HRM has released details on proposed changes to the Centre Plan. I would have included this in my E-Newsletter earlier this week, but I didn’t know this was going live until January’s edition was already sent. The proposed changes are significant enough to warrant a dedicated post, especially given that HRM is currently accepting public feedback.
Context
Since about 2016, HRM has entered into a period of rapid growth. Population growth over the last few years has exceeded even the most optimistic planning projections and has been really unprecedented in Nova Scotia’s history. Growth brings opportunity, but it has also brought challenges, particularly in the housing market. HRM is currently short an estimated 20,000 units. This is a big problem for affordability and livability and, unfortunately, planning is only part of the picture. Interest rates, a lack of skilled labour, and supply chain issues are also having an impact and are preventing industry from meeting demand. Planning alone won’t fix this, but it’s part of the puzzle.
The federal government has been investing in housing directly through the Rapid Housing Program, which aims to create deeply affordable non-market housing. The feds also have an initative to boost market supply, the Housing Accelerator Program. Last year, HRM and the federal government reached an agreement in which the feds would provide funding to HRM through the Housing Accelerator Program to:
- Streamline permitting process
- Reduce upfront costs for permit applications
- Facilitate non-residential conversions
- Encourage development on transit corridors
- Expedite development agreements for heritage properties
- Program for small scale residential construction
- Reduce permit fees for small scale residential
- Pre-approved small scale residential building plans
- Pre-approved small scale multiple unit residential building plans
- Expand affordable housing grant program
- Dedicate more surplus lands for affordable housing
The feds also asked HRM to consider planning bylaw changes to allow more density, such as allowing four units per lot. Rather than simply agree to the somewhat arbitrary federal asks, HRM promised to examine all the municipal planning bylaws to see if we could do even better in terms of making planning more permissive (my Council Update on the Housing Accelerator application here). On Wednesday, the results of staff’s examination were released online and it appears to be quite significant.
I haven’t had the chance to fully absorb everything that is being proposed, but here’s what I can see that is up for consideration in District 5. Buckle up, this is going to be a deep dive into the weeds, but I think it’s important for folks to understand the potential changes.
ER-3 Zoning
In the Centre Plan, the Established Residential Designation is divided into three zones: ER-1, ER-2, and ER-3. The main difference between the three right now is the number of units permitted, and that ER-3 allows for townhouse style development and small scale apartment buildings (4 units) whereas ER-1 and ER-2 do not. Under the proposed changes, all ER-1 and ER-2 zones that aren’t in a potential heritage district would be upzoned to ER-3. HRM would also no longer control for unit counts in the established residential zone, allowing the requirements around building form and the building code to set the limits of what a lot can support. This could really incentivize construction of so-called missing middle housing.
Higher Density Zones
The Established Residential areas are the Centre Plan’s lowest density zones. Medium and higher density zoning is provided via Corridor Zones (mid-rise, main street type development), Higher Order Residential Zones (larger apartment buildings outside of commercial areas like the ones around Mic Mac Mall), Centre Zones (high density redevelopment sites like Wyse Road) and Downtown Zones (mixed areas like Downtown Dartmouth and Downtown Halifax where some properties can support high densities). There are some changes to all of these zones as well.
Heights Measured in Storeys
In the Centre Plan, density is controlled in the most intensive zones (Centres and Downtowns) by floor area ratio, which provides for the most flexibility. In the Corridors and Higher Order Residential, density is largely controlled by set height limits. HRM is now proposing to measure height in these zones in stories instead.
For developers, this will provide more flexibility. Instead of an invisible box, floor heights will be set by what makes sense for the building’s design and systems. So, for example, a Corridor zone that had a height of 20 metres (approximately 7 storeys) will now have a height limit of seven storeys. This change would provide more flexibility to the Corridor and Higher Order zones and, in many ways, could provide more clarity for the public since most people would have no idea how many stories fits into 20 metres. It could also support wood and mass timber construction, which tends to require more space per storey.
Increases in Height in Corridor and Higher Order Residential
In converting height limits from metres to storeys, staff are proposing to upzone a few areas to allow for more density than is permitted now. I’ll summarize each change.
Portland at Maynard Lake
On Portland Street, the corridor zoning on the other side of the street from Maynard Lake is getting more height. The south side of the street is increasing in height from 20 metres (7 stories) to 9 stories and higher order residential zoning would be applied to the lots located between homes on Rodney Road and Portland Street. No change in the height for the Corridor zoning on the lake side, which remains 5 stories.
