[Dartmouth] The Sky (1 Horizon) | 90 m | 27 fl | U/C

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

This is the right answer. Sorry, Ian, but contract law can't operate as black and white as you describe.

It absolutely can. That's why lawyers get paid millions to argue in court over the meaning of a comma; the whole point of a contract is to ensure parties are clear on their rights and responsibilities.

All that being said, this doesn't mean the end to the project. There are other pathways to extend the initiation date, it's just that they are not within the Development Officer's scope of responsibility. She already used her responsibility to its limits, including extending the timeline once (the DO has the authority to extend it once and only once). Now the developer will have to escalate to Council to amend the MPS, or get the Province to step in. That will take some time. But honestly, that's on the developer.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

So then, If YOU were King, what would you do to accelerate building starts and what would you do to clean up HRM's authority issues?

So at this point, I think the biggest thing is time to let the changes that have already happened work their way through the system. HRM made a lot of major changes with the Halifax Accelerator Fund amendments that streamline approvals, and quite a few of the changes the Province made to the HRM Charter were good procedural changes (e.g. allowing the CAO to discharge a development agreement rather than having to go to Council.)

On the policy side really the big "magic wand" thing is to get Suburban Plan done. The Province recently mandated that it get done--which is good--but their mandated timeline (January 2025) feels... ambitious.

There are a couple of other area-specific issues (e.g. ramparts rule and the blanket height limit around Lake Banook) that are annoying on the principle of them, but in the grand scheme of things aren't actually that important in terms of moving the needle on units built across the city.

The culture at HRM has also changed a lot in the last couple of years. You still get the occasional obnoxious request for unnecessary additional information, but it's leagues better than even five years ago. If things keep trending in the same direction I imagine we'll be in a good place.

Really right now what feels like the biggest obstacle are all the wraparound infrastructure issues. The biggest in terms of limiting development in a lot of locations is localized sewer and water capacity.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Thanks for the insight Ian.

So then, If YOU were King, what would you do to accelerate building starts and what would you do to clean up HRM's authority issues?

I'm not really convinced that city planning or bureaucracy is impeding housing starts at this point. HRM's total housing starts through from Jan-July of this year were 82 percent higher than the same period in 2023. And 2023 was a record. And per-capita our starts are very much on the high side, compared to other cities. I don't have any particular insight into the industry but my guess is that constraints on labour and equipment are more important at the moment than bureaucracy in speeding up development.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm not really convinced that city planning or bureaucracy is impeding housing starts at this point. HRM's total housing starts through from Jan-July of this year were 82 percent higher than the same period in 2023. And 2023 was a record. And per-capita our starts are very much on the high side, compared to other cities. I don't have any particular insight into the industry but my guess is that constraints on labour and equipment are more important at the moment than bureaucracy in speeding up development.

This may be true on the local level. But zoom out and look at what percentage of a new unit, "bureaucracy" (permits, fees, inspections etc.) costs make up and then look at how these have grown over time as a percentage of the total. Hint: it's a LOT.

[midasmull]

Originally Posted by kzt79

This may be true on the local level. But zoom out and look at what percentage of a new unit, "bureaucracy" (permits, fees, inspections etc.) costs make up and then look at how these have grown over time as a percentage of the total. Hint: it's a LOT.

For those without access to this info, what's the percentage?

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not all rules are black and white. Does site prep for footings satisfy the planners? Formwork in place? Some but not all footings poured? All poured but not inspected?

I have experience with a commercial building, a new build that was a copy of a series of identical new buildings. On one and only one, the HRM building inspector refused to sign off because of his unique interpretation of accessibility requirements. The other dozen buildings had no such issue with other HRM inspectors. The HRM bureaucracy refused to listen to any argument in order to protect their boy. It cost $50K to alter the finished construction before he would sign off.

There is no tyranny like HRM bureaucracy tyranny.

I think there's a difference between a contractual agreement (the DA) and interpretation of codes and standards (building inspector).

I don't know the wording of the DA, but elsewhere in this thread, it's been suggested that the definition of "started" is a successful footing review/inspection.