HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2019, 12:40 PM
planarchy's Avatar
planarchy planarchy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
All that aside, the Heritage Trust won't be able to make these appeals once the Centre Plan comes into effect.
Yes they likely will still be able to appeal. As drafted, a project like this would only be approvable through a heritage development agreement under the Centre Plan. Development Agreements are always appealable to the NSUARB
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2019, 2:42 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,209
Heritage Trust spoke out on the Lotus Point development on Ochterloney and the proposed change to the adjacent registered heritage property. HRM planning staff ignored the correspondence from HT for a long time until the day of the public hearing when HT hired a lawyer who wrote to HRM. As a result of the legal action the the planner Mitch Dickey told the November 14 2013 meeting of the Harbour East Community Council " The revised staff recommendation also clarifies that no development is to take place on the lands unless Council approves the deregistration of the rear portion of 99 Ochterloney Street, which is intended to be subdivided and consolidated with the rest of the subject lands "
Until that date staff had ignored HT correspondence and intended to proceed in a manner which did not comply with the bylaw.

When the meeting was opened to public comment on the application the lawyer for HT spoke first and said
" Ms. Kelsey McLaren, lawyer with Pink Larkin, representing the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, commented on a letter sent on behalf of her client to Community Councilearlier in the day. Her client is asking that Community Council defer decision on thismatter for staff to review and analyze Municipal Planning Strategy policy CH-1. Ms. McLaren indicated that policy CH-1 applies when considering any development agreement application in connection with any municipally registered heritage property, and in particular “a lot in which a municipally registered heritage building is situated”.
Ms. McLaren emphasized this point, and noted that the staff presentation indicated that policy CH-1 primarily applies to a redevelopment of heritage buildings. She noted that the staff report reviews policy CH-2, which applies to lands abutting municipally
registered heritage structures. Ms. McLaren indicated that their client submits that HRM staff are pre-determining this issue as analysis with CH-2 pre-supposes that part of the property from the municipally registered heritage property will be subdivided and deregistered. She noted that the proposed development agreement includes 99 Ochterloney Street, which is the municipally registered heritage property, although neither subdivision or deregistration has taken place, which would require a public hearing following By-law H-200. Ms. McLaren commented that policy CH-1 should be analyzed clause by clause in relation to the proposed development agreement, the same way that policy CH-2 was for the purposes of public fairness. She noted that it is not a forgone conclusion that the deregistration and subdivision will take place, and this condition is not included in the proposed development agreement. "

After the public meeting and at the end of the meeting when the public are allowed to speak on any matter the Phil Pacey spoke :
" Mr. Phil Pacey, Chair of HRM Committee, Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, advised that the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia is a volunteer non-profit organization. Mr. Pacey commented that the Trust feels that heritage buildings are important to the community.
He advised that the Trust is involved in the community through holding monthly lectures, have published books about Nova Scotian heritage, have a grant program and offer assistance to heritage property owners, and publish a quarterly newsletter about heritage in the province.
Mr. Pacey noted that the Trust is also involved in the community through writing briefs to HRM Council and Committees, assisting in the improving heritage policies and policy in general.
Mr. Pacey advised that the Trust intervened in the public hearing this evening (Case 17863) because they felt that HRM policy was not being followed and was not being taken into account in a staff report. He noted that as was indicated earlier by the lawyer for the Heritage Trust and the HRM Solicitor, policy CH-1 should be part of the consideration and is relevant with regard to Case 17863.
Mr. Pacey commented that the Trust have not tried to delay the process in any way, they were ensuring that the correct policy was considered and the public had the correct information.
He reviewed the timeline of the Trust’s involvement in Case17863, noting that they wrote a letter to the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) on August 27, 2013 pointing out the omission of policy CH-1 and asking for a new staff report.
Mr. Pacey indicated that staff argued against that at the HAC meeting of August 28, 2013. He noted that a supplementary staff report to Community Council for Case 17863 was brought forward as an added item at the October 3, 2013 Community Council meeting in Ship Harbour, and they only became aware of it last week.
Mr. Pacey indicated that the supplementary staff report asserted that policy CH-2 was the correct policy, and when the Trust became aware of the report, they immediately contacted HRM staff and legal department pointing out the error. He noted that the Trust spent money to hire a lawyer and the earliest that correspondence from the Trust’s lawyer could be sent to Community Council was this morning.
Mr. Pacey suggested that the revised staff recommendation approved by Community Council was brought forward by staff in response to the correspondence. He hopes that Community Council realizes that this error was corrected because of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. "
To sum up : HRM planning staff were quite willing to mislead the community council until they were informed that there would be legal action to ensure the planning rules were complied with and that any delay to the project and any increase in costs were the sole responsibility of HRM planning staff.

http://legacycontent.halifax.ca/Comm...114minutes.pdf

At the time I did not know that certain members of the planning staff were in receipt of cash bonuses which have never been disclosed to taxpayers. I'll have more to say on bonuses to planning staff on August 27 after 9 a.m.

Last edited by Colin May; Aug 23, 2019 at 2:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2019, 3:14 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,117
Fascinating post, Colin. I was unaware of all that went on behind the scenes with this project.

I am interested on what you will have to say in tomorrow's installment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:41 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.