[Halifax] Richmond Yards | 103-47-41-40-32 m | 31-13-12-10-8 fl | U/C

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I don’t expect Council to turn this down.

Is that just your informed planners' opinion, or have you heard councillors commenting on the project?

Maybe you'd comment on how construction can have commenced without approval of the development agreement, and on whether separate permits will be required for construction of each tower notwithstanding that the project appears to have been deemed one building.

[IanWatson]

I haven't heard any specific comments from Councillors, but my planner guess is that they'll approve it. Contrary to popular belief around this forum, most of Council doesn't hate development or height. They just tend to have a lot of constraints on them and interests that they need to balance.

With most developments there are neighbours who are going to be impacted. In this case, not so much (yes, there is the apartment to the west but it'll be impacted no matter what). Council has everything to gain by approving a big development here, and very little to lose.

As to how they're building now, my guess is that they've obtained permits for a smaller building and are hoping the Development Agreement catches up before they hit the limits of their current permit.

EDIT: On further review, I'm not quite sure how they're building now. They do have a permit, but I'm not sure how they got it. The permit was issued in November, so it wasn't under the old zoning. To meet Centre Plan zoning they would have needed a site plan approval, and at 77 units (what the permit allows) I'm sure they would have been above the 2,000 m2 threshold that requires public information.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I haven't heard any specific comments from Councillors, but my planner guess is that they'll approve it. Contrary to popular belief around this forum, most of Council doesn't hate development or height. They just tend to have a lot of constraints on them and interests that they need to balance.

With most developments there are neighbours who are going to be impacted. In this case, not so much (yes, there is the apartment to the west but it'll be impacted no matter what). Council has everything to gain by approving a big development here, and very little to lose.

As to how they're building now, my guess is that they've obtained permits for a smaller building and are hoping the Development Agreement catches up before they hit the limits of their current permit.

Thanks for your informed input - much appreciated.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

With most developments there are neighbours who are going to be impacted. In this case, not so much (yes, there is the apartment to the west but it'll be impacted no matter what). Council has everything to gain by approving a big development here, and very little to lose.

It is really an ideal development. Not much impact on nearby residential, near the planned intersection of future transit corridors.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

...my planner guess is that they'll approve it. Contrary to popular belief around this forum, most of Council doesn't hate development or height. They just tend to have a lot of constraints on them and interests that they need to balance.

My main concern with community councils is not that they're necessarily ant-development per se but that they often simply abdicate their responsibility (and indeed, their legal duty) to evaluate proposals in light of whether they reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. Instead, they introduce extraneous and often spurious (if not outright fictitious) facts and criteria, and decide simply on the basis of their own preferences and noisiest constituents' concerns. There's plenty of evidence of that on the record.

Perhaps the main problem is that they simply don't understand their function under the law and need some basic education on that. Even simply reading a few UARB decisions would help, as they spell out councillors' responsibilities quite succinctly.

On further review, I'm not quite sure how they're building now. They do have a permit, but I'm not sure how they got it. The permit was issued in November, so it wasn't under the old zoning. To meet Centre Plan zoning they would have needed a site plan approval, and at 77 units (what the permit allows) I'm sure they would have been above the 2,000 m2 threshold that requires public information.

It was suggested here earlier that the current permit was issued for the 12-storey tower currently under construction. What's more intriguing to me is that staff, in its report to the council, stated that for permitting purposes, this project is considered one building. Perhaps, and along the lines of your original suggestion, the existing permit was issued to allow construction of one building, but only to the extent currently allowed without approval of the development agreement. If so, presumably a new or amended permit would be required when the agreement is approved (assuming it is approved).

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

My main concern with community councils is not that they're necessarily ant-development per se but that they often simply abdicate their responsibility (and indeed, their legal duty) to evaluate proposals in light of whether they reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS. Instead, they introduce extraneous and often spurious (if not outright fictitious) facts and criteria, and decide simply on the basis of their own preferences and noisiest constituents' concerns. There's plenty of evidence of that on the record.

