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

[TheNovaScotian]

Obviously in the South end the same rules don't apply. Let's just wait for a few more estates to be torn down until building more units in the area.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by planarchy

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter the topic, the issue is can the municipality enter into or require an applicant to enter into an agreement with a third party.

No, based on the Housing Trust example you brought up they can't require an applicant to enter into an agreement with a third party, although the wording of whatever policy covers that might/might not be up to interpretation.

It's not clear that they'd have to in this case though, because it's not clear whether the "private developers can't build housing just for students" rule applies in the U-2 zone (which specifically lists "student housing" as an acceptable use).

[Colin May]

Part of a September 9 2016 letter to UARB re Intervenor status :

Park to Park Community Association represents over 91 individual members in the south end of
Halifax and 74% of these members not only consider themselves to be affected by this
proposed development but also live within the 500’ notification area as identified by the
NSUARB. Such a massive, high density, student housing project located in such close
proximity to single family residential housing brings with it a whole host of issues that can create significant impacts arising from the differing lifestyles of the student population during their university years. The area is not even identified for development in HRM’s Centre Plan "

Amazing that high income, well educated people don't understand that the "Centre Plan" is not an approved document and therefore irrelevant.

Part of a September 7 2016 letter to UARB re Intervenor status :

" Over the years the neighbourhood has developed a rapport and understanding in dealing with Saint Mary’s University that has resulted in very little negative impact on the fabric of our neighbourhood. This was the result of two factors, firstly the creation of the Saint Mary's Master Plan with neighbourhood involvement and the long term commitment to buy the Canadian Martyrs property should it become available, and secondly, the implementation of the U1/U2 zones in the MPS and LUB that not only protected the neighbourhood from University expansion but also contained any high density development to the interior of the campus.
With the advent of the Ashcroft Homes proposal of two multi unit (27 and 31 story) towers on the Canadian Martyrs property, our neighbourhood is at risk. We are of the opinion that the fabric of the neighbourhood will be irrevocably damaged, clearly inflicting both loss of enjoyment in our neighbourhood and financial losses for many.
The interpretation of the U1/U2 zoning suggested by Ashcroft Homes, allowing commercial development of the property under the guise of a student residence, fundamentally alters our understanding of the whole concept of the U1/U2 designation and presents an entirely different way of dealing with university issues within the campus environment and the surrounding neighbourhood. Any change to the interpretation as presented by HRM by allowing what amounts to commercial/high rise condo development will clearly negatively impact the enjoyment of, value and use of our residential neighbourhood.
Even though university services may overlap in uses such as housing and food delivery, and as such have a commercial aspect, it is the spectre of private sector decision making around these uses that will alter our neighbourhood environment most profoundly. Student accommodation and other services under the controls currently exercised by the University in conjunction with the neighbourhood presents a far different environment for neighbourhood residents than control of these services/uses through untested private sector decision making.
Fundamentally we are of the opinion that this is a commercial venture. Even under the guise of a student residence, approval by the Board of two (27-31 story) condo/residential towers the rental of which will be managed by a private entity, not the University as anticipated under the zoning designation, will negatively impact the overall fabric of our neighbourhood. More egregiously, those homes directly across on Inglis Street and on surrounding streets adjacent to the University would be uniquely and disproportionately impacted "

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Such a massive, high density, student housing project located in such close proximity to single family residential housing brings with it a whole host of issues that can create significant impacts arising from the differing lifestyles of the student population during their university years. The area is not even identified for development in HRM’s Centre Plan

While it's easy to understand the residents' concerns, height and density is not really the issue at hand in the UARB hearings. For better or worse, the current zone allows that height and density and the university could quite clearly build those same buildings with no recourse from the surrounding community. I'll be curious to see if the UARB strays into discussing the height/density issue or not. My guess is they won't and will just stick to the issue of whether or not Ashcroft's proposal meets the definition of "residences for university students". The UARB is pretty good about sticking to their mandate.

[TheNovaScotian]

They are playing at the heart strings of the URB, I almost shed a tear reading it. The very fabric of the community will be torn asunder and a giant hole left in its place. I hope reason can prevail and the evil commercial enterprise stopped in its tracks. How dare they try and bring more people into this community of families. I enjoy living in a area with inflated rents in old decrepit buildings, it builds character in all the horrible students that live here.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

While it's easy to understand the residents' concerns, height and density is not really the issue at hand in the UARB hearings. For better or worse, the current zone allows that height and density and the university could quite clearly build those same buildings with no recourse from the surrounding community. I'll be curious to see if the UARB strays into discussing the height/density issue or not. My guess is they won't and will just stick to the issue of whether or not Ashcroft's proposal meets the definition of "residences for university students". The UARB is pretty good about sticking to their mandate.

yah. this is pure NIMBY on the part of the residents. they don't want students and their "incompatible lifestyles". these folks are anti development, and anti affordable housing, and are pulling every tired excuse to oppose it.

i think Ashcroft's building is a lousy design, they would be better off trying to get a better building built, should ashcroft win the appeal. (i dont think they will, based on the residential tenancies act exempting universities, not developers, and thus prohibiting renting only to students.)

[yal]

What disappoints me most about this shitstorm is the stance of Waye Mason. He chose a couple of wealthy South End NIMBYs over students. This is exactly how you lose young votes mister!

[teddifax]

We can only hope, but the younger voters have to get out and outweigh the older NIMBY voters.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by teddifax

We can only hope, but the younger voters have to get out and outweigh the older NIMBY voters.

If they vote for Sue Uteck she could win. If they vote for Dominic, Mason will likely win anyway.

[teddifax]

What was Sue's history in voting?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Context aerial, credit to Vision Air Images
http://www.visionairimages.com/Geogr...re/i-mK7CpKw/A

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by teddifax

What was Sue's history in voting?

Very aligned with the old South End money. In 2012 Gerry Walsh ran and split the votes for that demographic with Sue, and Waye was able to win on the votes of other demographics (he won by only 94 votes).

[JET]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Context aerial, credit to Vision Air Images
http://www.visionairimages.com/Geogr...re/i-mK7CpKw/A

The church property looks very small, a very odd set of building to put there.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Very aligned with the old South End money. In 2012 Gerry Walsh ran and split the votes for that demographic with Sue, and Waye was able to win on the votes of other demographics (he won by only 94 votes).

But Sue was/is very pro-development. Really, Walsh was the one more aligned with the old-money South-end voters. Now Mason has been pandering to them for the last few years as his chances for re-election depend upon their support.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by JET

The church property looks very small, a very odd set of building to put there.

52,528 sq ft or 1.2 acres

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Very aligned with the old South End money. In 2012 Gerry Walsh ran and split the votes for that demographic with Sue, and Waye was able to win on the votes of other demographics (he won by only 94 votes).

I once saw uteck drunkenly brag to tourists on the patio at the then Heart and thistle how she was a City Councillor.

I'm not convinced she ever understood the issues voting for development just because development is not a good quality.
I want counselors who support good development. we get alot of crap because the city lets developers cheap out and deface the city.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Colin May

52,528 sq ft or 1.2 acres

So about 230 ft X 230 ft? That ain't that big.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Context aerial, credit to Vision Air Images
http://www.visionairimages.com/Geogr...re/i-mK7CpKw/A

NIMBY! So you can see by this photo that about 6 private houses (across the street) would be anywhere near this development. Much ado about nothing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

NIMBY! So you can see by this photo that about 6 private houses (across the street) would be anywhere near this development. Much ado about nothing.

Also according to NIMBY principles those houses are already uninhabitable because of they are close to that existing highrise building.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

NIMBY! So you can see by this photo that about 6 private houses (across the street) would be anywhere near this development. Much ado about nothing.

New term: NATSFY, not across the street from my front yard.

There is plenty of room on the site and it wouldn't be in direct proximity to any houses.