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

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The reality is that SMU developed 2 towers on the very southern edge of their property using the U-2 zoning. This proposal is on the northern edge of the U-2 zoning and logically should be treated the same way. A change of ownership of the property should not have an impact on the zoning and in any event the projected use of the property is identical.

SMU is in no position to determine that the HRM zoning map is in error, since they are not responsible for zoning.

I agree with part of what you have written but the UARB will look at the issues I listed. The two towers you refer to are within the perimeter of SMU
The title to the church property is held by the church and was separated from the university grounds years ago as indicated in one of the documents filed with UARB.
The perimeter of SMU on Inglis street is not a straight line.
The church, not SMU, has an agreement with Ashcroft.
It is best to read the documents before commenting. What many of us thought was a project comparable to others at SMU and DAL is very different because of the ownership of the land. We may think it is a narrow difference but that is what makes the legal aspect the defining issue in approval/rejection of the proposed project.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Everyone needs to carefully read the extracts of the letter from the SMU lawyer.
To repeat, 1) SMU opposes the project,
2) the church is no longer within the perimeter of the SMU property,
3) U-2 development is only allowed within the perimeter of SMU,
4) the HRM zoning map is in error.
These 4 issues will determine the outcome of the hearing.

Points 1 and 2 are not at issue and not particularly relevant. Point 3 is not accurate. U-2 development is allowed within a U-2 zone. This is a U-2 zone. Would it be any different if the property was sold to a quasi-academic group, say a research and development organization funded by the feds? If only SMU was allowed to develop in such a zone the definition of the zone would state that. Point 4 is not supported by any facts and from what I have seen SMU has not supplied any evidence to support that contention.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

It's funny, developers using heritage groups to fight other developers.

No ones claiming heritage in this case..

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Points 1 and 2 are not at issue and not particularly relevant. Point 3 is not accurate. U-2 development is allowed within a U-2 zone. This is a U-2 zone. Would it be any different if the property was sold to a quasi-academic group, say a research and development organization funded by the feds? If only SMU was allowed to develop in such a zone the definition of the zone would state that. Point 4 is not supported by any facts and from what I have seen SMU has not supplied any evidence to support that contention.

I'm not surprised SMU opposes this. The development stands to gobble up large numbers of SMU students and not provide SMU with any housing revenue from them. I wonder if this would be different if Ashcroft had approached and teamed up with SMU on this.

[Good Baklava]

One thing that this building makes me worry about is how it will age. It already isn't so pretty looking but just imagine what it will look like in 40 years. Will it be well maintained? Or will it become the next Fenwick tower? I like what it brings in terms of affordable student housing, but not so much on exterior design. Below is a picture of its brother.

https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...act=mrc&uact=8

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Colin May

A. In specifying that the only acceptable evidence of use as “residential accommodation for university students” (as permitted in the U-2 zone) is a negotiated agreement with a university for 100% of the units, thereby rendering the development rights of Ashcroft Homes Inc. contingent upon and subordinate to the unlimited discretion of a non-landowner third party with no obligation to negotiate or contract with Ashcroft Homes Inc.

This is interesting in that it suggests that there have been arrangements with the university such that the buildings would, in practice, be used as residences. Normally private developments aren't allowed to discriminate among potential tenants (for example in this case, couldn't refuse a unit to non-students, or a seniors' residence technically couldn't refuse a unit to a non-senior by basis of age alone). There might be exceptions to this rule because it's zoned for university uses though. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. Ultimately I wouldn't be too upset either way - the tower design is not outstanding but not terrible, and this area already has a lot of cheap rental housing and residence units. If anything, it would free up some of the housing currently occupied by students for other people looking for "affordable" housing, which might take a bit of pressure off the lower end housing/rental market.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Points 1 and 2 are not at issue and not particularly relevant. Point 3 is not accurate. U-2 development is allowed within a U-2 zone. This is a U-2 zone. Would it be any different if the property was sold to a quasi-academic group, say a research and development organization funded by the feds? If only SMU was allowed to develop in such a zone the definition of the zone would state that. Point 4 is not supported by any facts and from what I have seen SMU has not supplied any evidence to support that contention.

Once again, carefully read the letter from SMU lawyer Kevin Latimer. And then read the land use bylaw.
The points I listed are the main arguments by Latimer/SMU in opposition to the development; they are not my points.
Obviously he/they believe a U-1 or U-2 designation applies only to a property owned by a university and no doubt Latimer/SMU will argue that once the property was transferred to the diocese the U-2 zoning would no longer apply.
I don't have a problem with the project, the units will not negatively affect housing provided by SMU but may affect other property owners who rely on rental income from students.
The Killam project on South Street is on land owned by Dalhousie and also contains a childrens centre.
The 4 points I listed will determine the outcome, the need or lack of need of student housing is not relevant and traffic is of no consequence, unless one believes all students roll up in a vehicle.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Obviously he/they believe a U-1 or U-2 designation applies only to a property owned by a university and no doubt Latimer/SMU will argue that once the property was transferred to the diocese the U-2 zoning would no longer apply.

