General Updates and News

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

From the CH:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1281715-new-tower-proposed-for-spring-garden-address

Why does he need a DA to proceed? Isn't this covered by HRMxD?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Why does he need a DA to proceed? Isn't this covered by HRMxD?

I believe that end of Spring Garden is outside of the HRMxD area.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I believe that end of Spring Garden is outside of the HRMxD area.

Ah, I think you're right. Good point.

[counterfactual]

From the March newsletter of HTNS:

" In our Strategic Plan we recognized the need to strengthen our ability to spread a positive message about heritage conservation and Heritage Trust’s activities around the province. The Board agreed to hire a communications advisor for six months. We had good response to our job posting and several excellent candidates were interviewed."

They're moving to "strengthen" their ability to "spread a positive message about heritage".

Just getting around to that now?

http://htns.ca/pdf_Griffin/2015/GRIFFIN.mar.2015.colour.pdf

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

From the March newsletter of HTNS:



They're moving to "strengthen" their ability to "spread a positive message about heritage".

Just getting around to that now?

http://htns.ca/pdf_Griffin/2015/GRIFFIN.mar.2015.colour.pdf

its been in their strategic plan since 2010/2012 - whenever they last redid it.

[EcoGreen Homes]

For all who are interested in Gottingen Street, the North End and development in general in the city, PLEASE peruse the attached report which explains the misuse by Council and its planners of SCHEDULE Q as an ad hoc planning circumvention tool to circumvent the MPS.

It also clearly explains why the last thing Gottingen St needs is more affordable RENTAL subsidized housing and why ownership would be better.

It also shows the two MEGA projects as approved have nothing really to do with affordable housing.

The link below is to the UARB website. The File name is below that.

Here is the link:http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=UARBv12&-loadframes

E38644
M06744Found Record # 4
EDM Report.pdf
EDM Report - Margot Young
PL-15-02: Beverly Miller, 3244160 NS Ltd., Walk-eh? Enterprises Ltd., Bonnell Corp., and Downtown Mini Storage Ltd.(Land Use Bylaw amendment)

[someone123]

7-10 storey apartment buildings qualify as mega developments now?

[JET]

Originally Posted by EcoGreen Homes

For all who are interested in Gottingen Street, the North End and development in general in the city, PLEASE peruse the attached report which explains the misuse by Council and its planners of SCHEDULE Q as an ad hoc planning circumvention tool to circumvent the MPS.

It also clearly explains why the last thing Gottingen St needs is more affordable RENTAL subsidized housing and why ownership would be better.

It also shows the two MEGA projects as approved have nothing really to do with affordable housing.

The link below is to the UARB website. The File name is below that.

Here is the link:http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=UARBv12&-loadframes

E38644

M06744Found Record # 4
EDM Report.pdf
EDM Report - Margot Young
PL-15-02: Beverly Miller, 3244160 NS Ltd., Walk-eh? Enterprises Ltd., Bonnell Corp., and Downtown Mini Storage Ltd.(Land Use Bylaw amendment)

Ordinarily I would welcome you to the forum; but since I totally and absolutely disagree with your post, it would disingenuous of me to do so. I fully support the proposed development, and oppose efforts that have been made to block it.

[IanWatson]

A UARB appeal is trying to answer the question, "did Council's decision reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy?". The UARB has determined in past cases that it doesn't matter what Council stated as its reason for their decision, as long as that decision is reasonably consistent with the MPS. To take it to an extreme example, as a councilor I could probably say, "I'm voting in favour of this proposal because today is my birthday" and that would be okay with the UARB as long as the vote I made was consistent with the MPS.

As this applies to your appeal, it doesn't matter whether or not public and Council support came about because of the (incorrect, according to the report) assumption that this would bring affordable housing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

A UARB appeal is trying to answer the question, "did Council's decision reasonably carry out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy?". The UARB has determined in past cases that it doesn't matter what Council stated as its reason for their decision, as long as that decision is reasonably consistent with the MPS. To take it to an extreme example, as a councilor I could probably say, "I'm voting in favour of this proposal because today is my birthday" and that would be okay with the UARB as long as the vote I made was consistent with the MPS.

I wonder what the motives are behind some of these UARB appeals that seems so obviously invalid from the beginning. Do the appellants think their appeal will be successful? Do they just want their case to be heard? Is the goal just to put roadblocks in front of development?

Based on the level of development pre- and post-HbD, I think the appeal roadblocks did have a significant impact on the overall amount of development that happened pre-HbD, even though the success rate of the appeals was low. The 1-3 year delays and small chance of rejection had a pretty serious chilling effect. The vibrancy of the downtown area and quality of development suffered as a result. I think the rest of the peninsula is now being held back in a similar way. Hopefully, someday, the Centre Plan will solve this problem.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by EcoGreen Homes

It also clearly explains why the last thing Gottingen St needs is more affordable RENTAL subsidized housing and why ownership would be better.

There's a good case to be made for ownership, but to argue that in a rapidly gentrifying neighbourhood home to a lot of marginalized people, the last thing needed is affordable rental housing is ridiculous. Not everyone is in a position to own, or necessarily wants to. It's mind-boggling to see an ostensibly progressive group fighting an affordable housing project.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder what the motives are behind some of these UARB appeals that seems so obviously invalid from the beginning. Do the appellants think their appeal will be successful? Do they just want their case to be heard? Is the goal just to put roadblocks in front of development?