Pleasant Street in Southdale
On Pleasant Street around the Old Sobeys staff are proposing to rezone the south side of Brock Street to Higher Order Residential. I don’t know what the proposed height limit on this section is because it’s missing from the online map (some sort of technical glitch in this spot that will have to be sorted out), but I suspect it would be modest given the established residential zoning on the other side of Brock. On Cameron Street, Corridor zoning would apply to the first house on each side of the street closest to Pleasant to allow for a larger Corridor Zone footprint for potential lot consolidation and redevelopment.
Grahams Grove
Over at Grahams Grove, heights are consistent with previous zoning, with one exception, a small piece of property along near Bartlin Road has gone from 20 metres (7 storeys) to nine storeys, which likely reflects the 12 storey development that was approved under the pre-Centre Plan rules.
Boland Road (Victoria Gardens)
There is some significant changes suggested along Boland Road. Killam’s Victoria Gardens is zoned for 17 metres (6 storeys) along the whole block. Killam has been looking at their options for redeveloping the property and approached HRM seeking a planning process to consider this large site. Staff are suggesting revised height limits that would increase from the lower density Victoria Road end to the higher density Wyse Road end. At Wyse Road, 14 storeys would be allowed, stepping down to 9 storeys in the middle of the block, and the down to 7 storeys at Victoria Road.
Victoria Road
On Victoria Road, opposite Victoria Gardens, the block between Frances and Cherry Streets would be rezoned from Established Residential to Corridor with a 7 storey height limit. The other existing Corridor Zones along Victoria Road between Frances and Albro Lake Road would all have their height limits increased from 14 metres (5 storeys) to seven storeys.
Albro Lake End of Wyse Road
Over on Wyse Road, there are changes on the Albro Lake Road end of the street. To make for larger more viable redevelopment footprints, the first house on Albro Lake Road, Chappell, one side of Russell, and one side of Symonds would be rezoned to Corridor with a 7 storey height limit. This would match the Corridor zoning on Wyse Road and seems to be to allow for potential lot consolidation. The 7 storey height limit on the existing Corridor zones in this area would also increase from 14 metres (5 stories) to 7 stories. Some similar changes would occur on a few properties adjoining Wyse on Howe and Elmwood as well.
New Windmill Road Corridor
An ongoing debate when the Centre Plan was under consideration was what zoning to apply to Windmill Road from Albro Lake Road to Wyse Road. This area has a lot of small homes, but it also has some apartment buildings along the Harbour side of the street, and some non-conforming commercial businesses. Earlier drafts of the Centre Plan applied corridor zoning (apartments and commercial) to this section with the idea that this would, over time, develop into a main street. That was eventually scrapped in favour of applying the established residential zone to existing houses and the higher order residential zone to existing apartments. Zoning essentially mirrored what was largely there already and continued the past practice of leaving the old commercial spaces as non-conforming uses. I remember asking staff about this section during preparation of the Centre Plan and the answer at the time was that there was enough density and focus on Wyse Road that we really didn’t need Windmill Road to achieve HRM’s objectives.
Skip forward to today and after several years of intense population growth, the calculation seems to have flipped back the other way and a Windmill Road Corridor is once again under consideration. In the proposed revisions, Windmill Road would switch to Corridor Zoning (typically mid-rise apartments with potential for ground floor commercial) from Albro Lake Road to Lyle Street with a height limit of 7 storeys.
After Lyle Street, the Higher Order Residential zoning (less commercial rights) would apply, with lower heights of 3-5 storeys. This reduction in intensity after the Bridge is likely due to the adjoining potential heritage district in Harbourview.
In District 5, Windmill Road appears to be the most significant departure from what the original Centre Plan envisioned in terms of form and density.
Lancaster and Woodland Avenue
There has been a lot happening at the intersection of Lancaster and Woodland with three new apartment buildings under construction. Across the street there is a large piece of vacant property that is currently zoned ER-3. The ER-3 zoning for this property was set by the previous property owner’s plan to develop at-grade townhouses for seniors. That project went through a rezoning process under the pre-Centre Plan rules (I wrote about it here), but it was never built.
Just before the Centre Plan was finalized, the property changed hands. The new owners reached out HRM seeking a last minute zoning change to allow for apartments instead. It wasn’t something that I or staff were prepared to entertain at the time because the request came so late in the Centre Plan process that there really wasn’t a chance for any public input or discussion. It would would have felt too much like trying to sneak something past the neighbourhood given that there had already been a dedicated planning process for the townhouse zoning and there had been zero discussion of anything else during the Centre Plan public consultation. I indicated to the new owners that if they wanted to pursue a different project, they would have to apply for rezoning. That request to rezone this land for apartments is now back.
