[Dartmouth] 307 Prince Albert Road | ? m | 16 fl | U/C

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's particulary poor logic because those densities apply to neighbourhoods, not individual lots. Realistically, it is undesirable and probably not possible to rebuild all housing to bump up densities to 10-15 units per acre. The way to achieve those moderate densities while minimizing the impact on the neighbourhood is to allow pockets of higher density.

Couldn't agree more. The argument that is being floated these days that we can achieve significant density to revive the urban core without some height is dubious. If you look around the world, cities that achieve density without high-rises do so with very dense wall-to-wall buildings that are at least several floors high. Think New York rowhouses or Paris streets. The old North End and Schmidtville are the only places in HRM where we come close to that type of model. Most of our neighbourhoods are made up of single-family housing. They're also quite charming and bulldozing them flat is a terrible idea. The only way to add density then is to make the most of infill opportunities and allow for well-designed height. I actually said this in the District 5 Candidate's Debate.
http://youtu.be/xX2B4hKDM2o

[Jringe01]

For me...most development projects are like "meh...whatever", like most of the stuff being thrown up in Clayton Park/Fairview etc, but this project...this project is, like spaustin said, making the most of space and was well designed. This was, for me at least a project to get excited about.

When I lived in Halifax I would spend a lot of time walking, to the point where I walked down a majority of streets in Halifax and at lest 1/2 of the ones in Dartmouth. Some of my fav walks in Dartmouth took place around the lakes and I always hoped that someone would come along and put up a well designed highrise (anywhere from 12-17 floors) in that area. Having seen it from so many different angles I feel that the geography alone cries out for one, not to mention the urban landscape.

I love highrises and skyscrapers and would love to see lots more of them. Not that I advocate Manhattans everywhere but if they are well designed, well built and positioned in the right place highrises can add an amazing, visually appealing mix of colour and contrast that many cities need. Sadly most such efforts either fail or fall flat (Cowie Hill being a prime example) which makes it doubly frustrating when idiot politicians are presented with the real deal...they suddenly can't see "the forest for the trees"

I really hope this guy continues his fight thru the courts and wins. This is a building that both needs to be and must be built.

[TheLittleGuy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Map - 307 Prince Albert Road for Case 16898.

Here is the rendering. It looks quite good but since this is so close to Lake Banook and requires rezoning, I imagine that it could take years to go through.

I'm bringing this thread back for one reason only. It acts as a reminder of what happens when you allow anti-development types who hold the public at large hostage. A reminder for upcoming announcements on the Halifax side around the Quinpool Rd area and the Dartmouth area when it comes views lines for a golf course...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy

I'm bringing this thread back for one reason only. It acts as a reminder of what happens when you allow anti-development types who hold the public at large hostage. A reminder for upcoming announcements on the Halifax side around the Quinpool Rd area and the Dartmouth area when it comes views lines for a golf course...

I don't have time or inclination to read through that thread again, but since you have already: why was it turned down? Looked like a good project right next to a major transportation arterial.

I don't get your comment about golf course site lines, since the corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue aren't anywhere near a site line from Brightwood. Or are you talking about some project coming up that you fear will be cancelled for that reason?

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't have time or inclination to read through that thread again, but since you have already: why was it turned down? Looked like a good project right next to a major transportation arterial.

I don't get your comment about golf course site lines, since the corner of Prince Albert Road and Glenwood Avenue aren't anywhere near a site line from Brightwood. Or are you talking about some project coming up that you fear will be cancelled for that reason?

I believe that it was turned down by the Dartmouth Community Council, it didn't even get to a public meeting. It seemed fine to me.

[hokus83]

I'm scratching my head a b it about this one. What does the city expect to have in this area, what sits there now is just a empty gravel lot not being used for anything. This was a good proposal that should have went through.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by TheLittleGuy

I'm bringing this thread back for one reason only. It acts as a reminder of what happens when you allow anti-development types who hold the public at large hostage. A reminder for upcoming announcements on the Halifax side around the Quinpool Rd area and the Dartmouth area when it comes views lines for a golf course...

There are no 'views lines' in Dartmouth, they were abolished in July 2013.
As for the project you brought back consider this :
Read the UARB decision where the Board slammed city staff and named and shamed them - they remain employed by HRM and received another beating from consultants in the CanEuro case.
Maurice Lloyd was the planning consultant for the objectors and his almost 50 years as a planner in Dartmouth,and elsewhere in the province, was the key in demolishing the appeal. Maurice wrote the first plan for Dartmouth back in 1965 and is very well regarded by his colleagues. The evisceration of the staff by Maurice and the Board is quite entertaining.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

I believe that it was turned down by the Dartmouth Community Council, it didn't even get to a public meeting. It seemed fine to me.