Based on the level of development pre- and post-HbD, I think the appeal roadblocks did have a significant impact on the overall amount of development that happened pre-HbD, even though the success rate of the appeals was low. The 1-3 year delays and small chance of rejection had a pretty serious chilling effect. The vibrancy of the downtown area and quality of development suffered as a result. I think the rest of the peninsula is now being held back in a similar way. Hopefully, someday, the Centre Plan will solve this problem.

An appeal is not free. Costs include paying for the UARB ads notifying the public of an appeal and the hearing date/s.
An appeal is part of our democracy. The delay of Twisted Sisters and the delay of the development of the Motherhouse property had nothing to do with public opposition.
I attended a press conference in the early 1980s at which the president of Imperial Oil explained how opposition and delay of a proposed project had a positive monetary impact on the company and "Never again will we risk the company on such a large project ". Such decisions at Imperial Oil were not made in the boardroom on St Clair, anything over $5,000,000 required approval from New York. The project was reduced in scale and then designed to be expanded based on experience of the smaller project.

[musicman]

A 10 story building being labeled a "MEGA" doesn't hold water in my book.. I would suggest to ecogreen Homes to read what is posted in other treads before posting/trying to find a sympathetic ear, about a 10 story building on this site... I agree that all are welcome to post and read on this site but please make some sense in the process.

[hokus83]

Lol

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by EcoGreen Homes

For all who are interested in Gottingen Street, the North End and development in general in the city, PLEASE peruse the attached report which explains the misuse by Council and its planners of SCHEDULE Q as an ad hoc planning circumvention tool to circumvent the MPS.

It also clearly explains why the last thing Gottingen St needs is more affordable RENTAL subsidized housing and why ownership would be better.

It also shows the two MEGA projects as approved have nothing really to do with affordable housing.

The link below is to the UARB website. The File name is below that.

Here is the link:http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=UARBv12&-loadframes

E38644
M06744Found Record # 4
EDM Report.pdf
EDM Report - Margot Young
PL-15-02: Beverly Miller, 3244160 NS Ltd., Walk-eh? Enterprises Ltd., Bonnell Corp., and Downtown Mini Storage Ltd.(Land Use Bylaw amendment)

"Mega" developments.

Is that you, Beverly Miller? Please leave this much needed development alone, and instead focus on improving the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, which absolutely sucks at preserving and promoting heritage in this city; spending too much time suing good developments while neglecting educating/communicating on heritage to the broader public.

OR, in the alternative, consider renaming the HTNS to the Anti-Development Trust (ADT) or even better the "NIMBY Litigation Trust" (NLT).

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder what the motives are behind some of these UARB appeals that seems so obviously invalid from the beginning. Do the appellants think their appeal will be successful? Do they just want their case to be heard? Is the goal just to put roadblocks in front of development?

Based on the level of development pre- and post-HbD, I think the appeal roadblocks did have a significant impact on the overall amount of development that happened pre-HbD, even though the success rate of the appeals was low. The 1-3 year delays and small chance of rejection had a pretty serious chilling effect. The vibrancy of the downtown area and quality of development suffered as a result. I think the rest of the peninsula is now being held back in a similar way. Hopefully, someday, the Centre Plan will solve this problem.

This is exactly right. Developments can live or die on the basis of predicted market conditions. If you add 1-3 years delay on top, it makes market conditions a lot harder to predict.

The NIMBY Trust know this, so they litigation every single proposal.

I hope the UARB makes a significant cost order against these guys.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by EcoGreen Homes

For all who are interested in Gottingen Street, the North End and development in general in the city, PLEASE peruse the attached report which explains the misuse by Council and its planners of SCHEDULE Q as an ad hoc planning circumvention tool to circumvent the MPS.

It also clearly explains why the last thing Gottingen St needs is more affordable RENTAL subsidized housing and why ownership would be better.

It also shows the two MEGA projects as approved have nothing really to do with affordable housing.

The link below is to the UARB website. The File name is below that.

Here is the link:http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=UARBv12&-loadframes

E38644
M06744Found Record # 4
EDM Report.pdf
EDM Report - Margot Young
PL-15-02: Beverly Miller, 3244160 NS Ltd., Walk-eh? Enterprises Ltd., Bonnell Corp., and Downtown Mini Storage Ltd.(Land Use Bylaw amendment)

Mega? This false type of attitude is why the city is sprawling.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There's a good case to be made for ownership, but to argue that in a rapidly gentrifying neighbourhood home to a lot of marginalized people, the last thing needed is affordable rental housing is ridiculous. Not everyone is in a position to own, or necessarily wants to. It's mind-boggling to see an ostensibly progressive group fighting an affordable housing project.

This isn't an affordable housing project. The DAs do not require anything to be affordable. Council provided additional height and density based on a misunderstanding of the project. Public and Council support for the project is based on a perceived benefit that does not actually exist. #whoops

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

This is exactly right. Developments can live or die on the basis of predicted market conditions. If you add 1-3 years delay on top, it makes market conditions a lot harder to predict.

The NIMBY Trust know this, so they litigation every single proposal.

I hope the UARB makes a significant cost order against these guys.

Appeals to the UARB are a legislated and reasonable part of the NS planning process for good reason. Council is not infallible. I don't think the UARB can't award costs.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Appeals to the UARB are a legislated and reasonable part of the NS planning process for good reason. Council is not infallible. I don't think the UARB can't award costs.

Sorry, no.

They are legislated and are there for reasonable, legitimate appeals.

Not frivolous appeals that are there not to adjudicate legitimate rights or claims, but simply to add extra costs to development.

Council is not fallible. But your post assumes appeal appeals are infallible. #Whoops

PS: Courts can award costs, if they appeal the UARB's decision. They should here, significantly.