agreements?

I meant the physical structure itself being damaging or unsafe. The developer can be punished financially without wasting the construction. I think the important thing is to make sure the incentives are correct (i.e., don't allow people to profit from breaking rules).

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

I say make the developer rent the top 2 floors at affordable rates for a looooooog time. It has to be something that would scare developers enough to ot to do it again

The City should ask the Province how many clients they have in the old Doubletree at the Macdonald entrance. Transfer those clients to say three floors and I bet Developers would get the message and the Doubletree Lives as a viable business. Again.

[Colin May]

Has any developer in HRM so deliberately flouted the permit ? So he tries to keep the 2 floors and then use a CMHC subsidy to offer to use the top 2 floors for I BR unita at $1,247 per month.
No developer in HRM has ever so clearly and deliberately flouted the agreement/law.
Where were the professional consultants during this mess and who were the engineers and planners who allowed this to occur ?
Did the proponent change consultants and where is the paper trail in the consultants, the developer, the developers lawyers ?
This sort of wilfully breaking the law has to be haevily fined.
This is the kid of nonsense you usually find in 3rd world countries, seen it first hand.

[JET]

Originally Posted by someone123

I meant the physical structure itself being damaging or unsafe. The developer can be punished financially without wasting the construction. I think the important thing is to make sure the incentives are correct (i.e., don't allow people to profit from breaking rules).

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification.

[eastcoastal]

Yikes. What a mess. I found the timeline included in the staff report to be helpful...

Originally Posted by Colin May

... Where were the professional consultants during this mess and who were the engineers and planners who allowed this to occur ?...

I'm not sure who the consultants were/are - but the Developer applied to construct the additional floors. That application presumably would have required drawings prepared by professionals. No professional responsibility issue I can think of when it comes to preparing drawings to support an application. However, that application was rejected, and construction happened anyway.

The report says that on Nov 20, 2024, the developer told staff the additional floors were under construction. Staff visited the site and confirmed this on Dec 5. On Dec 16, HRM issued an "Order to Comply," which I assume means that the developer was told to stop work. According to the report, the order was subsequently revised to allow work on the lower, permitted, floors as well as to stabalize formwork, which sounds like a safety issue.

The report says that the developer claims it was an accident that led to the additional floors being constructed - they didn't understand the LUB requirements. I'm not sure of the details, but I'm trying to wrap my head around how someone who doesn't understand the LUB requirements submits an application to ammend those requirements. Surely, they'd need to understand enough to ask for an exception? They were also told that what they proposed could not be done and the LUB requirements wouldn't be changed. I guess I'd have to see the actual communications to understand how vague they were.

Originally Posted by Colin May

... This sort of wilfully breaking the law has to be haevily fined.
This is the kid of nonsense you usually find in 3rd world countries, seen it first hand.

Agreed. Of the two options proposed, I don't see how HRM could possible let it remain as-is. That's a really clear signal to developers that they can do whatever they want.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Yikes. What a mess. I found the timeline included in the staff report to be helpful...


I'm not sure who the consultants were/are - but the Developer applied to construct the additional floors. That application presumably would have required drawings prepared by professionals. No professional responsibility issue I can think of when it comes to preparing drawings to support an application. However, that application was rejected, and construction happened anyway.

The report says that on Nov 20, 2024, the developer told staff the additional floors were under construction. Staff visited the site and confirmed this on Dec 5. On Dec 16, HRM issued an "Order to Comply," which I assume means that the developer was told to stop work. According to the report, the order was subsequently revised to allow work on the lower, permitted, floors as well as to stabalize formwork, which sounds like a safety issue.

The report says that the developer claims it was an accident that led to the additional floors being constructed - they didn't understand the LUB requirements. I'm not sure of the details, but I'm trying to wrap my head around how someone who doesn't understand the LUB requirements submits an application to amend those requirements. Surely, they'd need to understand enough to ask for an exception? They were also told that what they proposed could not be done and the LUB requirements wouldn't be changed. I guess I'd have to see the actual communications to understand how vague they were.



Agreed. Of the two options proposed, I don't see how HRM could possible let it remain as-is. That's a really clear signal to developers that they can do whatever they want.

The noise from demolishing the columns would be a nuisance to the neighbours for up to 121 days. The idea that completion should go ahead and then the space used for CMHC financially supported 'low income.' 1 bedroom apartments for 10 years at $1.247 a month a should be rejected. The developer/s should to be barred from HRM and any professional consultants involved in this should be disciplined.
Leave the pillars in place as a reminder to consultants and developers that rules are not to be ignored.
Premier Houston would be well advised to stay out of this issue other than to deplore the blatant flouting of the law.

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The City should ask the Province how many clients they have in the old Doubletree at the Macdonald entrance. Transfer those clients to say three floors and I bet Developers would get the message and the Doubletree Lives as a viable business. Again.

Doing this might empty 1 floor at the double tree. There are a lot of people living under that roof.

[Keith P.]

I happened to pass by this thing today and noted that the top 2 floors (inset from the overall massing of the building, so perhaps penthouse units with terraces) appear to be finished externally and so any work remaining would likely be interiors. Seems rather crazy to demo all that. Surely a stiff fine (if such is allowed legally) with perhaps one or two of the lower floors being designated as govt housing would be more sensible?

The reason I was in the area around 11AM was for a quick supply trip to No Frills before the storm arrived. Bad scene at that time of day. I encountered 3 drugged-up residents either of the Doubletree or one of the nearby campsites aggressively panhandling near the entrance. Ugh.

[Colin May]

Quote " they didn't understand the LUB amendments" ... so why didn't they ask staff or their consultants to explain everything. If you believe that defence I have a bridge to sell you. Some parts of the developing world usually require an understanding of how 'mistakes' or 'not understanding' were usually just a face saving device to sort of agree that rules had not been followed.

