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

[hokus83]

This is all the info I could find. http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=UARBv12&-loadframes

it looks like this should be all wrapped up by now

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by hokus83

(any "aggrieved person" may appeal the decision of council or the development officer, as the case may be. An "aggrieved person" is defined in the MGA and the HRM Charter, but typically involves an individual or group of individuals who bona fide believes the decision of the council will adversely affect the value, or reasonable enjoyment, of the person's property or the reasonable enjoyment of property occupied by the person(s).

the Board cannot allow an appeal unless it determines that the decision of council does not reasonably carry out the intent of the municipal planning strategy, or that the decision of the development officer conflicts with the provisions of the land-use by-law or the subdivision by-law. All evidence and argument at the hearing must be limited to the issue under review in the appeal. The Board must confirm council's decision if it is based on a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the municipal planning strategy, even if the appellant can identify a different interpretation which is contrary to council's decision)

I don't see how this even fits under the rules for an appeal. It doesn't seem to meet the guidelines to me

I believe it was challenged on the legality of Schedule "Q" among other things. These are issues of procedure and fairness in the application of the LUB and interpretation of the MPS. The appeal was heard in September, but I don't think a decision has been released. Usually these things are 60 days or less, so I assume there is lots to consider in this case.

[ns_kid]

AllNovaScotia is reporting that the UARB has rejected the opponents' arguments and has given its blessing to the Gottingen Street project. In a 57-page decision, chair Wayne Cochrane said the appellants did not establish that the decisions of the community council and HRM council to approve the project ran counter to the Municipal Planning Strategy.

I checked the UARB website but it does not appear the decision has been posted there yet.

Opponents could still attempt a judicial appeal.

http://nsuarb.novascotia.ca/decisions

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

AllNovaScotia is reporting that the UARB has rejected the opponents' arguments and has given its blessing to the Gottingen Street project. In a 57-page decision, chair Wayne Cochrane said the appellants did not establish that the decisions of the community council and HRM council to approve the project ran counter to the Municipal Planning Strategy.

I checked the UARB website but it does not appear the decision has been posted there yet.

Opponents could still attempt a judicial appeal.

http://nsuarb.novascotia.ca/decisions

I just checked and the decision is posted with the appeal being dismissed.

[halifaxboyns]

I just read the decision - it was a good one. They basically shut Bev Miller down at the beginning because she didn't provide information to allow her to be considered an expert witness (as I understand it from the decision). So all of her testimony was ruled inadmissible despite giving limiting instructions to her lawyer (I get from the decision the lawyer decided to just ignore the instruction - thus making her testimony void). Granted most of her testimony would be void to me as it would be NIMBY non-sense.

There was some direction to HRM to clean up the planning document - I didn't read the decision fully; but I would guess that it's because the planning document dates back to the 80's and may still contain stuff that more recent planning law has indicated should be removed.

This goes to actually prove the point against what Alan Ruffman was saying at the public hearing for Wellington Street. He keeps painting the picture that plan amendments are bad - but when you are trying to evaluate a planning application in today's context, using policy that was based on a way of thinking from the 80's (and that context) - how is that relevant? So of course you would do a plan amendment - because it's not reasonable to use the past to evaluate the present.

I've said this many times when new policy is passed - as soon as council approves it; it's obsolete because architecture and building style change so rapidly.

[someone123]

My impression is that folks like Alan Ruffman don't like amendments because they had a disproportionate impact on the plans when they were first created. However, like you said, things change very quickly and plans get outdated. It's also pretty awful to think that people living and working in the city today should have no input into the planning process. I don't believe at all that the 1980's NIMBY ideal of Halifax is what a majority are looking for today.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

There was some direction to HRM to clean up the planning document - I didn't read the decision fully; but I would guess that it's because the planning document dates back to the 80's and may still contain stuff that more recent planning law has indicated should be removed.

This goes to actually prove the point against what Alan Ruffman was saying at the public hearing for Wellington Street. He keeps painting the picture that plan amendments are bad - but when you are trying to evaluate a planning application in today's context, using policy that was based on a way of thinking from the 80's (and that context) - how is that relevant? So of course you would do a plan amendment - because it's not reasonable to use the past to evaluate the present.

