[Halifax] 5900 Inglis | ? m | 30 & 24 fl | Cancelled

[Hali87]

^I often wonder whether new construction takes soundproofing into account better than decades past, what with all the bassy music these days (maybe someone here would know?) It's hard not to expect that moving a lot of the students/student-aged population out of wooden flats in nominally SFH neighbourhoods and into a more sound-contained environment would be good for the people who live in those SFH neighbourhoods and don't like the noise.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

Has anyone thought about the children?

Several children suddenly passed away during Fenwick's development. We are all afraid, very afraid. Think of the children! What evil monsters propose much needed student housing!

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is an interesting appeal.

The developer applied for this as an as-of-right development!! which is why is never went to Council. The application was possible as there are no height limits in the "university zone". Initially, HRM's review determined that it had no choice but to issue a development permit as the zone did not specify that only a university could develop within the zone. But before the development permit was issued, another development officer issued a refusal. They are internal emails in the appeal record where HRM staff say that if they refuse this and it goes to appeal, HRM planning staff cannot defend the decision based on how the bylaw is written. Yet, they refused it anyway. Based on the record, it seems like a permit should be issued, but the NSUARB almost always rules in favor of HRM so I suspect the developer will still lose. But we'll see. Should be an interesting one to follow.

The zoning bylaw says that you can build student residences as of right in that zone, but doesn't explicitly state that only the university is allowed to build in the zone, however only a university is allowed to only rent to students. A private developer can't make that restriction based on other legislation therefore the proposed building can't be a residence.

[Colin May]

The irony of a prominent developer, Scott McRea, complaining that it isn't suitable for the neighbourhood. He may be correct but I wish he would speak up when/if he thinks other projects are not suitable for the adjacent neighbourhood/s.

Kelly Denty is one of the Group of 30 planning staff who receive an annual performance based bonus. Sean Audas is not part of the Group of 30.
A-4 Supplemental Appeal Record is the most interesting document as it contains all the emails and for some strange reason the UARB does not enable copy and paste of all or portions of documents.
Nancy Rubin deals with the issue raised re any planning restrictions, see document A-4 in which she states that the units will now be leasehold and the wording meets the requirements of the bylaw

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

The zoning bylaw says that you can build student residences as of right in that zone, but doesn't explicitly state that only the university is allowed to build in the zone, however only a university is allowed to only rent to students. A private developer can't make that restriction based on other legislation therefore the proposed building can't be a residence.

Yeah I get all that, but its not that simple either. I thought that the bylaw refered to student housing not "student residence", which I'm sure can be considered simply as housing suitable for students (shared kitchens, etc,). The same way all the bylaws talk about diversity of housing options, for seniors, blah, blah, blah, but really doesn't define anything that well. Instead, it is left to discretion of staff, often who show vast differences in interpretation. While I doubt the NSUARB will rule in favor of the developer, they should. And then Council should fix it so it doesn't happen again. This is the fair and transparent way to handle these things. Too often staff interpret bylaws based on what they want it to say, not what it actually says. Staff could also go back into the archives and look at what Council intended when this was passed, but they usually don't

[Keith P.]

I am having ever-growing unease about HRM Planning's increasingly anti-development stance since the arrival of Mr. Bjerke as its head. This should come as no surprise to anyone who was a witness to his stint in his previous job.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am having ever-growing unease about HRM Planning's increasingly anti-development stance since the arrival of Mr. Bjerke as its head. This should come as no surprise to anyone who was a witness to his stint in his previous job.

Saying no to crap is not being anti-development.

Heck your opinions on the library are enough to earn you the label of anti- development. Like it or not, it's development, and your against it. The shoe seems to fit..

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Saying no to crap is not being anti-development.

Heck your opinions on the library are enough to earn you the label of anti- development. Like it or not, it's development, and your against it. The shoe seems to fit..

You are being absurd. I made it clear on numerous occasions that I was not against a new library. I was and am staunchly opposed to wasteful spending of public funds on an overly lavish and expensive facility like we ended up with. Get your facts straight before you start leveling baseless accusations.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Saying no to crap is not being anti-development.

Heck your opinions on the library are enough to earn you the label of anti- development. Like it or not, it's development, and your against it. The shoe seems to fit..

But this appeal has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or appropriateness of the proposal. It has to do with the fair interpretation and application of the rules as set by Council. Is staff were so unsure about the meaning of the bylaw, they had an obligation to take it to Council. Their own DOs said they can't reasonably refuse it! It's clear from the record that staff can't agree on the interpretation. I get that the existing bylaws allow terrible buildings, but those are the rules that staff must apply. If they don't think they are working they must take it to Council, not change how they apply them on the fly to meet their own objectives.

[q12]

Source: developmentduffett.ca
http://developmentduffett.ca/post/15...s?sf48880617=1

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is an interesting appeal.