The new proposed zoning on the south side of Lancaster at Woodland includes two portions of higher order residential, which would allow apartments. The highest density (9 storeys) would be located at the corner of Lancaster and Woodland opposite the similar sized apartments that are under construction on the other side of the street. Density would then step down to 7 storeys mid-block, and then step down again to ER-3 (likely townhouses). The ER-3 zoning would adjoin the backyards of existing homes on Beldina, Brannon, Elmore and Sea King.
New FAR Ratios
In the Centre Zones (Wyse Road) and Downtown (Downtown Dartmouth) zones, density is controlled by floor area ratio, and the ratios have increased in several areas. Explaining floor area ratio and what it means in terms of outcomes is hard. Key thing to know is that higher ratios mean more density. HRM is proposing to increase ratios, but the basic layout of where the high density and lower density areas are remains the same in both Wyse Road and Downtown Dartmouth. Everything is just a little bit more.
The maximum height limit in Downtown Dartmouth would be 33 storeys, but that’s something that might only be achievable on the properties with high FAR values, such as the Province’s WDCL property between Prince and King Streets. Downtown Dartmouth’s densest blocks are still Portland and Queen Streets near Prince Albert Road, King/Prince, and the King/Alderney block of Queen. Over on Ochterloney where the potential Downtown Dartmouth heritage district covers many properties the FAR values are low since HRM wants to implement a heritage district in this area.
Up on Wyse Road, the height limit is higher, allowing up to 40 storeys, the maximum height allowed anywhere in the Centre Plan. Close to the Bridge is where the greatest density is proposed.
New Potential Heritage Districts
The Centre Plan identified three potential heritage districts in Dartmouth: Five Corners, Downtown Dartmouth, and Harbourview. Heritage districts aren’t anti-development. The approach to heritage districts in HRM isn’t that they become museum pieces, but that more careful planning is done on how new infill is permitted to ensure what makes these places special also survives. To encourage adaptive reuse, heritage districts and heritage properties often end up with more potential development rights than they would have otherwise.
Staff are proposing some minor extensions to the previously identified Five Corners district. Five Corners would extend two blocks farther along Pleasant Street to Old Ferry Road. Staff are also recommending two additional districts, Austenville/Flower Streets and Victoria Park. Both Austenville/Flower Streets and Victoria Park have a large collection of older pre-1900 homes. Austenville was studied by the old City of Dartmouth for a potential district in the 1980s, but nothing was enacted at that time. To my knowledge, no one has ever really looked at Victoria Park. Both potential districts already have a sizeable collection of heritage properties.
New North Woodside Growth Node
Finally, staff are proposing to create a new future growth node in North Woodside along Pleasant Street near the Ferry Terminal and Circumferential Highway. Future Growth Nodes are places in the Centre Plan where significant density can be added, but that more detailed planning is required first. Existing Growth Nodes in Dartmouth include Dartmouth Cove, Mic Mac Mall, Shannon Park, Eisner’s Cove/Southdale, and Penhorn. I haven’t discussed this yet with staff, but my hunch is that applying a Growth Node in North Woodside is to ensure that there is a bit more control on development to minimize potential conflicts between residential and industrial development in the area
Feedback
There is a lot here and I have tried my best to capture as much as I can of the proposed changes and translate them from planningese into plainer language. I know it’s still a deep dive. You can check out the mapping for yourself on HRM’s website here and provide feedback to the Planning Department via haf@halifax.ca up until February 16.
Why are the public giving such short noice of the Public Hearing
A public hearing is several months away. The mid-February date is the end for public feedback before stuff starts to then flow to Council where there will eventually be a public hearing after first reading.
Re: the proposed “heritage districts”. More should be done here. There are homes on Windmill, for example, that survived the Halifax explosion. There are also unique homes on Windmill and Hester built with the same plans as the Hydrostones in the north end of Halifax. There are also post-WW2 homes on Stairs, Howe, and in the area around. Once these character homes are gone, they are forever gone.
That would be good feedback to provide to the planning department. There is a good pocket of heritage and potential heritage on Hester. I would suggest emailing the planners at the link provided. haf@halifax.ca
Great job!!!!
With regard to 40 story high rises right by the Bridge, couldn’t they consider Woodside instead? The view of Halifax from there is gorgeous and there is an underused ferry. I would hate having claustrophobic high rises around the bridge causing wind tunnels, darkness and view plane blocking. Never liked that aspect of the City Plan. I suppose it’s too late to object? The rest is okay except too much for Woodland Avenue in the way of high rises.