I understand that these are not your own arguments, but I don't think this is the case (that U-1 and U-2 designation is automatically "lost" for properties no longer owned by a university). The designation applies to properties zoned U-1 or U-2 and this does not change on transfer of ownership, it changes if/when the property is rezoned, which is a different process (as far as I can tell). There could be a provision that it's supposed to be automatically rezoned (edit: to what?) if ownership is transferred but that would be news to me.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I understand that these are not your own arguments, but I don't think this is the case (that U-1 and U-2 designation is automatically "lost" for properties no longer owned by a university). The designation applies to properties zoned U-1 or U-2 and this does not change on transfer of ownership, it changes if/when the property is rezoned, which is a different process (as far as I can tell). There could be a provision that it's supposed to be automatically rezoned (edit: to what?) if ownership is transferred but that would be news to me.

Read the specific sections of the bylaw. The universities were given the special zoning specifically for their own purposes.
I have not read all the documents filed with the UARB but what I have read has given me a better understanding of the issues and the context around the zoning is the nub of the issue.
Or one can take the common sense approach and ask : How and why were the universities given special zoning which is exclusive to them, and what conditions were attached to the zoning ?
Was the intent of the zoning clearly and precisely described in the bylaw ?

[Keith P.]

The HRM Zoning Bylaw is here:

HRM Land Use Bylaw

The interesting thing is that most of the requirements are laid out in the section dealing with the U-1 zone, where it states:

"The following uses shall be permitted in any U-1 Zone:
(a)university uses excepting university commercial facilities, student union building, physical plant buildings, parking garages, auditoriums and laboratories;
(b)parking lots;
(c)residential accommodation for university students;
(d)fraternity and society houses;
(e)R-1 and R-2 uses. "


Nowhere does it either define the term "university" or state that only universities can develop in such zones.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The HRM Zoning Bylaw is here:

HRM Land Use Bylaw

The interesting thing is that most of the requirements are laid out in the section dealing with the U-1 zone, where it states:

"The following uses shall be permitted in any U-1 Zone:
(a)university uses excepting university commercial facilities, student union building, physical plant buildings, parking garages, auditoriums and laboratories;
(b)parking lots;
(c)residential accommodation for university students;
(d)fraternity and society houses;
(e)R-1 and R-2 uses. "


Nowhere does it either define the term "university" or state that only universities can develop in such zones.

Good point. The property is zoned U-2 and the description of the "Requirements" apply to Dalhousie and do not apply anywhere else.
The planners appear to have never considered the possibility of development of the church property. The legal arguments will be very interesting and may well be embarassing forHRM.

U-2 ZONE
HIGH-DENSITY UNIVERSITY
70BA(1) The following uses shall be permitted in any U-2 Zone:
(a) U-1 uses;
(b) any university use;
(c) uses accessory to any of the foregoing uses.
70BA(2) No person shall in any U-2 Zone carry out or cause or permit to be carried out, any
development for any purpose other than one or more of the uses set out in
subsection (1).
70BA(3) No person shall in any U-2 Zone use or permit to be used any land or building in whole or in part for any purpose other than one or more of the uses set out in subsection (1).

[Hali87]

For reference, this is the current zoning map.

Notable (but maybe not surprising) that U-1 and U-2 don't apply to NSCC. Also in some of the discussion about the proposal, there's been mention of "the interior" of the property/campus. In the map the campus is mostly designated U-2 with the perimeter designated U-1, so my interpretation would be that the U-2 zone = the interior (since "interior" isn't specifically defined anywhere). The church property looks like it's split into a U-1 and U-2 section, so presumably the bulk of the development would need to be in the U-2 section.

Based on this:

The following uses shall be permitted in any U-1 Zone:
(a) university uses excepting university commercial facilities, student union
building, physical plant buildings, parking garages, auditoriums and
laboratories;
(b) parking lots;
(c) residential accommodation for university students;
(d) fraternity and society houses;
(e) R-1 and R-2 uses.

(c) might allow the property owner to offer units specifically to university students in a way that wouldn't be allowed outside of U-1 or U-2 zones, since it doesn't specify that the university itself has to build the "residential accommodation for university students". That might be the loophole.

[robotropolis]

In my mind, looking at the sections quoted above for U1 and U2, someone building housing other than a student-only residence can't go above R-2. In fact it seems pretty clear to me and I'm surprised the developer didn't try to go partners with the University on this.

At McGill when I was there demand for student residential units always exceeded supply by a few thousand kids. The University did offer some novel residence options, including a converted hotel and an entire apartment building that was reserved just for students. It was the reverse situation because these residences were off campus but in both cases the university was the landlord. Also, this demand puzzled me because Montreal in the late 90s had abundant and cheap rental housing; student housing was probably at least two times market price, but it was hard to think of setting up an 18-year-old newly freed from the parental nest in a completely independent apartment living situation.