I've said this many times when new policy is passed - as soon as council approves it; it's obsolete because architecture and building style change so rapidly.

All of which begs the question: why do we pay armies of planners to develop detailed area plans with things like height limits and architectural requirements (see HRMxD)? I agree that things change over time and you cannot possibly anticipate who might come along and propose something that was never thought of 15 years ago. So why bother to have anything other than some high-level principles and guidelines?

[Colin May]

Decision Case MO6307 page 54 & 55

226] The Board does, however, agree with Mr. Epstein’s criticisms of the obsolete
references in HRM’s MPS and LUB to municipal bodies (such as the City of Halifax) or
provincial statutes (such as the Planning Act) which have not existed for many years.
This can create needless confusion, especially on the part of ordinary citizens who may
try to read, and understand, these documents. The Board suggests that the time has
come for HRM to at least consider doing something about it. "

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

All of which begs the question: why do we pay armies of planners to develop detailed area plans with things like height limits and architectural requirements (see HRMxD)? I agree that things change over time and you cannot possibly anticipate who might come along and propose something that was never thought of 15 years ago. So why bother to have anything other than some high-level principles and guidelines?

Because legislatively; decision on as of right developments are not done by City Council - they are done by staff (development officers - we call them development authorities here in Calgary). The last stat I heard was there was over 4900 permits this year for HRM - most of which are as of right for things like signs, houses, all sorts of things and they don't require public hearings.

Without policy plans and Land Use Bylaws - how would they be approved? What standard would be used? Legally - there has to be some point that someone can say yes or no - there has to be an objective standard. Can you imagine how long City Council meetings would be if every permit had to go to Council for approval? You'd have week long council meetings - they would never end.

The problem has been resources, from the get go. When amalgamation happened, they just kept the same bylaws and policy documents and there hasn't been any significant increase in resources until lately so there hasn't been any significant updates. Now - the regional centre plan should help deal with this to some extent, but the area outside of the regional centre plan won't impacted (one of the plans referenced in this appeal will disappear because of the Centre Plan - the Peninsula Plan).

Having written a few planning documents - you sit down and try to figure out what the typical is going to be. What will 90% of the applications that would be impacted by the plan be? Then you plan for that - the whole point of a plan amendment is to think of the situations that you can't possibly think of. You write it for the outcome you hope to achieve.

If I gathered everyone on this forum together to do a plan for the downtown - I'm sure we would hit about 90-95% of the typical applications. Would we get all that could happen? Never. Because we can't think ahead of what construction practices or architectural styles are going to happen.

I would just add that the fixes noted in Colin May's comment above - would be quite simple and require little if any effort. Where the term City of Halifax is found in "insert policy document here" delete and replace with Halifax Regional Municipality and where the term Planning Act is found, delete and replace with Halifax Charter. Done and it took me 30 seconds to type. The resources issue my focus is on is the broader planning ideas of where higher density should be and things like that.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I just read the decision - it was a good one. They basically shut Bev Miller down at the beginning because she didn't provide information to allow her to be considered an expert witness (as I understand it from the decision). So all of her testimony was ruled inadmissible despite giving limiting instructions to her lawyer (I get from the decision the lawyer decided to just ignore the instruction - thus making her testimony void). Granted most of her testimony would be void to me as it would be NIMBY non-sense.

There was some direction to HRM to clean up the planning document - I didn't read the decision fully; but I would guess that it's because the planning document dates back to the 80's and may still contain stuff that more recent planning law has indicated should be removed.

This goes to actually prove the point against what Alan Ruffman was saying at the public hearing for Wellington Street. He keeps painting the picture that plan amendments are bad - but when you are trying to evaluate a planning application in today's context, using policy that was based on a way of thinking from the 80's (and that context) - how is that relevant? So of course you would do a plan amendment - because it's not reasonable to use the past to evaluate the present.

I've said this many times when new policy is passed - as soon as council approves it; it's obsolete because architecture and building style change so rapidly.

