HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 11:01 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
That sounds odd.. usually when it comes to the parade square the complaint has been that buildings would be visible from inside, not that they would happen to exceed the height of the ground inside. Using the height of the ground inside seems totally worthless as it is not directly connected to anything meaningful.

83 m is one number I have heard tossed around before. I believe the top of the Citadel is 70 m above sea level.
I agree and this is where the issue lies - which one is it? I've asked the question of some staff I know and have never gotten a certain answer. I even went through HbD and I didn't see any specifics, just some casual reference to the rampart height.

So if 83m is the rampart height, but 70m is the height of the parade level - it becomes an interpretive issue (unless it's specifically spelled out). When you look at it, 13m is a lot more height (that's what? 3 or 4 floors?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 11:21 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
If based strictly on the heights of the tallest buildings in the downtown core then Purdy's Wharf II and 1801 Hollis are 88 m and 87 m respectively (source: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=101006 ). I would expect that International Place at 22 (office floors) would be about the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 11:24 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
If based strictly on the heights of the tallest buildings in the downtown core then Purdy's Wharf II and 1801 Hollis are 88 m and 87 m respectively (source: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=101006 ). I would expect that International Place at 22 (office floors) would be about the same.
International Place was not approved recently - the development agreement is from back in 1978 or something similar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 11:39 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
International Place was not approved recently - the development agreement is from back in 1978 or something similar.
Has the ramparts maximum definition changed since Purdy's Wharf and 1801 Hollis were built? I thought this height limit was one that had existed since the 1970's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 3:28 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,312
I'm not sure of the history.. I thought the viewplanes themselves were a creature of the 70s, but the MPS dates to the 1980s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 3:45 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I'm not sure of the history.. I thought the viewplanes themselves were a creature of the 70s, but the MPS dates to the 1980s.
I think the MPS was after the viewplanes and so encorporated them into the MPS.

88m would make some sense, but then how did Fenwick get approved so much taller? Wouldn't the rampart heights apply to it? So then wouldn't the rampart height be 98m (the height of Fenwick)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 3:58 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,312
Fenwick was started in 1969 or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 4:00 AM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Fenwick was started in 1969 or so.
Ahhhh that explains it - legally non-conforming then. It will be tough with the current viewplane rules and rampart heights then for the redevelopment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 8:38 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I think the MPS was after the viewplanes and so encorporated them into the MPS.

88m would make some sense, but then how did Fenwick get approved so much taller? Wouldn't the rampart heights apply to it? So then wouldn't the rampart height be 98m (the height of Fenwick)?
This raises a question in my mind - can the top of Fenwick Tower be seen within the Citadel? Maybe it was because of Fenwick Tower that this ramparts maximum height limit was introduced.

It sounds like the next HRM tallest will have to be in Dartmouth (possible the King's Wharf iconic tower).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 8:43 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Ahhhh that explains it - legally non-conforming then. It will be tough with the current viewplane rules and rampart heights then for the redevelopment.
I haven't heard any councillor state that the ramparts limit would affect the Fenwick redevelopment - right now the biggest issue is density per acre. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think the density maximum is 250 people per acre and they will be at almost double that when it is redeveloped.

PS: We have gotten way of the topic - the Jazz project.

Last edited by fenwick16; Apr 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 12:48 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,042
I have never heard of them using the height of the actual parade square. It's suppose to be a plain that extends out from eye level up over the ramparts from a certain point within the parade square I believe. The purpose of course being so that when you are inside the ramparts in the parade square all you see is sky thus helping to recreate the history of the site. I have not been inside the citadel for probably a decade, but I can't remember seeing any buildings from inside. Since Fenwick tower is so far away I think it still has quite a nice cushion above it before it hits the eye from inside the rampart.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 4:27 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonovision View Post
I have never heard of them using the height of the actual parade square. It's suppose to be a plain that extends out from eye level up over the ramparts from a certain point within the parade square I believe. The purpose of course being so that when you are inside the ramparts in the parade square all you see is sky thus helping to recreate the history of the site. I have not been inside the citadel for probably a decade, but I can't remember seeing any buildings from inside. Since Fenwick tower is so far away I think it still has quite a nice cushion above it before it hits the eye from inside the rampart.
I've personally been able to see Cogswell Tower, Fenwick, and Maritime Centre from within the ramparts depending where you stand. And as for the spot where the ramparts bylaws are drawn from, I for some reason thought that it was from the centre of the parade square.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 6:10 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,182
Land Use Bylaw
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=ca

