[Halifax] Navy Lane Condos (2183 Gottingen) | 24 m | 8 fl | U/C

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The longer one works as a planner leads to the more the belief that one is all-knowing and wise when it comes to planning matters.

I suspect that hearing the same old drumbeat about development being too tall or shadows, traffic, think of the children, etc. does wear thin on even the most polite of planning staff. Especially when there is little to no constructive dialogue on alternatives that could be done in its place. It's worn thin on me and I don't even work in a planning capacity.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The longer one works as a planner leads to the more the belief that one is all-knowing and wise when it comes to planning matters.

I find much the same attitude. Many on here seem to feel that because they have some education in the field that they know it all. I had a friend with much the same attitude.
I think that as much as an educated opinion is helpful only time will tell if it is/was the right choice.
Having observed for many decades now, and seen the changes in trends, I believe that as much as the experts in the past might have made poor choices, the same will be true a few decades down the road.
I would recommend to today's planners to be a little more humble and less forceful with their thoughts, and to show respect for differences of opinion.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Plus with most systems like this you can challenge her qualifications and ability to actually be considered an expert witness. A colleague of mine told me a story of an OMB hearing where some neighborhood NIMBY folk attempted to qualify themselves as urban planners because they had "demonstrated expert knowledge in sound planning principles". So the lawyer for the Municipality went at them and challenged them on a number of 'sound planning theories' which they couldn't answer or respond too, whether they had urban planning or related degrees, had received training or even were certified by OPPI (Ontario Professional Planners Institute), etc.

They failed to be qualified as urban planners - but did get qualified as experts for their neighborhood, which seemed fair to me.

What does it mean to be an "expert" in your neighborhood? Like you're the neighborhood busybody? Up in everyone's business? Nosing around, gossiping, etc?

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The longer one works as a planner leads to the more the belief that one is all-knowing and wise when it comes to planning matters.

My point was not about knowledge and expertise; it's about how we talk to and about each other. From being on the forum for a few years we get a sense of the other people. I've gotten used to how Keith talks to and about others; maybe 'adjusted to' fits better than 'used to'. I thought that I had also a sense how HBNS talked to and about others; some recent posts have caused me to recosider that. I have a quote on my wall: "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did; but people will never forget how you made them feel." I try to follow that, if someone finds that I'm not, I appreciate when they let me know.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

My point was not about knowledge and expertise; it's about how we talk to and about each other. From being on the forum for a few years we get a sense of the other people. I've gotten used to how Keith talks to and about others; maybe 'adjusted to' fits better than 'used to'. I thought that I had also a sense how HBNS talked to and about others; some recent posts have caused me to recosider that. I have a quote on my wall: "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did; but people will never forget how you made them feel." I try to follow that, if someone finds that I'm not, I appreciate when they let me know.

Very well said. I think we could all take a little from that into our daily lives, and definitely on this board.

[someone123]

This project was approved tonight in community council. I am not sure if it can be appealed again to the NSUARB; the land use bylaw changes were already appealed and the appellants lost their case.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am not sure if it can be appealed again to the NSUARB; the land use bylaw changes were already appealed and the appellants lost their case.

If the approval this time around was for the actual development agreement, then yes, it can be appealed to the UARB. All development agreements are appealable.

That said, will the appellants have an appetite for a second appeal?

[halifaxboyns]

They likely will file the appeal - it's their MO.
I wonder what the fee is for an appeal? We have a community out here in Calgary and the head of their planning committee uses the appeal process to extort additional trees because their community has a pretty small canopy for a mature community. There was two different appeal days where all the agenda items were from that community but they've been having less and less success. And when you lose, you don't get your appeal fee back. Granted it's only $100. In Fort Mac, if you wanted to appeal a project like this it was $1025.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Appeals of appeals, the Halifax classic.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

If the approval this time around was for the actual development agreement, then yes, it can be appealed to the UARB. All development agreements are appealable.

That said, will the appellants have an appetite for a second appeal?

Is the Pope a Catholic?