For sure, they do that very often. And once Councillors get good at their job you'll often see some of them deftly frame their constituents objections as valid planning reasons to turn something down. Steve Adams was particularly good at finding defensible reasons to turn down an application he didn't want to see go forward. I don't see that as them being anti-development so much as pro-constituent.

In the case of Richmond Yards, I don't see much need for Council to push anyone's concerns so I expect they'll approve it.

Perhaps the main problem is that they simply don't understand their function under the law and need some basic education on that. Even simply reading a few UARB decisions would help, as they spell out councillors' responsibilities quite succinctly.

I'd say an even bigger problem is that the public doesn't understand Council's function under the law. Constituents don't want to hear, "my hands were tied", because what is the point of having a Councillor if they can't make anything happen? I think you'll find that one of the reasons Sam has been so successful is that he understands planning very well, and makes a strong effort to use his Council update posts to explain why things are currently the way they are, how he used that to guide his decision, and how he intends to change the system in the future (if needed).

It was suggested here earlier that the current permit was issued for the 12-storey tower currently under construction.

Yeah, that's got me really confused now that I dig into it. I don't know how they got that permit. With the old zoning gone, and no development agreement in place, they would have had to get the permit issued under Centre Plan zoning. But Centre Plan requires Level III Site Plan Approval for a development of that size.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Constituents don't want to hear, "my hands were tied", because what is the point of having a Councillor if they can't make anything happen?

But there is a lot more that council does beyond preventing the construction of new buildings, like providing high-level direction around the provision of municipal services.

The community council model is problematic in that it sometimes effectively gives quasi veto over major regional projects to tiny constituencies. The councillors are often elected by few people, and 1-3 councillors can make all the difference on a community council. The Young corridor is becoming an area of regional significance, and Richmond Yards is definitely a major project for the metro area. I believe the vote on major downtown projects was already moved to regional council a number of years ago, after ~2-3 councillors (with the "downtown" councillor really representing North End neighbourhoods) had way too much control for a while in the earlier years of amalgamation.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I'd say an even bigger problem is that the public doesn't understand Council's function under the law. Constituents don't want to hear, "my hands were tied", because what is the point of having a Councillor if they can't make anything happen?

That may be an explanation but it's not a defensible reason. It effectively excuses councillors from doing their legal duty simply because their constituents "won't get it".

Surely it's up to councillors to explain their decisions to their constituents.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I'd say an even bigger problem is that the public doesn't understand Council's function under the law. Constituents don't want to hear, "my hands were tied", because what is the point of having a Councillor if they can't make anything happen? I think you'll find that one of the reasons Sam has been so successful is that he understands planning very well, and makes a strong effort to use his Council update posts to explain why things are currently the way they are, how he used that to guide his decision, and how he intends to change the system in the future (if needed).

Except he likes to use the "my hands are tied" excuse when he doesn't want to do something he disagrees with. Many of his explanations fall back on planning dogma or the old "nobody knows why this was done in the past and its too late to change it now" rationale. Yet he has no problem allocating huge amounts of taxpayer dollars for planner favorites like realigning or narrowing streets or the daylighting Sawmill River money pit.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Except he likes to use the "my hands are tied" excuse when he doesn't want to do something he disagrees with. Many of his explanations fall back on planning dogma or the old "nobody knows why this was done in the past and its too late to change it now" rationale. Yet he has no problem allocating huge amounts of taxpayer dollars for planner favorites like realigning or narrowing streets or the daylighting Sawmill River money pit.

He’s not wrong though, very often Council’s hands are tied if they’re doing their job properly when it comes to planning matters. Constituents don’t want to hear that though, so sometimes you’ll see Councillors try to go outside the scope of their job. Sam doesn’t do that; instead, he does a good job of explaining why his hands are tied, and people appreciate that.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

He’s not wrong though, very often Council’s hands are tied if they’re doing their job properly when it comes to planning matters. Constituents don’t want to hear that though, so sometimes you’ll see Councillors try to go outside the scope of their job. Sam doesn’t do that; instead, he does a good job of explaining why his hands are tied, and people appreciate that.

