- Bnranews - CCN mailing lists

Fwd: Act Now - Halifax Common Master Plan

by lavellcampbell

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Friends of the Halifax Commons <friends(a)halifaxcommon.ca> Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 9:46 AM Subject: Act Now - Halifax Common Master Plan To: <plavell(a)gmail.com> You are receiving this email because you signed up for our mailing list. If you're having trouble viewing this message, open it in a browser window <https://link.whc.ca/v/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7b7f6fade6791b47d9538849c91e12e57> Please Write to Request Further Public Consultation on the Halifax Common Masterplan January 15th, 2022 [image: Banner Logo for Friends of the Halifax Common] <https://link.whc.ca/c/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7b7f6fade6791b47d54e289bcfaedfd6a5…> THE HALIFAX COMMON NEEDS OUR HELP! On January 20th, HRM’s Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Standing Committee will review a new 500 page Halifax Common Master Plan for referral to HRM Council for final approval. But the public haven’t seen the Plan since the summer of 2019. Lack of further public consultation is just one of the Friends of Halifax Common Executive's major concerns about the Plan. That’s why we are requesting a delay in the approval process until the Plan first comes back to the public for further consultation. Now we’d like your help! Please Email the CPED Standing Committee c/o clerks(a)halifax.ca to ask that they not approve the Plan and instead recommend that it come back to the Public for further consultation. Here’s our summary of what we believe needs to happen before the Master Plan is adopted: *1. *Needs to Come back to the Public for further Public Consultation *2. *Need for the Master Plan to Better Reflect Public Input *3. *Need to Address Major Imminent Disruptors to the Common *4.* Need to Protect, Reclaim and Expand the Halifax Common *5.* Need for Permanent HRM Citizens’ Stewardship Committee More details here: www.halifaxcommon.ca <https://link.whc.ca/c/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7b7f6fade6791b47d54e289bcfaedfd6a2…>. Feel free to use this information for your email. Better yet, write from your heart on why the Halifax Common Plan first needs to come back to the public for further consultation before approval and why the Halifax Common deserve a better plan! (Review the Plan here <https://link.whc.ca/c/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7b7f6fade6791b47d54e289bcfaedfd6a2…> .) As we’ve all learned during COVID access to public open space is vital for our physical and mental health. That’s why we need to protect it and plan for more. Thank you, FHC Executive <https://link.whc.ca/c/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7b7f6fade6791b47d54e289bcfaedfd6a4…> Twitter Follow us on twitter to stay up to date with issues impacting the Commons. <https://link.whc.ca/c/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7b7f6fade6791b47d54e289bcfaedfd6ad…> Facebook Like us on Facebook to keep up with our news, updates and other discussions. Subscribe to this mailing list <https://link.whc.ca/s/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7ccf8561e301416bc23f1f694ea285081> If you don’t want to receive emails from us anymore, click here to unsubscribe <https://link.whc.ca/u/443/d7e6e892960cfdd7b7f6fade6791b47d9538849c91e12e57> . 6182 South Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 1T5, Canada

2 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Fwd: HRM Short-term Rental Survey Extended to January 31/22

by lavellcampbell

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Neighbours Speak Up <neighboursspeakup(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 2:59 PM Subject: HRM Short-term Rental Survey Extended to January 31/22 To: Hi everyone, Just a note to advise that HRM has extended the Short-term Rental Survey to January 31/22. Many of you have likely completed the survey by now but if you are aware of others that may want to contribute or be aware of the extension please let them know. Here is the link to the HRM Survey: https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/short-term-rentals All the Best in the New Year. Bill Stewart for Neighbours Speak Up -- You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in being updated regarding the short-term rental issue. If you do not wish to receive further messages please let us know.

2 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Fwd: 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St

by lavellcampbell

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Cliff White <cliffwhiteonblack(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:11 PM Subject: 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St To: <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca> Dear Ms Rodger, Thanks for your reply. But I remain puzzled and has several questions. First why is the case closed. The site is still easily accessible and it remains dangerous. Also given the pass action of the owner and the likelihood that the same conditions will arise again why wouldn't there be ongoing monitoring of the site? In addition the many open windows in the building means that they will continue to deteriorate in which case the area will become even more unsafe and unsightly. Is part of the problem that your department is underfunded and under resourced so that it's not possible to effectively enforce the by-laws. It seems ridiculous that you can or do only respond after a public complaint. While waiting for those complaints someone could seriously be injured. We're fortunate that didn't happen at Bloomfield but it very well could have and might yet. Obvious this situation falls far short of what is need ensure that unsightly and dangerous properties are dealt with in a timely manner. Cliff White 5563 Black St. Mr. White Your complaint was attached to my open case for debris on that property. I have now closed that case, as I inspected the property yesterday and found that the waste and debris have been removed. As for “why this has been allowed to be this way for so long”, our department only responds to complaints in these matters. We have addressed the complaints we received in a timely manner. *Valerie RODGER* *Compliance Officer II* PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | Buildings and Compliance