It's not that they actually think they'll win. They won't. It's just that they always appeal, because they want to increase the overall costs of proposing developments. It's a way of deterring future proposals. You have to "cost in" the significant legal costs of battling multiple legal proceedings because of these morons.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Is the Pope a Catholic?

It's not that they actually think they'll win. They won't. It's just that they always appeal, because they want to increase the overall costs of proposing developments. It's a way of deterring future proposals. You have to "cost in" the significant legal costs of battling multiple legal proceedings because of these morons.

This isn't an as-of-right development - it is a change to the plan - with 3 times the height proposed than currently allowed. It would be insane if changes like this weren't appealable. Regardless of the quality of the project, you have someone asking for something radically different that what is currently permissible under existing rules. And yes, you do have to cost these things in, because you are not proposing building something that you are allowed to do. It's high risk. To say appeals are only filed to increase development costs is ridiculous. The process is awkward and expensive, but it is up to staff and Council to change it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Is the Pope a Catholic?

It's not that they actually think they'll win. They won't. It's just that they always appeal, because they want to increase the overall costs of proposing developments. It's a way of deterring future proposals. You have to "cost in" the significant legal costs of battling multiple legal proceedings because of these morons.

But where do the obstructionists get the funds to pay for their end of the appeal process? I think if they lose they should be forced to pay costs for the other side as well.

[enjoy*responsibly]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This isn't an as-of-right development - it is a change to the plan - with 3 times the height proposed than currently allowed. It would be insane if changes like this weren't appealable. Regardless of the quality of the project, you have someone asking for something radically different that what is currently permissible under existing rules. And yes, you do have to cost these things in, because you are not proposing building something that you are allowed to do. It's high risk. To say appeals are only filed to increase development costs is ridiculous. The process is awkward and expensive, but it is up to staff and Council to change it.

A big part of the issue is that existing rules can be out of date and imperfect. Planning amendments can have significant merit, however appellants can fall back on existing rules as if they are current and perfect.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Is the Pope a Catholic?

It's not that they actually think they'll win. They won't. It's just that they always appeal, because they want to increase the overall costs of proposing developments. It's a way of deterring future proposals. You have to "cost in" the significant legal costs of battling multiple legal proceedings because of these morons.

I almost spit out my coffee reading this.

Great post.

The developers are preparing themselves better though, and maybe that is the one positive.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But where do the obstructionists get the funds to pay for their end of the appeal process? I think if they lose they should be forced to pay costs for the other side as well.

A developer could (in theory) sue them for those costs. I'm not aware of a successful case - but it would't necessarily have to be. Just dragging it out might be victory enough to drain their resources.

I seem to recall that there were a couple cases of this in BC? Maybe it was Ontario? The challenge is to show that these folks had intent to cause harm (financial loss).

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by enjoy*responsibly

A big part of the issue is that existing rules can be out of date and imperfect. Planning amendments can have significant merit, however appellants can fall back on existing rules as if they are current and perfect.

The challenge with planning in general really. You can spend millions of $'s and man hours creating a plan and once it's passed - it's out of date. Architecture styles/technology are advancing pretty quick and what could happen today, may be 'old tech' by the end of this year.

Every time I hear Alan Ruffman talk about plan amendments as an evil; I want to put my fist through the monitor. They aren't, they are a necessary tool. Turn the argument around - a lot of the Halifax plan dates back to the 90's (and some parts are as old as the 70's if I remember correctly). Is it reasonable to evaluate an application in 2015 based on 1990's thinking? Or even 1970's?! Of course not - thus a plan amendments gives Council the opportunity to consider the application in today's context.

No city planning department has the resources to keep plans up to date on a yearly basis - it's just not possible. HRM struggles to keep plans to 5 year reviews (and they aren't alone - even us in Calgary, I know in Edmonton and even Toronto struggles with this). Plan Amendments are a legitimate tool and they aren't going away.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The challenge with planning in general really. You can spend millions of $'s and man hours creating a plan and once it's passed - it's out of date. Architecture styles/technology are advancing pretty quick and what could happen today, may be 'old tech' by the end of this year.