Perhaps he could do an equally good job of schooling his fellow councillors on their role. A little in-house continuing ed might be just the thing.

The continuing cycle of councils denying applications and developers having to appeal to the UARB just to have rational adjudication of their applications is tremendously wasteful.

Not to mention that it really makes the councillors look like bumbling fools. Political animals that they are, I would've thought they'd be much more conscious of reputation and image, but they appear to be content to simply pander to voters, knowing the UARB will clean up their messes - at the owners' cost, of course. It's really not a pretty picture.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Perhaps he could do an equally good job of schooling his fellow councillors on their role. A little in-house continuing ed might be just the thing.

The continuing cycle of councils denying applications and developers having to appeal to the UARB just to have rational adjudication of their applications is tremendously wasteful.

Not to mention that it really makes the councillors look like bumbling fools. Political animals that they are, I would've thought they'd be much more conscious of reputation and image, but they appear to be content to simply pander to voters, knowing the UARB will clean up their messes - at the owners' cost, of course. It's really not a pretty picture.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't appear that it has actually occurred that much. I can recall one instance, maybe two in the last year where an appeal went to the UARB

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I could be wrong, but it doesn't appear that it has actually occurred that much. I can recall one instance, maybe two in the last year where an appeal went to the UARB

I suppose it depends on what "that much" means. I haven't taken the time to comb the reports and compile a list, but I can promise that more than a few such decisions are reported online and can be found easily.

I imagine the recent instances you're thinking of are probably the Cresco and Hatchet Lake Plaza matters. They're particularly egregious cases of community council misfeasance. I think two in a year is more than enough, particularly if, given their recency, they're indicative of what we can expect from our councillors as the city grows.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I suppose it depends on what "that much" means. I haven't taken the time to comb the reports and compile a list, but I can promise that more than a few such decisions are reported online and can be found easily.

I imagine the recent instances you're thinking of are probably the Cresco and Hatchet Lake Plaza matters. They're particularly egregious cases of community council misfeasance. I think two in a year is more than enough, particularly if, given their recency, they're indicative of what we can expect from our councillors as the city grows.

That being said though I would think that with so many applications coming through over the years it is only natural for some of them to be turned down. Many times with good reasons. That is why we have councilors to begin with. They are the ones charged with making this decision. Otherwise city government could be replaced by an Approval Stamp. We need to be able to scrutinize and ask for better sometimes. I am not saying that all of their decisions are good one way or the other but that is kind of the point of the system.

[someone123]

Council creates the rules ahead of time, and good rules are legible to the public, municipal staff, and developers. While there isn't necessarily anything wrong with councillors voting against some projects sometimes, or bureaucrats finding that some projects just don't tick the right boxes, there also wouldn't necessarily be anything wrong if every project were rubber stamped as long as the rules were followed. That's how a lot of approvals work in government. If you go to get a passport, the bureaucrats tick some boxes and do some standard steps, they don't come up with a personal subjective feeling about you (while being open to monetary contributions to fund their next passport officer election campaign) or poll the room on whether they like you or not.

A legal style process is usually reserved for novel questions. For example in the US, the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade and that became law for a class of situations. Future cases of that type rarely went to judges. I don't think a quasi-legal process is appropriate for basically run of the mill apartment building approvals. And the primary apparent goal of HRM by Design and the Centre Plan was to get away from that.

We may say that some major projects really are novel but I question whether community councils, whether decisions may come down to 1 or 2 councillors, are appropriate for those. They seem like they should go to regional council.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

That being said though I would think that with so many applications coming through over the years it is only natural for some of them to be turned down. Many times with good reasons. That is why we have councilors to begin with. They are the ones charged with making this decision. Otherwise city government could be replaced by an Approval Stamp. We need to be able to scrutinize and ask for better sometimes. I am not saying that all of their decisions are good one way or the other but that is kind of the point of the system.