Thanks! That is a head-scratcher...

[JET]

I think that it is also where the funeral home is, not where a gravel lot is located. The report referred to by Colin sound interesting; i don't think that I have seen it.

[halifaxboyns]

Here is the decision that was mentioned earlier.

[JET]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Here is the decision that was mentioned earlier.

Wow, I think I'll have to wait for the Cole's Notes version.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by JET

I think that it is also where the funeral home is, not where a gravel lot is located. The report referred to by Colin sound interesting; i don't think that I have seen it.

NSUARB Decision November 2012 : http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/d...nsuarb155.html

Quote : " Mr. Dickey was accepted as qualified to give opinion evidence in relation to planning matters. Mr. Dickey is an employee of HRM’s planning staff, and HRM’s principal planner in processing the Monaco applications. He was, however, called as a witness by Monaco in this proceeding, and gave evidence which was critical of Harbour East Community Council’s decision to refuse. As the Board will discuss later, his testimony at the Board hearing differed in at least one significant way from the opinions he had expressed previously (both in writing and orally) when advising Council. "

Quote : " Mr. Lloyd was qualified as an expert in land use planning, capable of giving expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters, including the intent of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy (DMPS) and Land Use By-Law (LUB) and the extent to which Council's decision with respect to the proposed Prince Albert Development reasonably carries out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
[23] Mr. Lloyd is qualified as a professional engineer and as a planner (he is a life member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Institute of Planners). He has testified previously in planning matters. While the Board inferred that Mr. Lloyd is largely retired, he has remained active in planning professional conferences.
[24] He volunteered his services to the Intervenors, and to HRM in this proceeding. He has a personal connection with the dispute at the centre of this proceeding: he has lived for many years on Cranston Avenue, within the neighbourhood (as Mr. Lloyd, but not the Appellant Monaco, would define it) of the proposed development "

Worth the time to read the whole decision but paras 100 - 146 are of particular interest; as is the issue of height and compatability, key factors in determining if the proposed building complied with the MPS. And the issue of densification is explored.
The 'Bonus Calculations' para 549-562.

More detailed information is included in the Documents filed with the Board : http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cg...12&-loadframes

[counterfactual]

Fun quotes from the usual HRM Council clowns in the decision (http://www.canlii.org/canlii-dynamic...#_Toc337802740).

[141] Councillor McCluskey persisted, arguing that if the vote ended in the motion being turned down then Council must state its reason for refusal. Ultimately, she did state for the record (and prior to the vote) the reasons that she intended to vote against first reading (and thus against the further consideration of Monaco’s proposed development).She said:
…that it is not compatible with the neighbourhood, it is surrounded by single-family homes all along the Lake, the shadow effect that it will have on properties there, the traffic that will be generated and the wind that it could create.Among other things, she also referred to her uncertainty about the implications of the 35-foot height limit. She said that when it was set there had been:
…no talk of how high a building could be before it could affect the Lake. Nobody knows. There was no talk of that.

Traffic. Wind. Height. Snore.

And now, clear evidence of Councillors shameless pandering to NIMBY complaints:

[144] Councillor McCluskey spoke at an evening session held by the Board in relation to the Monaco appeal. Her remarks to the Board included the following statement, in which she referred to local opposition to the project, of which she was aware at the time of the January 17th vote:
I will begin by saying that I voted against the Prince Albert Development proceeding to the next step, the public hearing. My reasoning is that I was satisfied that we heard from the public who would be directly affected by a petition of some 300 names, emails, phone calls, and many face-to-face conversations.

I mean, she doesn't even have a principled reason to vote against. No leadership. No perspective. She just counted heads. "You see, there's this petition, so..." As if a petition of 300 NIMBY are entitled to decide the future of downtown Dartmouth.

And for those who say that Council rarely defeat development proposals... well:

[589] While persons were clearly surprised and disappointed by Council’s action in rejecting the application at first hearing on January 17th, the Board notes that according to the evidence before it, the rejection of an application at first reading is not unprecedented. Three such instances, in recent memory, were referred to in the cross examination of Mr. Dickey by Counsel for HRM.