Yea winds on the bridge are going to much worse
How on earth will the main roads (Woodland for example) handle all the increased traffic with so many new builds?
People are moving here regardless. The more growth that occurs out on the edge of town, the more car traffic there is since 90-95% of all trips in a place like Cole Harbour are by car. Closer to the core, the more trips are made by alternative modes. Woodland Avenue will get more traffic from development out on the edge than it will from stuff close by. Most of our roads are constrained. HRM has a rapid transit plan that we’re hoping will get federal and provincial funding that will put fast and frequent transit within walking distance of about 120,000 residents. We’re also building the bike network. Alternatives to car travel are the priority… there is simply not the space to keep adding lanes indefinitely.
The problem with Woodland Ave dates back to early 1960s when the province built the Hwys 111 and 118 , and where to connect the MacDonald Bridge by extending School st to where the interchange for the 111 but the mayor at the time stopped it because would divide the golf course in 2. Now its impossible to do anything to improve traffic and the major coke point is the intersection of Woodland Ave and Victoria Road where both transit and other buses have to make a sharpe turn plus even the new er pickup and Suvs cannot make that turn without crossing the centre line mainly because the stop line is too far ahead in front of civic 221 and to get someone put that stop line back a metre is painful
Why is that a hertiage district – is only ER-2?
Why can’t a hertiage district suppprt ER-3? Please provide the background report that shows that rationale. And why does the mapping system show 4 units for ER-2 and ER-3 and the regulations for ER-3 currently say 3 units.
Idea of the heritage districts is to not encourage lots of change until a heritage district plan is in place. ER-3 supports townhouses and small apartment buildings. ER-2 doesn’t. All the proposed heritage districts are ER-2.
Thanks for bringing this to attention Sam. Question for you; looking through some of the proposed areas for ER2->ER3 upgrades in the Dartmouth Cove area don’t seem to take into account the elevation (e.g. Old Ferry Road) and environmental density of the area (e.g. the extreme old growth trees on the South Side of Portland Street). I sent my feedback along, but I’m curious what assessment was done with respect to Environmental/Elevation impacts with certain areas, if any?
I don’t think any work of that kind of granular scale was done
Its suspicious that more heritage districts come with upzonings – what was the catalyst for the new districts, if not blocking development? Also, as you’ve noted, there is already a 15 *year* timeline on approving current heritage districts, so we’ve added even more?
But, more importantly: the COR intensity increase is impressive, but COR is a small zone, and other than windmill road, there are almost no new COR areas. The transit corridor plank of the plan seem to narrow by half or more. How is planning staff confident they doing enough by hardly adding new COR zones? And why not expand COR zoning to residential areas that aren’t heritage districts – like the BC transit oriented development plan?
Suggest people start looking at this in detail especially the interactive map that gives info on residential areas and zoning changes with some going from R1-R3
previous posting should read E1-E3
Locking up so much land as potential heritage-right near the ferry terminal and bridge bus terminal – a sustainable city principle would be to grow these areas with the higher densities -since they are walkable – but these potential areas are given lower densities than other areas and the density increases as you get further away? Where people either have to drive or take long bus commutes. So where is the traffic impact analysis report on upzoning so much land from ER-1 to ER-3. Land use changed always impacts vehicle traffic? What measures are being put in place to along Portland or Pleasant Streets safer to cross? Certainly Maple St doesn’t deserve anymore investment given its low density compared to the densities being pushed everywhere else? Have you ever tried crossing James St or MacKay St at rush hour currently- what will it be like with all this new higher densities? HRM making the curbs safer to cross? Any pedestrian activated signals being put in? What about Pleasant St?? What about having to cross over the long stretched road segments when you take transit – like segment of Pleasant St from New Castle to Old Ferry – you ever try to cross those streets? HRM planning any investment in mid block crossing? Any pedestrian activated signals for Linden Lea?
Then you have upzoning for Lake Front Rd to the Brenton Street area – is HRM transit going to let the 100 series buses stop there so there is faster service for these high density pockets get to the ferry and bridge terminal quicker? Sorry for so many questions – but really there is zero about the impact on traffic – making better walking conditions to encourage transit use on most heavily driven roads (Portland and Pleasant Streets) and there is nothing about better transit.
Does Hr-1 zoning to rodney road allow the builder to increase the hight from what was proposed in 2019? Or is this to accommodate the proposal?
It basically allows what was proposed in 2019. It’s HR zoning but not high. 4 storeys.