| |
Posted Jan 27, 2009, 3:13 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
|
|
I thought I read earlier that the 2nd tower was suppose to be smaller but United Gulf applied to ammend the agreement to increase its size and HRM said no. That then led to some silly argument about how the second tower is part of the first because they share a base. Maybe I'm off base here, but that's what I recollect. I tried to find the decision on the URB but it's either not up yet or I'm just not a great researcher 
Edit: Found it! Here's the URB decision. I'm going to take a quick look http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/d...nsuarb167.html
Edit, Edit: Okay here's the skinny of how this mess came about from the URB:
[8] The final phase of Stoneridge to be developed is Site C, which is now owned by the Developer. Site C is located in the southern part of Stoneridge, along North West Arm Drive. It is bounded on the three other sides (within Stoneridge) by Osborne Street, Walter Havill Drive and lands adjacent to Hail Pond. The plans annexed to the original development agreement described Site C as being 2.08 hectares in size (i.e., 5.13 acres). However, as a result of the approval of the Seventh Amending Agreement dated April 2, 2007, land equivalent in size to four 4,000 square foot lots was removed from the northern portion of Site C to permit the Developer to build single family dwellings along Walter Havill Drive. As a result, the reduced configuration of Site C, by the Board's estimation, now comprises about 4.76 acres.
[9] The development agreement, both before and after the Seventh Amending Agreement noted in the preceding paragraph, provides for three apartment buildings on Site C with a maximum height of four storeys each, with "the exception that one building may be permitted to be of a height of 12 storeys."
[10] The applications which are the subject of the two appeals herein (i.e., the application for a development permit and the application to amend the development agreement) will, regardless of which alternative the Developer chooses to proceed with, result in only one building being constructed on Site C, i.e., the proposed 12 storey apartment building (with two towers). In such an event, the other two four storey apartment buildings will not be built.
[11] As noted above, the plans attached to the development agreement show three building-shaped icons on Site C. There is an icon showing a 12 storey building on the southern portion of Site C adjacent to North West Arm Drive. There are also two icons on the plans showing two four storey buildings in the northwestern and northeastern portions of Site C.
[12] The proposed 12 storey two tower building proposed by the Developer is shaped like a boomerang. However, the footprint of the proposed 12 storey building extends beyond the 12 storey icon shown on the plan in the development agreement, with one end extending to cover a portion of the icon for the northeastern four storey building.
II HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
[13] This matter involves a series of applications by the Developer with respect to the development of a 12 storey structure on Site C.
[14] On March 16, 2006, the Developer first applied to HRM for a development permit for the proposed two tower 12 storey building on a single podium. The application was denied on May 26, 2006, and the Developer did not appeal that decision to the Board.
[15] Following the refusal of a development permit for the proposed two tower 12 storey building on a single podium, the Developer applied on June 29, 2006 for a different two tower building on a single podium. However, in this instance, the application was for a 12 storey tower and a four storey tower. This application was approved on July 26, 2006. The Board notes that the footprint of the foundation for this approved building is identical to the footprint of the proposed two tower 12 storey building which is the subject of the two appeals before the Board.
[16] Construction on the approved 12 storey tower has commenced and, as of the date of the site visits described below in this decision, the 12 storey tower was partially constructed to its full height. While the foundation for the entire building footprint was also completed on the date of the site visits, construction on the four storey tower has not started. The Board infers that the Developer is awaiting the consideration of these appeals by the Board before construction begins on the second tower.
[17] On September 18, 2006, the Developer applied to Community Council to amend the development agreement to permit the construction of the proposed two tower building, with each proposed tower being 12 storeys.
[18] A public information meeting respecting the application was held on November 8, 2006.
[19] A report dated June 5, 2007, (the "Staff Report"), prepared by Richard Harvey, Planner, and submitted by Paul Dunphy, Director of Planning and Development Services for HRM, recommended that the Community Council approve the proposed amendment to the development agreement.
[20] Without holding a public hearing, Community Council refused the amendment of the development agreement at its meeting held on June 18, 2007.
[21] On July 3, 2007, the Appellant appealed to the Board from the decision of Community Council, the grounds of appeal being described as follows:
... the decision of Municipal Council is not reasonably consistent with the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy. In particular, Council failed to recognize the following:
1. That HRM staff had submitted a report indicating the Amendment of the existing Development Agreement complied with the overall intent and policies of the Municipal Planning Strategy and recommended approval of this amendment.
2. A twelve storey building is already permitted on this site. Council failed to recognize that the Appellant was not creating an additional twelve storey building with this amendment but was instead attempting to modify the footprint of the permitted building thereby eliminating the need to construct two already permitted additional buildings, increasing the available green space, improving setbacks from existing and future housing, increasing available parking and softening impact upon adjacent uses.
3. The proposal would increase underground parking, reduce the demand for surface parking, and by creating a new exit for traffic, substantially reduce the traffic on Walter Havill Drive.
[22] On October 31, 2007, the Appellant resubmitted its application for a development permit. The application was substantively the same as the earlier request for the development permit which had been refused. Andrew Faulkner, Development Officer, refused to issue the development permit by letter dated November 1, 2007. The Appellant appealed to the Board. The ground of appeal stated as follows:
... the decision of the Development Officer does not comply with the Development Agreement.
[23] Both appeals were heard by the Board in the same hearing.
So what's it all mean. To my mind HRM isn't quite as villianous as they first came off. United Gulf has just refused to take a no on this one and have really worked the system. It's really similar to what happened in this same development concerning park space around Hail's Pond. Reading between the lines, I think my earlier hunch that this one has more to do putting United Gulf in their place then whether there is a 2nd twelve storey tower on site or 3 four storey buildings. They probably don't want the logic that it's all one building to hold up either.
Last edited by spaustin; Jan 27, 2009 at 3:50 AM.
|
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
