Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
This seems like the only fair outcome in an "everybody loses" type of situation
|
I agree with this part of your statement and couldn't put it better. But I don't think it was necessarily all HRM's fault. It sounds like the Provincial Registry made some mistakes in not filing information properly...but regardless, it was a no win situation.
This could've gone either way and HRM (by law) has to protect decisions it makes through permits or development agreements. If it made a decision to require the land for a parks purpose, then something (a bylaw requirement or DA requirement) was being adhered too. There are ways around that, but it wasn't done.
I don't anyone should loose their job, but I do think this is a learning opportunity. Perhaps HRM could've looked at other methods to have gotten the development done, without the need of refusing the DP. But the developer should've been on board to explore those avenues - without knowing what they could've been I'm speculating. Personally, if I became aware of this situation, I'd look into alternatives. Perhaps, if there was a DA involved, the DA could've been discharged (at no or little cost to Polly Corp)? Or if a variance could've been done, then go that route? Court should always be the last option.
The catch with this is that it also assumes the developer would be willing to accept a delay in their approval to get the necessary work done. I can't say if Poly Corp would have been (I have no reason to believe otherwise), but I'm sure others wouldn't. Planning law is complicated - not because planners like it that way, but changing rules makes things that way.
Case in point: I had a guy come in for a permit to renovate an existing 5 unit building. The plans were awful and I instantly got a suspicion something was up, since it was 5 units in a zone that only allowed 2. I pulled the permit history, no record of any lawful units. We did a site inspection - turns out the building had at one time 8 units. Well, the only things I could do for him was to suggest he rezone, or reduce the number of units to 2. I couldn't issue an approval for a use that had no legal standing. He was a very nice man too; I wasn't too happy about that - but I couldn't change the rules.
Threaded Mode