2 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

HRM determines that falling bricks and broken windows at Bloomfield are 'not deemed unsafe'

by Ronald Skibbens

Hi BNRA folks, I’m resending this to you all as the PDF I attached to the original was too big for our mail server. That file had this letter to Mayor Savage, plus the By Law email saying Bloomfield is ’not deemed unsafe this time’, and pictures of construction debris, broken windows, derelict fencing, graffiti, etc, etc. Dear Mayor Savage, Over the past month, me and a number of other concerned citizens have complained to our Councillor and to By Law enforcement about the dangerous and unsightly property at the Bloomfield school site. Some of that correspondence has been cc’ed to you. Now I am writing directly to you as the responses (and lack thereof) have proven quite unsatisfactory. The basic issue is that I believe the Bloomfield school site is both dangerous and unsightly. Less than 2 days ago, By Law Enforcement wrote to me that it is not dangerous. I respectfully submit that the Enforcement Officer confuses recently cleaning up syringes, broken glass and some of the trash with the dual issues of dangerous and unsightly premises. 1. The site is dangerous a. The site and all three buildings contravene HRM’s website describing a dangerous property as “dangerous or likely to cause danger to health, life or property” and is a “building or structure which presents an allurement or has open access to the public”. b. There are signs on the buildings warning of falling bricks. Corners of some of the buildings are literally crumbling, with bricks falling to the ground. I would suggest that falling bricks present danger. c. The site is not secure enough to prevent falling bricks from falling on someone. Waist high fencing on Agricola and Robie streets do not secure the site, and there is effectively no barrier to entering the site from Almon Street. d. The buildings present an allurement as evidenced by the amount of graffiti on all of the buildings, and windows obviously broken from the inside of the buildings. 2. The site is unsightly. a. Broken glass, syringes, furniture and some garbage have recently been cleaned up. However again quoting from HRM’s website, the property is unsightly in that it is a “property which has items that are decayed, deteriorated, demolished or in a state of disrepair… overgrown grass… lack of exterior maintenance to buildings/structures… graffiti on private property”. b. There is no evident exterior maintenance to the buildings other than attempts to close off ground level access points. Most of the windows in all three buildings are broken and provide relatively easy access to the interiors. c. The landscaping has been ignored completely. d. Graffiti is obvious on all three buildings. e. All of this unsightliness is particularly galling as By Law Enforcement recently posted a notice of dangerous or unsightly premises on a property on Creighton Street (near Buddy Daye). It noted that the owner is “hereby ordered to remedy the condition of the property by cutting or mowing all overgrown grass, weeds or shrubs, so as to leave the Property in a neat, tidy, environmentally compliant and safe condition.” Under threat of daily fines, the owner was given 7 days to remedy the matter. Why shouldn’t Bloomfield be subject to at least these same conditions? I’d be happy to do a walk about on the Bloomfield site with you to determine whether you agree that it is dangerous and unsightly. In the meantime, here are some pictures I took after receiving the Compliance Officer’s email, posted below. I suggest that the pictures reinforce my opinion that it is still both dangerous and unsightly. Your reply would be appreciated, Ron Skibbens

2 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Bloomfield follow up

by lavellcampbell

Hi, Jane, Cliff and i all have received follow up contact from the city about Bloomfield. Mine was in the form of a voicemail (i called my complaint in). Relevant points in that communication were: the owners did the clean up of debris, there are no longer open access points, they will start dealing with the graffitti, but, with weather being bad, that may not occur until spring and broken windows at the 2nd floor level are acceptable to the city. Below, in case you missed them, are Cliff's and Jane's communications. Pete Mr. White Your complaint was attached to my open case for debris on that property. I have now closed that case, as I inspected the property yesterday and found that the waste and debris have been removed. As for “why this has been allowed to be this way for so long”, our department only responds to complaints in these matters. We have addressed the complaints we received in a timely manner. *Valerie RODGER* *Compliance Officer II* PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | Buildings and Compliance *H?LIF?X* PO BOX 1749 HALIFAX NS B3J 3A5 C. 902.476.1708 *Date:* 11/30/2021 (05:35:47 PM AST) *From:* Jane Finlay-Young <janefingers(a)gmail.com <https://webmail.chebucto.ns.ca/dynamic.php?page=mailbox>> *To:* lavellcampbell <plavell(a)gmail.com <https://webmail.chebucto.ns.ca/dynamic.php?page=mailbox>> *Cc:* bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca <https://webmail.chebucto.ns.ca/dynamic.php?page=mailbox> *Subject:* Re: service request 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St Text (1 KB) I received a similar email from Valerie today, too. Jane [Hide Quoted Text] On