Not so fast.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be the ones to make these decisions. I’m simply saying they have to know and obey the ground rules. Lately they've been acting as if they don't even know - or worse, care - that there even are ground rules

It appears you're laboring under the same fundamental misapprehension of the councillors' role in planning matters as many of them are. There's a distinction to be made between that function and everything else they do. Their duties in such matters - and they are strict legal duties - are separate, distinct, and very different from their regular day-to-day councillor gig.

In considering applications for development agreements or re-zonings or the like, community councils are bound by several provincial statutes and their role is very narrowly defined. They can only make decisions on the basis of the evidence and issues before them as the subject of the application, and can only consider whether the application as proposed reasonably carries out the intent of the municipal planning strategy.

They cannot deny (or approve) an application on any basis other than compliance with the MPS. They can't approve or deny an application simply because it doesn't suit their individual preferences (or prejudices), or those of their crankiest constituents. They cannot introduce new "evidence" or "facts" of their own (real, imagined, fictitious or otherwise), and they cannot consider new "issues" (real, imagined, fictitious or otherwise) that haven't been brought to them as part of the application.

The problem is that those sorts of things are exactly what they've been doing with planning applications.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by someone123

Council creates the rules ahead of time

Not in planning matters. The rules are not council-made at all. They're prescribed by provincial statute.

A legal style process is usually reserved for novel questions... I don't think a quasi-legal process is appropriate for basically run of the mill apartment building approvals.

Same response: not in NS planning matters. It's a legal process whether you like it or not.

And the primary apparent goal of HRM by Design and the Centre Plan was to get away from that.

The goal may have been to simplify and better define things, but it was decidedly not to get away from a formal approval process.

We may say that some major projects really are novel but I question whether community councils, whether decisions may come down to 1 or 2 councillors, are appropriate for those.

How can it "come down to 1 or 2 councillors"? Community councils are made up only of HRM councillors, and all have at least five members.

They seem like they should go to regional council.

They do, so far as the law is concerned. Again, the planning role is conferred on the community councils by statute. The HRM Charter (again, a provincial statute) gives the municipality primary authority for planning matters and also provides that community councils stand in the place of the full council in cases involving development agreements.

[kph06]

It seems like the mid 2000s, “Twisted Sisters”, pre-HRM-by-design era was the height of the Heritage Trust obstructionism, and many appeals went to the UARB. The recent Hogan Court case is the only one I recall in the last couple years. That seemed like it was an awful waste of taxpayer money. From the surface, it looked like a pointless fight.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Not in planning matters. The rules are not council-made at all. They're prescribed by provincial statute.

I believe rules like what height of building can be built on a given block are effectively controlled by council (e.g. specified in HRM by Design and they vote to approve it; I am not sure the MPS is as prescriptive about height but I think that was approved by municipal level governments too), not prescribed by provincial statute. It seems most complaints and appeals revolve around height, density, and related issues like traffic, shadows, etc.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kph06

It seems like the mid 2000s, “Twisted Sisters”, pre-HRM-by-design era was the height of the Heritage Trust obstructionism, and many appeals went to the UARB. The recent Hogan Court case is the only one I recall in the last couple years. That seemed like it was an awful waste of taxpayer money. From the surface, it looked like a pointless fight.

I wonder how much this held back the early resurgence of downtown. The effect may have been pretty significant, e.g. imagine if the Texpark towers had been built before 2008. The quality of developments is mostly higher now, so shifting development later in time can be good too, but I think when it comes to something like downtown development there is a big advantage to having a critical mass of residents catered to by businesses and an ecosystem that supports regular projects that developers can basically "iterate" on like what Southwest has done. The developers often seem to get better by doing.