2267 Brunswick St., centre, and St. Patrick’s Church, right.
2267 Brunswick St., centre, and St. Patrick’s Church, right.

A development approved for Brunswick Street is not too tall for the area, Nova Scotia’s highest court ruled on Thursday.

It’s likely the end of the line for the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia’s fight against the proposal from developer Adam Barrett’s Brunswick Street Developments Ltd. for a 42-unit, eight-storey residential building at 2267 Brunswick St. — behind the old rectory building next to St. Patrick’s Church.

Halifax and West Community Council approved the development in July 2019, and the Heritage Trust appealed that decision to the provincial Utility and Review Board (UARB), arguing the council’s decision failed to protect the heritage of the area. The UARB dismissed the appeal in June 2020, as the Halifax Examiner reported at the time.

Studioworks International’s design for 2267 Brunswick St.
Studioworks International’s design for 2267 Brunswick St.

In March, the Heritage Trust appealed the UARB decision to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, and a panel of three judges — Justices Michael Wood, Cindy Bourgeois, and Joel Fichaud — heard arguments from lawyers representing the Heritage Trust, the developer, and the municipality.

As the Examiner reported in March:

Lawyer Richard Norman, representing the Heritage Trust, argued that the community council’s decision in approving the development proposal, which he described as nine storeys, was “ad hoc and unguided by principle.”

“What council was doing here when it approved this development agreement was fitting a square peg in a round hole,” Norman said.

“It decided to impose a nine-storey contemporary apartment building on a low-rise special heritage district area, and it did so without any architectural advice.”

The municipal planner who advised the community council on the project had no architectural experience, Norman noted. That is the norm for planning applications.

The Court of Appeal should amend the development agreement to reduce the height to six storeys, Norman argued.

Jason Cooke, lawyer for AMK Barrett Investments Inc., formerly called Brunswick Street Developments Ltd., argued the court doesn’t have the authority to do that.

“Respectfully, this court does not have the jurisdiction to order that,” Cooke said.

“I see nothing, either in the UARB Act, the Halifax Charter, or the civil procedure rules, that would empower the court to make that kind of remedy, so I simply don’t think that it’s available.”

In a written decision released Thursday, Fichaud, with Wood and Bourgeois concurring, dismissed the appeal. The court agreed with arguments from the developer and the municipality that the community council’s decision was supported by the land-use planning policies for the area.

“Counsel for Heritage Trust makes a forceful submission that the Council’s approval offends the unequivocal language of the Policies,” Fichaud wrote. “I have to disagree.”

The “bare words” of those policies “do not illuminate a linear path to a distinct outcome,” Fichaud wrote.

“They leave the Council, Municipality and developer with work to do. They contemplate Council will consider the overlapping planning perspectives, weigh a range of solutions, make value judgments, perhaps remit the negotiation to the Municipality for amendment and, if feasible, find an appropriate balance for a development agreement but, if not feasible after a reasonable application of the policies’ criteria, refuse the development agreement.”

Fichaud noted the Heritage Trust’s primary concern was the height of the development, which exceeds the roofline of St. Patrick’s Church but comes in well under its steeple. But Fichaud said the applicable land-use policies don’t stipulate height.

“The appropriate height for an addition to a complementary streetscape is a discretionary matter for Council to decide reasonably,” Fichaud wrote. “The design revisions adopted in the approved development agreement reasonably addressed the concerns about height of the Development in the streetscape.”

Fichaud awarded no costs to any party.

Zane Woodford is the Halifax Examiner’s municipal reporter. He covers Halifax City Hall and contributes to our ongoing PRICED OUT housing series. Twitter @zwoodford

Join the Conversation


Only subscribers to the Halifax Examiner may comment on articles. We moderate all comments. Be respectful; whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims. Please read our Commenting Policy.
  1. Another glaring example of the complete lack of HRM and City Council lack of foresight, especially in light of climate change and resilience. Given the time frame for these types of developments, HRM is effectively sanctioning putting its residents into harm’s way. Other world-class cities are prohibiting construction on waterfronts, in storm surge areas and floodplains in the recognition that even temporary flooding can cause major health and safety issues as pollutants from buildings are dissolved in water, and electrical and other connections are overloaded by stormwater. Superstorm Sandy affected sewage, electrical connections and transportation links outside of the actual flooded area. Here is a link to an excellent Hakai Magazine article including aerial images of the US East Coast infrastructure which is perched in coastal danger zones….Imagine a similar set of photos for HRM, remembering that apartment buildings, commercial developments and ports are filled with chemicals and substances that should not be in water.• What the Seas Will Swallow” , Daniel Grossman, Alex MacLean, 06/08/2019, Hakai Magazine, https://www.hakaimagazine.com/videos-visuals/what-the-seas-will-swallow/ [ Alex MacLean’s 13 aerial images of the US East Coast convey just how much infrastructure perches in the coastal danger zone.

  2. The Catholic church is desperate to see development on lands it owns. Several of their properties are listed in this document being discussed this evening and prior to an HRM Public Hearing re the Centre Plan https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/boards-committees-commissions/Attachment%20K%20-%20Site%20Specific%20Req.%20Rec.%20by%20Staff.pdf

    See Nos 32,33,34,35,76,77,78,79,81

    The Archdiocese wants to alter zoning on 9 properties.