Forget about rejecting developments. At that time, in addition to *this* rejection, before even going to full Council, there were three other recent such rejections at first instance.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

NSUARB Decision November 2012 : http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsuarb/d...nsuarb155.html

Quote : " Mr. Lloyd was qualified as an expert in land use planning, capable of giving expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters, including the intent of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), the Dartmouth Municipal Planning Strategy (DMPS) and Land Use By-Law (LUB) and the extent to which Council's decision with respect to the proposed Prince Albert Development reasonably carries out the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy.
[23] Mr. Lloyd is qualified as a professional engineer and as a planner (he is a life member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Institute of Planners). He has testified previously in planning matters. While the Board inferred that Mr. Lloyd is largely retired, he has remained active in planning professional conferences.
[24] He volunteered his services to the Intervenors, and to HRM in this proceeding. He has a personal connection with the dispute at the centre of this proceeding: he has lived for many years on Cranston Avenue, within the neighbourhood (as Mr. Lloyd, but not the Appellant Monaco, would define it) of the proposed development "

More detailed information is included in the Documents filed with the Board : http://uarb.novascotia.ca/fmi/iwp/cg...12&-loadframes

I'm sorry, but this suggests that the value or partiality of Lloyd's expert opinion should have been seriously questioned. He's not an objective witness or expert offering his opinion at all. Rather, the guy lives in the community. He had a vested personal interest in defeating the proposal; that's obvious from the fact he offered his "expert" opinion to HRM/Interveners for free.

The UARB can be a bit of a kangeroo court.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Wow, I think I'll have to wait for the Cole's Notes version.

That's what I was thinking...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

And for those who say that Council rarely defeat development proposals... well:



Forget about rejecting developments. At that time, in addition to *this* rejection, before even going to full Council, there were three other recent such rejections at first instance.

One of those, I am pretty certain, was the proposal to redevelop the Brightwood Golf Club, which she torpedoed in the same way, not even letting it get to a hearing. In that case you already had the 600 or so members of Brightwood, almost all of whom are Dartmouth residents, support the proposal. But that support didn't trump Gloria not wanting to lose her golf course.

[Colin May]

You would be hard pressed to find a better expert witness than Maurice Lloyd.
Accepting a person as an 'expert' does not mean the person is unbiased.
Two other persons recognised by the UARB as 'expert witnesses' acted on behalf of the developer and were paid by the developer. Neither of them lived near the development and neither of them had the depth of knowledge of planning in Dartmouth.
Such persons are expected to be professional and provide professional opinions backed by their experience and knowledge of planning documents.
You could claim that those 'expert witnesses' appearing for the developer were seeking personal gain through a satisfactory outcome and a better reputation within the development community. I personally know the 4 expert witnesses acting for the developer and the neighbourhood and would never in more than 20 years have I had any reason to question their integrity.
Waiting for the Cole's version is a cop-out. I know it takes time to read the decision and the associated documents and commenting without a better understanding of all the evidence will lead to uninformed commentary. The witnesses for the developer tried to convince the Board that 1 Oak Street was 'in the neighbourhood' of the proposed development but the Board threw that out as would any other reasonable person.

[JET]

nothing wrong with a good cop-out. I rely on those who understand these things more than I do to provide succinct insight; I can then sift through those and develop an understanding of the issues. If I read the whole thing then it just gets lost in translation, a bit like talking to pharmacists, I lose them shortly after: 'So, take....".

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

nothing wrong with a good cop-out. I rely on those who understand these things more than I do to provide succinct insight; I can then sift through those and develop an understanding of the issues. If I read the whole thing then it just gets lost in translation, a bit like talking to pharmacists, I lose them shortly after: 'So, take....".

Firstly, I'll say that I don't really appreciate Colin's jab on that point. But, no biggie - I can look past that.

I will say that my interest wanes when it comes to the politics of these projects. In instead prefer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the project after it is approved and ground is broken - seeing how it is built and how it changes (and hopefully improves) the neighborhood. I also have an interest in the conceptual design phase as well as the planning/urban design aspects, but not the politics that follow it or are intertwined with it.

I'm not a retired politician and thus don't have the time or motivation to wade through all the jargon and details ad-nauseum - as JET aptly said, I leave that to those who have a keen interest, as well as the experience and knowledge on how to translate all that to a brief summary for those of us who just want to know the result, and not who said what and why and what they've done in the past...

So thanks to all those who process the vast quantities of information and translate it for the rest of us.

[Colin May]

It's back .......only 13 storeys this time :
http://www.halifax.ca/planning/appli...sCase19501.php

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/appli...rspectives.pdf