Every time I hear Alan Ruffman talk about plan amendments as an evil; I want to put my fist through the monitor. They aren't, they are a necessary tool. Turn the argument around - a lot of the Halifax plan dates back to the 90's (and some parts are as old as the 70's if I remember correctly). Is it reasonable to evaluate an application in 2015 based on 1990's thinking? Or even 1970's?! Of course not - thus a plan amendments gives Council the opportunity to consider the application in today's context.

No city planning department has the resources to keep plans up to date on a yearly basis - it's just not possible. HRM struggles to keep plans to 5 year reviews (and they aren't alone - even us in Calgary, I know in Edmonton and even Toronto struggles with this). Plan Amendments are a legitimate tool and they aren't going away.

But we aren't dealing with logical/reasonable people. They are hiding behind plans from 30 years ago because it suits their purposes. Indeed, the world is not static. Interestingly, before these policies, many heritage buildings would not conform with what the rules currently state!

If we didn't amend laws, alot of terrible things would still be legal and alot of people's human rights would be denied. But when it comes to urban planning, these folks are being very sneaky to try and make people think that rules should not evolve.

The reality is... the obstructionists won't live forever and neither will the flawed policies they aim to protect. Unfortunately, some of them have convinced a younger generation that they are right, but they haven't fooled the majority of us.

We'll see height in Halifax over time... or the city will sprawl to the point where height WILL have to happen for environmental purposes.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

But we aren't dealing with logical/reasonable people. They are hiding behind plans from 30 years ago because it suits their purposes. Indeed, the world is not static. Interestingly, before these policies, many heritage buildings would not conform with what the rules currently state!

If we didn't amend laws, alot of terrible things would still be legal and alot of people's human rights would be denied. But when it comes to urban planning, these folks are being very sneaky to try and make people think that rules should not evolve.

The reality is... the obstructionists won't live forever and neither will the flawed policies they aim to protect. Unfortunately, some of them have convinced a younger generation that they are right, but they haven't fooled the majority of us.

We'll see height in Halifax over time... or the city will sprawl to the point where height WILL have to happen for environmental purposes.

Yeah, but we need to change the rules before we start ramming through buildings that are wildly non-conforming, unless we want to have a city where anything goes. (Maybe some of us do. I don't.)

Anyway, you seem to maybe be conflating the various groups of people who tend to oppose projects (the anti-height crowd, those concerned about gentrification, heritage advocates, and people with other planning concerns) into one generalized group of NIMBYs who are opposing things just because they hate change, or something. I think there's a sort of strawman, composite NIMBY in Halifax that doesn't really exist. The reality is that few people are universal NIMBYs. People oppose and support projects for all sorts of reasons. Hell, I'm supportive of this project, but even I have some reservations about its scale on Gottingen. This is very significant--there are commercial streets in places like London and Manhattan where this scale is prohibited. It IS a big project.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This isn't an as-of-right development - it is a change to the plan - with 3 times the height proposed than currently allowed. It would be insane if changes like this weren't appealable. Regardless of the quality of the project, you have someone asking for something radically different that what is currently permissible under existing rules. And yes, you do have to cost these things in, because you are not proposing building something that you are allowed to do. It's high risk. To say appeals are only filed to increase development costs is ridiculous. The process is awkward and expensive, but it is up to staff and Council to change it.

I didn't say we should take the right to appeal away. I'm saying these people are NIMBY morons for appealing this eminently reasonable proposal, which will do great things for the neighborhood and the city.

Proposing such a reasonable proposal should not be "high risk". Skye Tower was high risk. This shouldn't be. The only reason why it's high risk, is because these litigious idiots are around.

As was said earlier, the existing "plan" is a joke, formulated decades ago, with different needs in mind. And, by the way, that "plan" has led to the sad state that the North End was, for much of those decades until recently.

In fact, it was abuse of the appeals and court system like this that ultimately led to HRMxD in the central part of the peninsula, with a streamlined process where once the DRC approves, then no appeals.

We need the same thing for the north end.

You have to take the toys away from the children, or else they will abuse them.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

i almost spit out my coffee reading this.

Great post.

The developers are preparing themselves better though, and maybe that is the one positive.