HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > SSP: Local Halifax > Suburbs

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Jan 11, 2012, 9:37 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bankview, Calgary
Posts: 6,595
On Monday evening (January 9th, 2012) a joint public hearing between Chebucto and North West Community Councils resulted in the Development Agreement for Sub-Areas 9 and 10 being approved.

The information can be found here; Case 16666 Details

Also in other news the developers behind the West Bedford Business Campus (RIM area) are trying to get some amendments passed to change the allowed uses in the neighbourhood. For most part it is housekeeping but they have also sneaked in a couple that are a bit questionable (IMO at least).

The first is the parking requirements. Right now landscaping would be dominant on the front lawns and most parking would be moved to the side and rear lots. They are trying to reduce the landscaping requirement by ~30% so the parking would be built out front so retailers would be more attracted because of the visible parking. I find this quite annoying because frontside parking lots cut off the buildings from the street and create the infamous "suburban" style of building.

The other worrying amendment is the wetland setback requirement. Current HRM bylaws require a 20 meter setback BUT when the development agreement was passed for this area it required a 30 meter setback. The developer is now trying to get rid of that negotiated point and only have to follow standard HRM rules. This would be fine but the developer agreed to that setback and i find it in bad taste to come back and try to get this changed under the veil of "housekeeping" amendments.

You can read the document here; Case 17424 Details
__________________
My Flickr Photostream ----- Halifax Compilation Thread

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > SSP: Local Halifax > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.