2 years, 4 months

3
2
0 0

Fwd: service request 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St

by lavellcampbell

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Cliff White <cliffwhiteonblack(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 1:03 PM Subject: Fwd: service request 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St To: Pete and Nancy <plavell(a)gmail.com> The latest. Now we wait until it becomes a mess again and start all over. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: service request 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:45:06 +0000 From: Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca> <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca> To: cliffwhiteonblack(a)gmail.com <cliffwhiteonblack(a)gmail.com> <cliffwhiteonblack(a)gmail.com> Mr. White Your complaint was attached to my open case for debris on that property. I have now closed that case, as I inspected the property yesterday and found that the waste and debris have been removed. As for “why this has been allowed to be this way for so long”, our department only responds to complaints in these matters. We have addressed the complaints we received in a timely manner. *Valerie RODGER* *Compliance Officer II* PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | Buildings and Compliance *H?LIF?X* PO BOX 1749 HALIFAX NS B3J 3A5 C. 902.476.1708 halifax.ca <http://www.halifax.ca/>

2 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Protest

by ken malay

Dear Brothers and Sisters of Moscofax, Brother Pete had many opinions that were right on the mark. Maybe we should monitor the situation over the winter . If we take photos and write down what we see, maybe our voice will be stronger and more organized.I still can't believe that the city can sell a neighbourhood property and say that the whole thing is a secret! If we do this protest and don't have all our eggs in a basket, it could cause the Supreme leaders to have fuel to add to the fire. Also, there is so much going on with Covid and the holiday season,maybe it would be best to wait. Brother Pete could call the masses in for a community meeting in the spring. If everything is well organized then we could storm the Bastille! Take care and have a wonderful holiday. Brother Ken

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Fwd: [External Email] Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield

by Ronald Skibbens

No comment from me at this time. Ron > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Rodger, Valerie" <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca> > Subject: RE: [External Email] Re: [Bnranews] Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield > Date: November 29, 2021 at 5:00:41 PM AST > To: Ronald Skibbens <SkibbensPhillips(a)ns.sympatico.ca> > Cc: "Hill, Scott" <hills(a)halifax.ca> > > Hi Ron > > The Bloomfield site is not deemed unsafe at this time. > > As of this afternoon, the waste and debris on the site has been removed. > > VALERIE RODGER > COMPLIANCE OFFICER II > PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | BUILDINGS AND COMPLIANCE > > H?LIF?X > PO BOX 1749 > HALIFAX NS B3J 3A5 > C. 902.476.1708 > > halifax.ca <http://www.halifax.ca/> > > > > From: Ronald Skibbens <SkibbensPhillips(a)ns.sympatico.ca <mailto:SkibbensPhillips@ns.sympatico.ca>> > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 4:49 PM > To: Hill, Scott <hills(a)halifax.ca <mailto:hills@halifax.ca>>; Smith, Lindell <smithli(a)halifax.ca <mailto:smithli@halifax.ca>>; Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca <mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca>>; Mayor <mayor(a)halifax.ca <mailto:mayor@halifax.ca>> > Cc: BNRA <bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca>> > Subject: [External Email] Re: [Bnranews] Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield > > Hello Mr Hill and our elected representatives at City Hall, > It appears that section 358(1-5) and section 359 of the City Charter are both relevant to our ongoing communications about the dangerous and unsightly mess at the Bloomfield site. > I’d appreciate the city’s response to both sections of the Charter, but in particular section 359 which states that “The Administrator shall post notice that the property is unsafe in a conspicuous place on the property. The notice must remain posted until the unsafe condition is remedied.” > Is it possible that with mostly broken windows, broken pavement, scattered garbage, loose construction debris and the buildings literally crumbling that Bloomfield has not been deemed unsafe by By Law Enforcement? > > Patiently and expectantly yours, > > Ron Skibbens > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2021, at 1:11 PM, Ronald Skibbens <skibbensphillips(a)ns.sympatico.ca <mailto:skibbensphillips@ns.sympatico.ca>> wrote: > > Hi Mr. Hill, > As you may be aware, I got your name from notices of dangerous or unsightly premises publicly posted on the front door at 2382 Creighton. The notices list the owner and the fact that the property is unsightly and give the owner a time limit to remedy the issues. > Your recent email says that similar information about the dangerous and unsightly mess at the Bloomfield School site is confidential. Please explain why the two properties are treated differently by By Law Enforcement, especially as Bloomfield is so much more unsightly and is clearly dangerous. As per my emails and pictures of the past 3 weeks, the grounds there are littered with broken glass, syringes, furniture, pallets, garbage, bricks and much much more. > Sincerely, > Ron Skibbens > > > > Hi Mr. Skibbens > I just want to confirm the only information we are able to provide is that we have an open case and continue to follow up. > This is in accordance with Freedom of Information / Protection of Privacy Legislation and is not a choice made by the Officer nor can be altered by myself or other Staff/Officials of HRM. > > Thanks > > SCOTT HILL > > SUPERVISOR REGIONAL COMPLIANCE > BUILDINGS AND COMPLIANCE | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT > T. 902.490.3588 > > H?LIF?X > _______________ > - > > From: Ron Skibbens <skibbenr7(a)hotmail.com <mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com>> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 10:44 PM > To: ab996(a)chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:ab996@chebucto.ns.ca> > Cc: Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca <mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca>>; Smith, Lindell <smithli(a)halifax.ca <mailto:smithli@halifax.ca>>; Support, By-Law <bylawsupport(a)halifax.ca <mailto:bylawsupport@halifax.ca>>; BNRA <bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca>>; Mayor <mayor(a)halifax.ca <mailto:mayor@halifax.ca>>; Hill, Scott <hills(a)halifax.ca <mailto:hills@halifax.ca>>; Hill, Scott <hills(a)halifax.ca <mailto:hills@halifax.ca>> > Subject: [External Email] Re: [Bnranews] Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield > > Hi Roback, > > thanks for your letter of support about the dangerous and unsightly mess at Bloomfield, and Valerie Rodger’s lack of substantive information about ByLaw’s determination of when and how that will be remedied. > > I’ve taken the liberty of forwarding your email to the mayor and additional ByLaw staff in hopes of the courtesy of a reply to this and past requests for information from Councillor Smith and Inspector Rodger, as itemized below. > > All the best, > Ron > > > On Nov 18, 2021, at 1:59 PM, ab996(a)chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:ab996@chebucto.ns.ca><mailto:ab996@chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:ab996@chebucto.ns.ca>> wrote: > > Hello Ms Rodger and Mr Smith, > > As a long-time resident of the Bloomfield neighbourhood (40 years at 2620 Fuller Terrace), I would like to express my support for the issues raised by Ron Skibbens in his recent communications with you both. > > The Bloomfield school site has served both the immediate and larger community very well for over 100 years. The value placed on the site and its potential was made clear by how members of the neighbourhood mobilized in an effort to develop a plan incorporating commercial, housing, recreational, and creative opportunities in this space. Throughout the long and often interrupted process that followed, the site has been allowed to deteriorate, and stands now like in a bad dream. > > It seems to me that compliance with by-laws should not be ignored by claiming confidential agreements with the site owner. HRM - its elected representatives as well as its staff - has a responsibility to ensure its citizens and its built environment are safe and secure, and that responsibility means clearly demonstrating that the deserved safety and security be effected. > > Thank you for your attention, > David Roback > > > Quoting Ron Skibbens <skibbenr7(a)hotmail.com <mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com><mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com <mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com>>>: > > > Hi Valerie, > > As per this pic, I thought bylaw always posted a notice of dangerous and unsightly premises at the location indicating issues and the time frame to address the issues. Where can I find that notice at Bloomfield? > > Ron > [cid:54127390-87A2-4E17-9C3B-A62CB481A531-L0-001 <cid:54127390-87A2-4E17-9C3B-A62CB481A531-L0-001>] > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 15, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca <mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca><mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca <mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca>>> wrote: > > ? > Hi Ron > > As I stated, I cannot release specific details regarding communications with the property owners. I have an open case, which means that actions are ongoing. > > As for what happens during the winter, we do not expect property owners to do things that would be considered unreasonable given the weather. I cannot give you specific details regarding an individual case. > > Valerie > > From: Ron Skibbens <skibbenr7(a)hotmail.com <mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com><mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com <mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com>>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 2:36 PM > To: Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca <mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca><mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca <mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca>>>; Smith, Lindell <smithli(a)halifax.ca <mailto:smithli@halifax.ca><mailto:smithli@halifax.ca <mailto:smithli@halifax.ca>>>; BNRA <bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca><mailto:bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca>>> > Subject: [External Email] Re: [Bnranews] Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield > > