[Halifax] 2254 Barrington | ? m | 7 fl | Approved

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

I really hope to see this go ahead, I hate seeing my tax dollars be wasted with something so frivolous.

Welcome to the bureaucracy that is known as HRM.

[halifaxboyns]

I don't understand why they both want to jump into the courts versus the URB?

Although from what I got of the brief description of the HRM legal issue - it sounds like they are blaming the registry of deeds for this error.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I don't understand why they both want to jump into the courts versus the URB?

Although from what I got of the brief description of the HRM legal issue - it sounds like they are blaming the registry of deeds for this error.

I believe thats the case, i.e. registry is reponsible for the error (if there is one) and i believe the only way to overrule and therefore make a respective change (if warranted) is through the provincial courts.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I don't understand why they both want to jump into the courts versus the URB?

Although from what I got of the brief description of the HRM legal issue - it sounds like they are blaming the registry of deeds for this error.

When HRM refused to issue us the Development Permit, they told us that we could appeal to the URB. When we appealed to the URB, HRM argued that the URB "did not have the juristiction" to hear the case... and indicated that they wanted the URB hearing either cancelled altogether or postponed until they applied to the Registrar General (Registry of Deeds) to try to get the old unregistered agreement registered onto our property... (to me, that's fighting dirty... maybe I am too much of a gentleman (???))

One could (and should) ask the question " how can HRM tell you to appeal to the URB, and then at the URB argue that you can't appeal to the URB..."

Once again, I couldn't make stuff up that is this good...

Our lawyer indicated that the simplest, fastest way to deal with this - if HRM was going to fight tooth and nail about having the URB even hear the item - was to skip the fight over whether the URB had juristiction and to get a court order that clearly states that the old unregistered agreement is irrelevant and is not binding on us. (See my blurb on Real Estate Law 101 posted earlier). Then we'll go back to the URB, if HRM doesn't realize that they're fighting a losing battle sometime along the way...

So, off to NS Supreme Court we go... fun, fun, fun... let me know if this makes sense or if you have any other questions...

Peter Polley
Polycorp

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by sdm

I believe thats the case, i.e. registry is reponsible for the error (if there is one) and i believe the only way to overrule and therefore make a respective change (if warranted) is through the provincial courts.

That would make sense - since the URB's jurisdiction doesn't include the Registry of Deebs. Interesting way to go.

It makes the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board out here in Alberta sound almost more....rationale. Almost...

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by POLYCORP-Pete Polley

When HRM refused to issue us the Development Permit, they told us that we could appeal to the URB. When we appealed to the URB, HRM argued that the URB "did not have the juristiction" to hear the case... and indicated that they wanted the URB hearing either cancelled altogether or postponed until they applied to the Registrar General (Registry of Deeds) to try to get the old unregistered agreement registered onto our property... (to me, that's fighting dirty... maybe I am too much of a gentleman (???))

One could (and should) ask the question " how can HRM tell you to appeal to the URB, and then at the URB argue that you can't appeal to the URB..."

Once again, I couldn't make stuff up that is this good...

Our lawyer indicated that the simplest, fastest way to deal with this - if HRM was going to fight tooth and nail about having the URB even hear the item - was to skip the fight over whether the URB had juristiction and to get a court order that clearly states that the old unregistered agreement is irrelevant and is not binding on us. (See my blurb on Real Estate Law 101 posted earlier). Then we'll go back to the URB, if HRM doesn't realize that they're fighting a losing battle sometime along the way...

So, off to NS Supreme Court we go... fun, fun, fun... let me know if this makes sense or if you have any other questions...

Peter Polley
Polycorp

I believe you. I have gotten to the point where I honestly believe that HRM officials are trying to prevent development. Maybe they think that their actions are promoting sustainable development. In other words, little to no development (LOL). I have to give all HRM area developers top marks for going the extra mile to see that things get built in the Halifax area.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by sdm

I believe thats the case, i.e. registry is reponsible for the error (if there is one) and i believe the only way to overrule and therefore make a respective change (if warranted) is through the provincial courts.

Actually, I believe it is the responsibility (and liability) of the lawyers involved in the original transaction to ensure that documents submitted to the Registry are registered. How you can determine whether a 40-year old transaction was properly done escapes me, since the lawyers involved are likely long gone.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Actually, I believe it is the responsibility (and liability) of the lawyers involved in the original transaction to ensure that documents submitted to the Registry are registered. How you can determine whether a 40-year old transaction was properly done escapes me, since the lawyers involved are likely long gone.

The responsibility for registering the "old agreement" was always squarely and solely on the shoulders of my good friends at the legal staff of the City of Halifax. By law today, it is mandatory for a Municipality to register an agreement like this as part of the development process... because it is so, so critically important. Obviously there must have been other fiascos elsewhere over time like this for the Province to have clarified the Municipality's legal requirement to register the documents by entrenching it into law. For clarity, this does not relieve the Municipality from an obligation to register the agreement 40 years ago... it just changed it from "must be done to make it enforceable onto subsequent purchasers of the property" to "must be done by law".

It would always have been prudent for a Municipality to register an agreement like this... if it wasn't registered, it would be viewed as someone (actually anyone and everyone) as not having their paperwork done properly. No different than if a bank loans someone money, it is up to the bank to make sure that the documents (i.e. mortgage) gets registered properly at the Registry of Deeds... so that everyone else can find it because it has been made part of "the public record".

If HRM staff were to say "someone messed up 40 years ago, and we messed up a year ago when we gave you the Zoning Confirmation Letter... but let's find a way to solve this problem", we would be happy to sit down to work out a solution... because it would be faster to do that than to follow the current road that we are on. The problem is that nobody at HRM will acknowledge that they screwed up... 40 years ago, or a year ago... which is the most frustrating part of this whole mess.

Hope this helps.

Peter Polley
Polycorp

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

From the Herald today.

Playground spat heading to court

Developer says he and city are willing to bypass URB process


By CHRIS LAMBIE

Business Editor

A Halifax developer is taking his argument with the city to another sandbox. Peter Polley has asked the provincial regulator to adjourn the case pit ting a playground promised four decades ago against his proposed $15-million, 63-unit condominium project on Barrington Street.

His lawyer wrote to the Utility and Review Board on Tuesday indicating Polycorp Properties Inc. and the city want to take their battle to Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

“It keeps getting more and more bizarre," said Polley, the company’s president.

“Nobody is doing anything to try to see development move forward. They’re just trying to block it using any and all methods that they can."

He paid more than $1 million for the lot last April after performing several checks to make sure it was zoned for high-density development.

But after Polley made the purchase, a development officer with the city ruled the project, dubbed Jazz Condo miniums, could not go ahead because the land is supposed to be a play ground for the adjacent Ocean Towers highrise on Brunswick Street.

Polley met with Mayor Peter Kelly earlier this month in an at tempt to resolve the problem.

“As far as I can tell, the only thing that’s going to keep this from being a drawn-out, very public process over the next two years is if the mayor is man enough to step up to the plate to say, ‘Enough of this madness,’ " Polley said. “Somebody needs to use some common sense here."

Mary Ellen Donovan, the municipality’s legal services director, has refused to discuss the case.

In review board filings, the city has questioned the board’s jurisdiction in the matter.

The municipality has also asked the Registry of Deeds to get the old agreement stipulating the land should be a playground added to official documentation.

“We’ll be looking for a declaration that this unsigned and unrecorded agreement is not binding on us," Polycorp’s lawyer, Rob Grant, said of the case headed for Supreme Court.

“Our position would be if we win that, they can’t amend the record."

Polley bought the empty lot from DDP-Brunswick Ltd. That company is related to Mississauga, Ont.-based TransGlobe Property Management Services Ltd. , which owns the adjacent Ocean Towers. But TransGlobe didn’t build the towers and they’ve been owned by several entities since they went up 40 years ago.

“This is the first time the ownership of the lot that Polycorp wants to develop was separated" from the lots where the Ocean Towers sit, Grant said.

Polycorp built the nearby 85-unit Spice Condominiums and the Mont Blanc, which consists of almost 200 apartments and town­houses on MontBlanc Terrace. It is also working on a 76-house development called Ravenscraig at Sir Sandford Fleming Park.

The board will likely grant the adjournment because it’s been re quested by both parties, said board spokesman Paul Allen.

“That’s a slam dunk in most cases."

(clambie@herald.ca)

From the above article:

“This is the first time the ownership of the lot that Polycorp wants to develop was separated" from the lots where the Ocean Towers sit, Grant said.

One question that I have, is regarding the fact that the land was never subdivided before being sold one year ago. Wouldn't municipal approval be required to subdivide the lot from the original land deed? I just wonder if the requirement that it be green space was included in the original description of the Ocean Towers (large) plot of land prior to being subdivided. Did DDP-Brunswick Ltd. had the right to subdivide the land and sell it?

[joeyedm]

if the mayor is man enough to step up to the plate to say, ‘Enough of this madness,’ "


ROFL.....peter kelly "man enough".....thats a good one.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

From the above article:

“This is the first time the ownership of the lot that Polycorp wants to develop was separated" from the lots where the Ocean Towers sit, Grant said.

One question that I have, is regarding the fact that the land was never subdivided before being sold one year ago. Wouldn't municipal approval be required to subdivide the lot from the original land deed? I just wonder if the requirement that it be green space was included in the original description of the Ocean Towers (large) plot of land prior to being subdivided. Did DDP-Brunswick Ltd. had the right to subdivide the land and sell it?

It wasn't subdivided, it was always a separate parcel. It is the ownership that changed, that's all.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It wasn't subdivided, it was always a separate parcel. It is the ownership that changed, that's all.

You are correct. The parcel(s) existed since 1971 as separate parcels from the Ocean Towers site. Two existing small parcels were consolidated in 2005 to create our current parcel (PID # 148429) through a process at the Registry of Deeds called a defacto consolidation. My understanding is that the balance of the Ocean Towers site straddles seven (7) different parcels... more evidence of sloppy paperwork at the time by the former City of Halifax in that they did not insist that the parcels all get consolidated...

I believe that HRM also plans to challenge the consolidation done by the Registry of Deeds - effectively...they want to rip our land in two... literally... so this will drag the Province into this mess. My understanding is that if HRM were successful in "tearing the consolidated land apart" that that leaves the Province liable for a broad range of monetary damages... great system that we have. Taxpayers of Nova Scotia would be on the hook for this whole mess - but that's pretty hypothetical as we don't think that they have a case on that one...

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by joeyedm

if the mayor is man enough to step up to the plate to say, ‘Enough of this madness,’ "


ROFL.....peter kelly "man enough".....thats a good one.

That was poor of me...I admit it. Not appropriate wording to be used for the situation and I should not have used those words.

I meant to indicate that HRM needed some leadership to be taken by someone to solve this mess... the Mayor ... because nobody else has done anything to solve it. For the most part, nobody will call me back or respond to my emails... so I think it is understandable that someone (me) would show their frustration by being a bit harsh like that in the middle of a heated commentary... it won't happen again...

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

[Empire]

It seems odd that a privisio was in place for the said lands to limit it to playground use only and that it never expires. What is the current zonig? Is playground use (only) consistant with current zoning?

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by Empire

It seems odd that a privisio was in place for the said lands to limit it to playground use only and that it never expires. What is the current zonig? Is playground use (only) consistant with current zoning?