CITADEL RAMPARTS
26B
In addition to all other provisions of this by-law, no development permit shall be
issued for any development within Schedule A that is greater than 90 ft. in height,
unless such development will not be visible above the topmost line of the earthworks
of the Citadel ramparts from an eye level 5.5 ft. above ground level at any of the
specified viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel. Elevations and
coordinate values for the viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel and
elevations to the topmost line of the earthworks on the Citadel ramparts are shown on
ZM-17 (Height Precinct Map).
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 6:21 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
Land Use Bylaw
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=ca

CITADEL RAMPARTS
26B
In addition to all other provisions of this by-law, no development permit shall be
issued for any development within Schedule A that is greater than 90 ft. in height,
unless such development will not be visible above the topmost line of the earthworks
of the Citadel ramparts from an eye level 5.5 ft. above ground level at any of the
specified viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel. Elevations and
coordinate values for the viewing positions in the Parade Square of the Citadel and
elevations to the topmost line of the earthworks on the Citadel ramparts are shown on
ZM-17 (Height Precinct Map).
...and now for that we have that sorted, back to the topic at hand!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 2:31 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
According to the allnovascotia.com, the Polycorp Jazz NS Sppreme court case will be heard in June. This should be interesting, the facts certainly sound like they are on Polycorp's side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2010, 2:42 AM
POLYCORP-Pete Polley POLYCORP-Pete Polley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
Do you have any renderings for Jazz?
Nothing ready to show to the public yet... but the plan is to use the same sort of colours and materials that we used at the adjacent Spice Condos building... will give people lots more material to talk about... but like someone said before "it's better than bland brick and beige"...

Peter Polley
Polycorp
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2010, 3:02 AM
POLYCORP-Pete Polley POLYCORP-Pete Polley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
According to the allnovascotia.com, the Polycorp Jazz NS Sppreme court case will be heard in June. This should be interesting, the facts certainly sound like they are on Polycorp's side.
Facts, records, registry of deeds, reality, global warming, unsigned old agreements with no specific terms - everything and everyone in town is on Polycorp's side except HRM staff on this problem.

I actually had a call from someone the other day that offered to stand on the sidewalk with a sandwich board-type sign waiving at traffic to raise awareness of the mokery that is being made of proper planning and process by this whole mess. I told them "thanks for the offer - and we may take you up on it later, but for the time-being, I think that we'll pass on that..."

Did anyone hear "Gerald" on CBC Radio last week ? Gerald said he has lived in the immediate neighbourhood for 50+ years. At first, Gerald sounded like a gruff old man, but he spoke very well... he said " I'm an uneducated, unsophisticated man... but can you tell me why they [HRM] would want to prevent those guys from building a nice new building that would produce tax dollars to the city instead of having a vacant lot in the neighbourhood where the undesirable criminal element can hang out ? "

His words, not mine...

Peter Polley
Polycorp
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 1:10 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Condo site slated for recreation since 1972, HRM documents show
Developer, city at odds over downtown property
By CHRIS LAMBIE Business Editor
Tue. May 11 - 8:19 AM
A Barrington Street property where devel­oper Peter Polley wants to build condomini­ums has been earmarked for recreation since 1972, according to court documents filed by Halifax Regional Municipality.

Polley’s proposed $15-million, 63-unit condominium project on Barrington Street has been stalled for months as he fights with the city over whether the empty lot is sup­posed to be a playground for the adjacent Ocean Towers on Brunswick Street.

“There has never been another, or later, approved usage of the property, and it re­mains restricted from development under its current designation," state new documents filed in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

Polley had taken his case to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, but then his company, Polycorp Properties Inc. , and the city decided their battle was better suited to the courtroom.

The plan for the two buildings, now known as Ocean Towers, was filed with the registry of deeds on July 4, 1972, state court documents.

It identifies the land in question as “an open-space recreational area," documents filed by the city state.