When you look at the additional density allowed in the U2 it's clear that it refers to the proscribed uses in U1 such as physical plants, auditoria and so on. Nowhere does the U2 seem to indicate increased residential density except, I guess, "any university use" could include literally any building that a university builds and operates so I guess faculty housing could be an option in U2 zone. You probably don't need to build a very big building for the amount of faculty that want to live on campus though. R1 zoning would probably be sufficient.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Based on this:

(c) might allow the property owner to offer units specifically to university students in a way that wouldn't be allowed outside of U-1 or U-2 zones, since it doesn't specify that the university itself has to build the "residential accommodation for university students". That might be the loophole.

This is exactly the loophole they're using. HRM, in its rejection, basically said "we have no proof that the accommodations will be used for university students. Show us a signed agreement with SMU that 100% of the units are under contract for accommodations for university students." Ashcroft is countering with, "that's not something you can require from us."

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

This is exactly the loophole they're using. HRM, in its rejection, basically said "we have no proof that the accommodations will be used for university students. Show us a signed agreement with SMU that 100% of the units are under contract for accommodations for university students." Ashcroft is countering with, "that's not something you can require from us."

I find this amusing as HRM pushed through the Housing Trust buildings on Gottingen based on it being affordable housing but without anything to legally ensure that it is built this way! They claimed they could not include a requirement for an agreement with the province for housing as part of the DA as they couldn't include third parties. As someone already mentioned (KeithP?), this isn't about objectively interpreting the rules, but carrying out the wishes of the south end residents. It this was on Gottingen, HRM staff would say they had to approve it regardless of the wishes of the neighbourhood.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I find this amusing as HRM pushed through the Housing Trust buildings on Gottingen based on it being affordable housing but without anything to legally ensure that it is built this way! They claimed they could not include a requirement for an agreement with the province for housing as part of the DA as they couldn't include third parties. As someone already mentioned (KeithP?), this isn't about objectively interpreting the rules, but carrying out the wishes of the south end residents. It this was on Gottingen, HRM staff would say they had to approve it regardless of the wishes of the neighbourhood.

this is a bit different. The Housing trust Got a DA. which has the affect of amending the zoning for the property. in this case, ashcroft is trying to build as of right - with the existing zoning, which only permits university uses. since they dont have an agreement with the university, and they are unable to only rent to students as a private developer, its a stretch to say they comply with the university zoning.

i suspect even if the UARB finds against them, they will just come back with the same project via DA.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

this is a bit different. The Housing trust Got a DA. which has the affect of amending the zoning for the property. in this case, ashcroft is trying to build as of right - with the existing zoning, which only permits university uses. since they dont have an agreement with the university, and they are unable to only rent to students as a private developer, its a stretch to say they comply with the university zoning.

i suspect even if the UARB finds against them, they will just come back with the same project via DA.

A DA for this would be impossible and would require an MPS amendment which I'm sure the Councillor would not support. It's a different planning mechanism for sure, but the idea of HRM requiring third party contracts is the same. In practical terms, it should be easier for HRM to require third-party contracts through a DA process like in the case of the Housing Trust. Asking for a contract agreement for a AOR is rediculous. All of this shows that Staff regularly discriminate against different applicants and landowners, applying and interpreting the rules on a case by case basis as they go. This is why the 40 year old MPSs and LUBs have worked for many staff for so long - it allows them to make any decision that they want to and we rarely see the NSUARB willing to rule against them, no matter how weak their evidence is. They often submit little to justify their decisions and rely on the "expertise" of HRM Staff instead. The appeal process through the UARB for planning issues to terribly broken.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Hali87

For reference, this is the current zoning map.

Notable (but maybe not surprising) that U-1 and U-2 don't apply to NSCC. Also in some of the discussion about the proposal, there's been mention of "the interior" of the property/campus. In the map the campus is mostly designated U-2 with the perimeter designated U-1, so my interpretation would be that the U-2 zone = the interior (since "interior" isn't specifically defined anywhere). The church property looks like it's split into a U-1 and U-2 section, so presumably the bulk of the development would need to be in the U-2 section.

Based on this:



(c) might allow the property owner to offer units specifically to university students in a way that wouldn't be allowed outside of U-1 or U-2 zones, since it doesn't specify that the university itself has to build the "residential accommodation for university students". That might be the loophole.

There is a disclaimer on the map : " Compiled by HRM Planning Services. HRM does not guarantee the accuracy of any representation on this plan. "

On ExploreHRM the Zoning is U-1 and U-2 with U-1 from the street line for approx 100 feet and the rear portion is U-2. The developer has placed the towers on the U-2 portion.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I find this amusing as HRM pushed through the Housing Trust buildings on Gottingen based on it being affordable housing but without anything to legally ensure that it is built this way! They claimed they could not include a requirement for an agreement with the province for housing as part of the DA as they couldn't include third parties. As someone already mentioned (KeithP?), this isn't about objectively interpreting the rules, but carrying out the wishes of the south end residents. It this was on Gottingen, HRM staff would say they had to approve it regardless of the wishes of the neighbourhood.

Well, the contexts are different because the zoning is different and "affordable housing" and "student housing" are different.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Well, the contexts are different because the zoning is different and "affordable housing" and "student housing" are different.

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.