HRMxD coming under fire here.
I am generally a strong supporter of HRMxD. It has been a *momentous* improvement over the previous regime, that has helped shepherd in a period of relative development certainty and helped facilitated a lot of the current "turn around" with development downtown. The fact that it was hated by the Heritage and STV collectives is evidence, by itself, on how much of a benefit it has been.
That said, as a compromise, it has shortcomings. It should have done more to promote/perserve heritage. IMHO, it should have been an opportunity to takedown the stupid view planes, but the thing almost failed to pass anyways, due to strong NIMBY opposition, even without any further controversial features we're heaping onto it retrospectively.
To challenge, is that if you start creating exceptions to HRMxD (like the Skye Tower), then that leads to everyone trying to fit into the exception, leading to a lot of uncertainty, litigation, challenges, defeating the purpose of good planning and development certainty.
However, I completely forgot: isn't there an exception to HRMxD height limits-- policy 89?
Here it is:
Quote:
Policy 89 Notwithstanding the forgoing policies, where a proposed amendment addresses unforeseen circumstances, or is deemed by Council to confer significant economic, social, or cultural benefits to HRM beyond the bonus zoning provisions of this Plan, such as a new downtown convention centre or other significant cultural infrastructure, such amendments may be considered by Council at any time regardless of the schedule for reviews."
|
See:
https://www.halifax.ca/council/agend...90324cow3i.pdf
The YMCA was granted an HRMxD exemption under this small exception.
Couldn't Chedrawe ask for a Policy 89 exemption for height on that side of the development so he can preserve Maritime Life and also the view from the new Library = significant social/cultural benefits?
Could also argue this was "unforeseen circumstances" as the Central Library wasn't built at the time of the HRMxD...