[Halifax] 2254 Barrington | ? m | 7 fl | Approved

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by spaustin

The City is being ridiculous. The site in question is a vacant lot with nothing, but a few small trees, grass and a sidewalk on it. There is no playground. Does anyone know if there ever was? This is privately-owned land and there is obviously no legal way to force the current owner to build a playground on the site. The City should either buy the land and build the playground or amend whatever development agreement or zoning law designates this land as a playground so Jazz can proceed. Dragging the developer to court to protect a vacant lot that has no hope of ever becoming public space makes no sense and is a waste of time and money for all concerned.

If he's appealing to the URB it sounds like he's going through the as of right process; so he applied for a Development Permit (DP) and was refused. The MGA (or I think the Halifax Charter now) says that the DO must give reasons for refusal - so I'd like to see what his reasons were. Unfortunately, they may not be public until the URB starts its hearings.

[Wishblade]

I was looking at the comments on the CH in regards to these new developments on this project (pun intended ), and I found that Peter Polley left a comment:

POLYCORP-Peter Polley wrote:
Thanks for the positive feedback so far (with the exception of Haliguy30)... Please drive by the property and look at it. It is an abandoned, vacant lot that is covered in garbage (was like that when we bought it). The adjacent property (that we purchased from HRM itself) was developed into the Spice Condos building. Spice Condos will soon produce approx. $300,000 per year in annual property tax revenue to the City with disproportionately low long term costs for the city as most people walk to work. All we want to do is provide high quality, energy efficient homes (LEED Platinum is our goal) in a "walkable" location close to Downtown for first time home buyers. Sounds simple, and completely in line with what everyone in this city say that they want... motherhood and apple pie wrapped up in an energy efficient blanket... At POLYCORP, our goal is to be one of the highest quality residential builders in the City. The adjacent Spice Condos project is being referred to as a model for residential development for downtown Halifax. Keep the positive feedback coming...and ask your HRM councillor to help us..

Peter Polley POLYCORP Group of Companies

I'm glad he was on the website and read all the postive comments in his favour. Perhaps it will give him some confidence through this rediculous mess. I honestly cannot see them holding back this proposal because of this.

[sdm]

The lot maybe zoned R3 but it sounds like due dillengence wasn't deep enough and the buyer got caught.

There is a requirement for the amount of green space a development has, and from what i can see ocean towers probably would require this lot as they pretty much occupy the entire lot they reside on.

Now can the city change this now in this day of age in creating dense urban core? I guess yes, but that may open the doors to others in the city to do.

I would hate to see access to the development from barrington street though, certainly would be on a blind bend.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by sdm

The lot maybe zoned R3 but it sounds like due dillengence wasn't deep enough and the buyer got caught.

There is a requirement for the amount of green space a development has, and from what i can see ocean towers probably would require this lot as they pretty much occupy the entire lot they reside on.

This deals seems strange for all parties involved. It is really hard to say what exactly happened here. I agree that a development the size of ocean towers needs access to some green space - and P. Polley isn't quite telling the truth. The lot he purchased is not a baron wasteland. On nice days I've frequently seen large groups playing cricket here.

I really don't know, but would assume the owners were aware that it needed to be reserved for green space and didn't disclose this to the buyer. Either way, seems like sloppy work on the part of both parties.

[phrenic]

What parent would let their kid play in a green space directly along what is essentially a busy highway anyway?

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by phrenic

What parent would let their kid play in a green space directly along what is essentially a busy highway anyway?

But it isn't directly on Barrington, or doesn't feel that way anyway. The slope of the site and the presence of large trees along the Barrington Street site create a surprising amount of separation.

Here is the street view:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...12,273.96,,0,4

[sdm]

Originally Posted by phrenic

What parent would let their kid play in a green space directly along what is essentially a busy highway anyway?

good point, however the building was constructed during a time in the city that all developments required a minimum green space. Where the original developer chose to place it was not controlled.

Even today there is requirements for green space, however at least the city is allowing roof top "green" space to be a part of this calculation.

[someone123]

I wonder if the city could be liable for damages, given the letter that they sent earlier. It probably depends a lot on what claims/promises they made, but it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.

Due diligence is one thing, but if you go to the HRM explicitly requesting information about your property they should give everything to you in a timely fashion. If they messed up, which the city certainly does, then they should be on the hook.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by sdm

The lot maybe zoned R3 but it sounds like due dillengence wasn't deep enough and the buyer got caught.

There is a requirement for the amount of green space a development has, and from what i can see ocean towers probably would require this lot as they pretty much occupy the entire lot they reside on.