The plan was approved by the former Halifax city council, according to court docu­ments. “There was no legislative provision requiring Halifax City to register the said agreement, or necessitating a formal devel­opment agreement." Polley paid $1.275 million for the lot last April. He has said he performed several checks to make sure it was zoned for high­density development before making the purchase.

But court documents indicate the city “has no knowledge of an inquiry with respect to special development restrictions."

After Polley made the purchase, a devel­opment officer with the city ruled the pro­ject, dubbed Jazz Condominiums, could not go ahead because the land is supposed to be a playground.

An affidavit sworn by Paul Dunphy, the city’s director of community development, said the property “was identified as early as 1945 as part of an area in need of urban renewal."

The former City of Halifax and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation entered into an agreement with Barrington Developments Ltd. in 1970 to construct a housing project on Barrington Street, Dun­phy says in his affidavit. “It is expected that any proposals received will provide an ade­quate amount of recreation space," accord­ing to an excerpt from a Nov. 27, 1969, city council meeting contained in Dunphy’s affidavit.

The agreement with Barrington Devel­opments “does not appear to have been registered at the Registry (of Deeds), but ‘was simply placed on the file,’ " states Dun­phy’s affidavit.

There was no requirement the agreement be registered with the land titles office, Dun­phy says.

But he also mentions that the city has applied to the registrar general of land titles “for a correction in this parcel registration, on the basis that the statutory declarations were inadequate."

Polley bought the empty lot from DDP-Brunswick Ltd. That company is related to Mississauga, Ont.-based TransGlobe Prop­erty Management Ser vices Ltd. , which owns the adjacent Ocean Towers.

But TransGlobe didn’t build the towers and they’ve been owned by several entities since they went up 40 years ago.

Polycorp built the nearby 85-unit Spice Condominiums and the Mont Blanc, which consists of almost 200 apartments and town­houses on Mont Blanc Terrace. It is also working on a 76-house development called Ravenscraig in Fleming Heights.

([email protected])
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 1:20 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
This is the HRM side of the story and then there is Polycorp's side of the story. It will have to be decided in court which side will be accepted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 3:33 PM
POLYCORP-Pete Polley POLYCORP-Pete Polley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
This is the HRM side of the story and then there is Polycorp's side of the story. It will have to be decided in court which side will be accepted.
We remain confident that the Nova Scotia Supreme Court will interpret the facts to support POLYCORP's position. We haven't received a copy of the HRM defence yet... my hat is off to the Herald for being on top of their game...apparently it was filed late yesterday afternoon.

"Keeping stuff in a file" is not a prudent way for anybody - whether they be an individual, business or government - to operate. That is why we (and I believe most modern societies since the 1800's) have a central land registry. While, in 1971-72 there was no mandatory requirement for a municipality to register a land-use agreement (there is now), that does not mean that unregistered documents are enforceable.

To clarify the crucial distinction here. ... I will use the example of a mortgage document because it is a more common example of an important land-related document that is registered to ensure that it is in the public realm so that the rest of the world can know about it.

This is like the "Bank of Halifax" lending Joe some money to buy a house...and keeping the mortgage document in the Bank's files in their central archives. There is actually not a specific requirement on the Bank to register their mortgage as part of the money-lending process ... but the law of the land is very, very clear on this - if Peter buys Joe's house...and the bank has the signed mortgage agreement in "their files" and not at the Registry of Deeds... then it becomes the Bank's problem... not Peter's ... no court is going to uphold the Bank's claim against Peter ...the court will say "you snooze, you lose" (this isn't the technical legal term, but you get the point....

Oh - did I mention - THE BANK CAN'T FIND A COPY OF THE SIGNED LOAN AGREEMENT... they have a copy from 40 years ago that we don't know if Joe ever signed...

Oh yeah - one more thing - Peter asked the Bank before he bought the house from Joe if there was a mortgage on the house...and the Bank gave a letter specifically stating that there was no mortgage...that they had "no records on file"... ...

I agree... the courts will decide how this will be settled. And it's not going to be pretty...

Do we have any lawyers or law students that read Skyscraperpage.com that would like to add any commentary ???

Peter Polley
POLYCORP
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.