That's the whole point... there is no provisio that says anything...

the "old agreement" does not say that it needs to be a playground. The "old agreement" doesn't say one word about our land. The only place that one finds reference to a playground is on a siteplan that the original builder showed on a site plan when they submitted to the City for a building permit for building # 3 (the south building) in 1973. We cannot find anything, anywhere that says that the land was ever meant to be required to be used for any playground, open space, green space, private park, etc.

This would be like it you were building a house and you were going to install a swimming pool in your back yard because you had kids. You submit a set of building permit drawings to the City that show the house and the pool. They approve the drawings and issue you a building permit. You build the house and the pool. You use the pool for 10 years, and it starts to fall into a state of disrepair. After 20 years, the kids are gone and you don't want or need a pool anymore - so you tear it out and fill it in with lawn.

Twenty years later (forty years later in total), the house had been bought and sold four times. The newest owner wants to build a shed, and submits plans to the City for a building permit. The City says "where's the pool ? The only legal use of your backyard is for a pool. We refuse to let you build a shed." And the new owner says - "but there is no requirement for a pool - the previous owner put it in because he had kids and wanted a pool - I don't want a pool - I want a shed". And then the City refuses to issue the new owner a building permit for the shed, refuses to call them back, refuses to return their emails, etc. ... and starts telling everyone that is the new owner's fault that they can't have a shed...that the new owner should have done more research before they purchased the house... I could rant a bit more, but I think that this gives you a pretty good idea of the situation.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by Empire

It seems odd that a privisio was in place for the said lands to limit it to playground use only and that it never expires. What is the current zonig? Is playground use (only) consistant with current zoning?

One more thing - Did I mention that it appears that HRM can't find a copy of a signed agreement ? The unsigned one that they have provided to date is inconsistent with what was actually built next door.... which makes the whole situation even more ridiculous...

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by POLYCORP-Pete Polley

One more thing - Did I mention that it appears that HRM can't find a copy of a signed agreement ? The unsigned one that they have provided to date is inconsistent with what was actually built next door.... which makes the whole situation even more ridiculous...

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

Is there any question as to why there is so little development in the downtown area? I believe that there are councillors in office who actively oppose every development proposal.

I like to image where Halifax would be with proactive leaders who go out and look for business and development instead of opposing everything. I think that it would become a metropolis with very strong economic growth. It currently has relatively strong growth in spite of the few councillors who oppose everything.

PS: I believe most councillors do want growth, it just seems that the ones who are opposed to it are much more actively opposing growth, whereas the ones who want growth are not doing much to promote the Halifax municipality.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Is there any question as to why there is so little development in the downtown area? I believe that there are councillors in office who actively oppose every development proposal.

I would definitely argue that point. Sure not all councillors are in favour of some of the larger proposals that have come forward. But they all want to see development in this city. Non of them are so backwards as to think we don't need it. But I do agree that it would be nice to see some take on more vocal leadership roles.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I would definitely argue that point. Sure not all councillors are in favour of some of the larger proposals that have come forward. But they all want to see development in this city. Non of them are so backwards as to think we don't need it. But I do agree that it would be nice to see some take on more vocal leadership roles.

I agree ... what disappoints me is that EVERYONE at HRM says that they want downtown residential development... this project meets what everyone wants - creative design, super energy efficient, walkable to work, etc.

... but nobody at HRM - not one person - is willing to "stick their neck out" and admit that there is a problem here on this file ... we need leadership at HRM, and we need someone to try to solve this problem... but nobody is coming forward to do it... they are doing everything they can to obstruct it.

Absolutely bizarre.

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I would definitely argue that point. Sure not all councillors are in favour of some of the larger proposals that have come forward. But they all want to see development in this city. Non of them are so backwards as to think we don't need it. But I do agree that it would be nice to see some take on more vocal leadership roles.

There is not much point arguing this point since it is so hard for some people to believe. However, there really are people who feel that development is evil and is destroying the planet. In the minds of these people, the best development is no development.