God, if there was any doubt the Anti-Development Trust, sorry, Heritage Trust group of idiots are litigation happy, just read this decision. What a total clown outfit.

Yes, it's the end of the world that there's been a LUB/MPS amendment.

Yes, the sky is falling because something was above 4 storeys.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

God, if there was any doubt the Anti-Development Trust, sorry, Heritage Trust group of idiots are litigation happy, just read this decision. What a total clown outfit.

Yes, it's the end of the world that there's been a LUB/MPS amendment.

Yes, the sky is falling because something was above 4 storeys.

Well we (Calgary) should be glad we don't have them - but we have our own. There is one area of the City (Hillhurst) that has a density bonusing system and the only way to actually implement it is that they have to rezone to a special zoning (Direct Control) so that the bonusing can be included in the rules. They would go nuts with that each time a new parcel came up for rezoning just to get the density bonusing rules in place.

For me - the decision is quite the FU to Bev and her band of merry nimby-folk.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by hokus83

(any "aggrieved person" may appeal the decision of council or the development officer, as the case may be. An "aggrieved person" is defined in the MGA and the HRM Charter, but typically involves an individual or group of individuals who bona fide believes the decision of the council will adversely affect the value, or reasonable enjoyment, of the person's property or the reasonable enjoyment of property occupied by the person(s).

My problem with this definition is that it doesn't recognize proximity in terms of an appeal. What I mean is - say a certain nimbyfolk (who will remain nameless) but lives on Ferguson's Cove Road wants to appeal something in downtown. Under this definition - he has the right to appeal that development which (straight line measurement) might be well over 10+km from his land. Now if he owned the parcel next door to the development - that's fine, he has a bona fide right. But 10+km?! How on earth can you claim that a development for whatever in the core is going to have an impact to your property when it's that far away?

Granted, we don't have a definition of affected party (same idea) out here in Alberta. So our appeals board has to make that call. I did an appeal recently on a development that was next to a regional park and people from all over the city came out to speak against it. Fortunately, I made a rather good argument (which the board agreed with) that while the park may have regional users, the development has local impacts to residents near by. So, they decided on a radius around the park and about 20 folks couldn't speak on it.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Well we (Calgary) should be glad we don't have them - but we have our own. There is one area of the City (Hillhurst) that has a density bonusing system and the only way to actually implement it is that they have to rezone to a special zoning (Direct Control) so that the bonusing can be included in the rules. They would go nuts with that each time a new parcel came up for rezoning just to get the density bonusing rules in place.

For me - the decision is quite the FU to Bev and her band of merry nimby-folk.

Keep fighting the good fight in CGY! Or perhaps return to HRM to fight it here!

One worry about the UARB decision: the Board's seeming willingness to qualify Miller as an "expert" had notice been given. Seriously? On what basis?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

One worry about the UARB decision: the Board's seeming willingness to qualify Miller as an "expert" had notice been given. Seriously? On what basis?

Expert on obstructionism.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Keep fighting the good fight in CGY! Or perhaps return to HRM to fight it here!

One worry about the UARB decision: the Board's seeming willingness to qualify Miller as an "expert" had notice been given. Seriously? On what basis?

They were willing to qualify her if she was somehow able to prove she was one. Everyone should get the opportunity to prove they are not an expert.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by keith p.

expert on obstructionism.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

They were willing to qualify her if she was somehow able to prove she was one. Everyone should get the opportunity to prove they are not an expert.

Ah, got it. Thanks.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Ah, got it. Thanks.

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.

[JET]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Well we (Calgary) should be glad we don't have them - but we have our own. There is one area of the City (Hillhurst) that has a density bonusing system and the only way to actually implement it is that they have to rezone to a special zoning (Direct Control) so that the bonusing can be included in the rules. They would go nuts with that each time a new parcel came up for rezoning just to get the density bonusing rules in place.

For me - the decision is quite the FU to Bev and her band of merry nimby-folk.

I find that your recent posts have a less charitable tone for those you disagree with than your posts from a year or two ago; not such a good thing, IMHO.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

I find that your recent posts have a less charitable tone for those you disagree with than your posts from a year or two ago; not such a good thing, IMHO.

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.