Now can the city change this now in this day of age in creating dense urban core? I guess yes, but that may open the doors to others in the city to do.

I would hate to see access to the development from barrington street though, certainly would be on a blind bend.

I would think that if that site was tied to Ocean Towers - it couldn't be sold? If it's the greenspace for the site; it shouldn't be through the use of municipal land (or what was) - it should've been part of the ocean towers parcel.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder if the city could be liable for damages, given the letter that they sent earlier. It probably depends a lot on what claims/promises they made, but it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.

Due diligence is one thing, but if you go to the HRM explicitly requesting information about your property they should give everything to you in a timely fashion. If they messed up, which the city certainly does, then they should be on the hook.

I think it would be a difficult matter to deal with - because certainly the developer should have done due dilligence in finding out the zoning rules etc.

I suspect it may fall to how the application was refused and what the reasons were. Just because a property has a certain zoning; there may have been some policy reasons for refusing it? This is why I suspect there is more to the story here.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I think it would be a difficult matter to deal with - because certainly the developer should have done due dilligence in finding out the zoning rules etc.

I suspect it may fall to how the application was refused and what the reasons were. Just because a property has a certain zoning; there may have been some policy reasons for refusing it? This is why I suspect there is more to the story here.

According to an interview with Peter Polley on CBC Radio today, they sought and received a confirmation of zoning letter from HRM prior to the purchase. Only when they sought a development agreement did a problem arise, as an unregistered document not resident in the Registry of Deeds was found in the HRM archives, dating from the original sale of the lands by HRM to the developer of Ocean Towers (not the current owners) around 1970 had the stipulation that the parcel was to be a playground. Polley makes the very good point that if you cannot rely on the Land Titles system and the Registry of Deeds to find all interests relating to a property, along with a letter from HRM, what can you rely on if you are trying to do a development? Clearly a search of the HRM archives is not practical.

[someone123]

Aside from the fairly obvious bureaucratic nightmare, it also seems crazy to add those sorts of requirements to land parcels in the first place. Why didn't the HRM just subdivide the lot, retain part of it, and have the developer pay for the playground equipment? Simply charging the developer more for the land parcel would have been even better. The HRM could have bought a better land plot on Brunswick Street or paid for better equipment by the school.

I really dislike is the style of getting each development to include a park or open space. A much better approach is to just pay for things through taxes, whether they are ongoing property taxes or initial development fees. That way the funds can be pooled to build nicer infrastructure and the city can buy better land plots that are more central and useful.

The same thing is true for public art. There's lots of room for great public art in the city but HRM by Design seems to encourage plopping down a cheap metal lighthouse in front of every apartment tower.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Aside from the fairly obvious bureaucratic nightmare, it also seems crazy to add those sorts of requirements to land parcels in the first place. Why didn't the HRM just subdivide the lot, retain part of it, and have the developer pay for the playground equipment? Simply charging the developer more for the land parcel would have been even better. The HRM could have bought a better land plot on Brunswick Street or paid for better equipment by the school.

I really dislike is the style of getting each development to include a park or open space. A much better approach is to just pay for things through taxes, whether they are ongoing property taxes or initial development fees. That way the funds can be pooled to build nicer infrastructure and the city can buy better land plots that are more central and useful.

Wow - I'm surprised on this kind of mix up - the fact the document was missing. Although if it was supposed to be registered on title; it sounds to me to be more of a problem with the registry of deeds, not with HRM.

The zoning confirmation letter is only meant to give the last legal use of the property (typically in the form of a Development Permit or Development Agreement).

Requiring greenspace for multi-residential development is a typical thing - we require it out here in Calgary a lot; but our rules also include amenity space above grade (roof top patios and terraces). What I don't like is this greenspace being provided on a seperate parcel - they shouldn't be seperated at all. They should be combined; since a Development permit is tied to the land on which it's applied for and lives with that land until it either expires (if temporary) or is amended or a new development (which removes the previously authorized use/development) is approved.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder if the city could be liable for damages, given the letter that they sent earlier. It probably depends a lot on what claims/promises they made, but it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.

Due diligence is one thing, but if you go to the HRM explicitly requesting information about your property they should give everything to you in a timely fashion. If they messed up, which the city certainly does, then they should be on the hook.

the property registration system is a provincial one, not city. So the city would have information, but the acurate info is held within the provincial system. The system may have errors and maybe some documents have fallen through the cracks and have not been properly registred.

The simple resolve to this is for the seller to give back the money and transfer the lands back. I don't understand why this is becoming a bigger deal then it is. This happens more often then not, and is the reason the province step time and money to update the system to where it is today.