[Dmajackson]

A building permit (BPCOM 2021-18475) was issued for a 9-storey (26 metre high), 97-unit mixed-use
building on October 5, 2022 on PID 00045351, at 169 Wyse Road in Dartmouth with a penthouse that
contained mechanical elements and amenity space.

The proposed building would have a mix of uses, including commercial space along a portion of the ground floor and 117 residential units including 19 affordable units (see Attachment B for letter of rationale).

With the increase in height to 12 storeys, the developer is proposing to add
four additional affordable units in the top floor, for a total of 19 on-site affordable units.

I think the best solution is provided by combining the parts of the report I quoted above.

The developer should be given a choice;

1) Deconstruct the upper floors to make the building fall in line with the LUB requirements and pay a relatively small fine to the municipality to be used on an improvement in the immediate neighbourhood (new playground at Victoria Park or a small fountain at Boland Parkette).

2) Let the developer keep the building as built but require that the extra units they obtained all be designated as affordable with CMHC. This means at a minimum 20 units in the building are to be affordable and the units on the top 2 floors must be through this program. On top of this since the CMHC requirement is only good for 10 years, which is well short of a building's lifespan, the developer must pay a $1M "in-lieu of deconstruction" fine to the municipality. This fine is to be used towards public benefit projects in the immediate neighbourhood (like a completely revamped Victoria Park). This approach will negate the benefits the developer will get under their current proposal. The upper floors of a building are usually more expensive due to the views and privacy and since buildings usually last way longer than 10 years they should still pay the deconstruction costs. They'll still get immediate benefits with the quicker opening of the building and no risk of the building being damaged by the deconstruction. And in the long run they'll get 20 extra units at full rent.

10 years from now a 11-storey building in this neighbourhood is going to be a small background feature. It'll be surrounded by multiple towers up to 40 floors. So I think as long as the developer takes a major monetary hit and the public gets some benefit it will work out fine. If this was in a location outside of a designated growth centre with the most generous zoning in HRM than I would absolutely force the deconstruction.

BTW the link in my post was outdated (Council agendas constantly change their links for some reason). Staff Report - this is the current link to the report.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Musicman Halifax

Doing this might empty 1 floor at the double tree. There are a lot of people living under that roof.

Clients from the Doubletree on one floor of any apartment building would not be a good idea for anyone.

[IanWatson]

I’m not sure what legislative authority HRM would have to “cut a deal” with the developer. Either they enforce with the enforcement tools they have under the Halifax Charter, or they ignore it.

Edit: I actually read the report and see that they’re talking about amending the planning rules just for that site. Props to Kasia for a really nice and clear staff report.

As an aside, I vaguely recall that this has happened before in HRM. I want to say it was the Harbour Ridge building on Brunswick, but my search isn’t turning up anything. Perhaps someone with better CanLII searching skills can find the case.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I’m not sure what legislative authority HRM would have to “cut a deal” with the developer. Either they enforce with the enforcement tools they have under the Halifax Charter, or they ignore it.

Edit: I actually read the report and see that they’re talking about amending the planning rules just for that site. Props to Kasia for a really nice and clear staff report.

As an aside, I vaguely recall that this has happened before in HRM. I want to say it was the Harbour Ridge building on Brunswick, but my search isn’t turning up anything. Perhaps someone with better CanLII searching skills can find the case.

If that is the extension of the Cambridge Suites Hotel, (use to be Goldberg Thomson office), than I can second that memory. I think the Ramia's built that?

[LikeCranes]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

...As an aside, I vaguely recall that this has happened before in HRM. I want to say it was the Harbour Ridge building on Brunswick, but my search isn’t turning up anything. Perhaps someone with better CanLII searching skills can find the case.

Definitely Brunswick, I feel it's the one you see when you look up the hill from pizza corner past St. Andrews church. Four stories were actually removed if I recall.

[Keith P.]

"Saw it off!!!" - the HRM Planning Dept motto.

[MastClimberPro]

Wasn't the Bloom on Gottingen guilty of building a whole extra wing that extended around the back of the then Subway on the corner to Almon without permission? How was that resolved?

[Mr. Hunt]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

[s]
As an aside, I vaguely recall that this has happened before in HRM. I want to say it was the Harbour Ridge building on Brunswick, but my search isn’t turning up anything. Perhaps someone with better CanLII searching skills can find the case.

It was 1559 Brunswick.

https://legacycontent.halifax.ca/council/minutes/1999/c990601.pdf (starts at page 7)

[Colin May]

Council took it off the agenda...... I presume a last minute 'deal' has been provided to staff and council. Time for council to play hardball....depending on what residents want. Tell the developer to provide $1,000,000 as baksheesh to HRM and allow nearby residents to decide how the money should be spent.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hunt

It was 1559 Brunswick.

https://legacycontent.halifax.ca/council/minutes/1999/c990601.pdf (starts at page 7)

Nice find! So it was Ramia and they let him keep the extra floor.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

The report says that on Nov 20, 2024, the developer told staff the additional floors were under construction. Staff visited the site and confirmed this on Dec 5. On Dec 16, HRM issued an "Order to Comply," which I assume means that the developer was told to stop work. According to the report, the order was subsequently revised to allow work on the lower, permitted, floors as well as to stabalize formwork, which sounds like a safety issue.

Well, I'm glad planning and development reacted so quickly. It only took them 15 days to get themselves out of their office in order to make a site visit to a development just minutes away. Then it took them another 11 days to issue a decree, so nearly a month before they actually did something about it. Your tax dollars at work!