The developer applied for this as an as-of-right development!! which is why is never went to Council. The application was possible as there are no height limits in the "university zone". Initially, HRM's review determined that it had no choice but to issue a development permit as the zone did not specify that only a university could develop within the zone. But before the development permit was issued, another development officer issued a refusal. They are internal emails in the appeal record where HRM staff say that if they refuse this and it goes to appeal, HRM planning staff cannot defend the decision based on how the bylaw is written. Yet, they refused it anyway. Based on the record, it seems like a permit should be issued, but the NSUARB almost always rules in favor of HRM so I suspect the developer will still lose. But we'll see. Should be an interesting one to follow.

So, there are literally emails indicating HRM staff were disobeying the law in refusing the permit and knew they were doing so?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

So, there are literally emails indicating HRM staff were disobeying the law in refusing the permit and knew they were doing so?

Not really. There are emails showing disagreement between DOs over interpretation of the LUB. LUBs are not always clear or black-and-white; the DOs job is to interpret and apply what's written. They're not disobeying anything, just disagreeing on what it means.

In this case what's written is that the zone is for university uses, and the DOs are disagreeing over whether or not a private tower that the developer claims is for students (but has no legal mechanism that requires it to be rented to students) is a university use.

Originally Posted by planarchy

Is staff were so unsure about the meaning of the bylaw, they had an obligation to take it to Council.

No, they don't. There is no mechanism for them to take interpretations of the LUB to Council. Council "writes" the LUB. After that it's up to DOs interpret it. And there is a very clear procedure that guides the process of approving/denying as-of-right permits. The appeal body is the UARB, which is exactly where this ended up.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I can imagine there would be something here that might strike fear into the hearts of some of those south-end homeowners. If the existing student apartments are vacated, they might need to be rented to lower-class working folks who are currently out in the wilds of Spryfield or Highfield Park. The Schmidtville folks would surely not be happy about that.

Touche - I suspect you might be on to something here.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I thought that the bylaw refered to student housing not "student residence".

The specific use is:

"(c) residential accommodation for university students;"

So here's the question. You're a DO. Developer comes in and says, "I want to build a tower for students." What do you do? They're not affiliated with the university, so who's to say that they don't build the tower and then rent it out to seniors instead of university students.

In this case, one DO decided that the developer's word is enough. The second decided that they need proof in the form of an agreement signed between the developer and St. Mary's showing that all of the units were under contract as university student residential accommodations.

Ultimately the failure can probably be place on the planners of 40 years ago, who failed to consider that lands zoned University might end up in private hands and therefore didn't provide sufficient clarity in the LUB. In reality, the LUB shouldn't even mention university students, because it's bad practice to regulate based on the user rather than the use (again, how do you control who the user is?). But it does, and that's what the DOs have to deal with.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Not really. There are emails showing disagreement between DOs over interpretation of the LUB. LUBs are not always clear or black-and-white; the DOs job is to interpret and apply what's written. They're not disobeying anything, just disagreeing on what it means.

In this case what's written is that the zone is for university uses, and the DOs are disagreeing over whether or not a private tower that the developer claims is for students (but has no legal mechanism that requires it to be rented to students) is a university use.



No, they don't. There is no mechanism for them to take interpretations of the LUB to Council. Council "writes" the LUB. After that it's up to DOs interpret it. And there is a very clear procedure that guides the process of approving/denying as-of-right permits. The appeal body is the UARB, which is exactly where this ended up.

Not true. Staff take housekeeping items to Council frequently. Sometimes this is by order of NSUARB and most often it is issues identified internally as they attempt to interpret and apply regulations approved by Council.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

In reality, the LUB shouldn't even mention university students, because it's bad practice to regulate based on the user rather than the use (again, how do you control who the user is?). But it does, and that's what the DOs have to deal with.

Definitely. The Dartmouth LUB is particularly cruel by being openly hostile toward renters. By hey, it was the 1970s...

[Colin May]

New document available at UARB website, filed on September 21 as evidence provided by the planner for Ashcroft.
526 units will be a significant and competitive addition to the student housing market and provide competition to the Dalhousie summer tourist rental market.
The document cites the Killam Properties development of 'Students only' property on the Dalhousie campus at South Street Apartments :
https://www.killamproperties.com/apa...eet-apartments

[Keith P.]

Not one word publicly from Mason on this during the election campaign?

[musicman]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not one word publicly from Mason on this during the election campaign?

Don't worry he came out with his opinion on this tonight on a facebook post. And surprise surprise he has been fighting this one tooth and nail all along.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by musicman

Don't worry he came out with his opinion on this tonight on a facebook post. And surprise surprise he has been fighting this one tooth and nail all along.

That's our boy. The actual anti-development, anti-affordable housing Mason makes a rare appearance.

I guess someone needs to ask him why he wants students condemned to live in squalor instead of new apartments on campus?