[macgregor]

I think that Title Insurance might cover this, but a lawyer would know for sure.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

the property registration system is a provincial one, not city. So the city would have information, but the acurate info is held within the provincial system. The system may have errors and maybe some documents have fallen through the cracks and have not been properly registred.

This is true although there seems to be a separate HRM piece, since HRM approval presumably involves more information than what is available in the provincial land registry. Isn't the registry more for determining ownership and defining property extent?

If this sort of thing is covered by title insurance and purchasers are expected to pay for that then this is not such a big deal. My big concern is just that it should be clear what a developer's responsibilities are and they should be able to ask the HRM or province what they can do with a property before they start making concrete plans. Otherwise the process is wasteful and unfair.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

According to an interview with Peter Polley on CBC Radio today, they sought and received a confirmation of zoning letter from HRM prior to the purchase. Only when they sought a development agreement did a problem arise, as an unregistered document not resident in the Registry of Deeds was found in the HRM archives, dating from the original sale of the lands by HRM to the developer of Ocean Towers (not the current owners) around 1970 had the stipulation that the parcel was to be a playground. Polley makes the very good point that if you cannot rely on the Land Titles system and the Registry of Deeds to find all interests relating to a property, along with a letter from HRM, what can you rely on if you are trying to do a development? Clearly a search of the HRM archives is not practical.

Keith - That's exactly the whole point...by law, important documents that affect land MUST be registered at the Nova Scotia Registry of Deeds (e.g. easements, mortgages, MUNICIPAL LAND USE AGREEMENTS...) in order for innocent third parties to be able to become aware of them... to avoid this exact situation. The old agreement that HRM says is in effect was never registered... it was kept in their own archives and it took them 6 weeks to find it. An innocent third party purchasing the land is not bound by an unregistered agreement. This is HRM mistake # 1

On top of that, there is a simple legal concept of ESTOPPEL -

Definition - a rule of evidence whereby a person is precluded from denying the truth of a statement of facts he has previously asserted". HRM issued a Zoning Confirmation Letter in which they clearly indicated that the "legal (authorized) use" of the land was "no records on file" and was Zoned R-3 -which allows multiple unit residential buildings (e.g. apartments, condominiums). Mistake # 2.

The facts of the case are as simple as the above, and as simple as those outlined in the Chronicle Herald ad. You are not missing anything. This is pretty basic stuff - real estate law 101... none of should be wasting our time talking about this because it's that ridiculous.

I have asked the question repeatedly to HRM staff " why would you want to fight this battle ?".

I must admit that I have been following the Skyscraper blog for several years now and like the assorted comments about our adjacent Spice Condos project - from the colours, to the "moes" (actually Tony, Ricky and Marty et al) that we use to move at a tortoise like pace.... but I think that you all want a liveable, walkable city... instead of a vacant field where druggies shoot up and garbage accumulates.

Please keep posting your comments... hopefully positive, supportive ones. If you feel strongly about this, please call or email your Councillor (and the Mayor) and tell them that you want a full investigation of what happened here... do not accept the line that I keep hearing ... "it's a legal matter". That's crap. This is a "commonsense matter" or a "fairness matter". HRM is out to bury us alive in this to try to deal with the two mistakes listed above.

Peter Polley
POLYCORP Group of Companies
Proud Owner of the future site of Jazz Condominiums

[fenwick16]

Interesting, based on the facts I thought the same thing; how can the city fight this? I hope that it goes ahead, Halifax certainly needs more residential development near the downtown.

PS: I think that the Mount Blanc development is an interesting Polycorp development. It looks like regular wood construction but is actually insulated concrete walls. I remember reading a couple of years ago that this won some awards. http://www.lifestylehomesandproperti...es_mb_rev.html

[DigitalNinja]

Hey Peter, glad to see you on these forums, I wish we had more people who own the land join the forum and share opinions and news.

First off, I'd like to say that now Spice is down, it fits in nice downtown and isn't bad at all IMO.

Second Halifax needs more of these types of projects, and I agree you have a solid case and the HRM is just wasting cash on something that they should have apologized for let you do the development and admit that it was their mistake instead of wasting tax payers dollars sorting this out when there is other stuff which deserves their attention more.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Any idea how many people follow Skyscraperpage.com in Halifax area ? Is it widely read or a smaller group of devoted followers ? I staggered into it doing a Google search for our Spice project next door... just curious... if a person is getting up on a soap box, it's nice to know how many people are listening...

Peter Polley
Polycorp Group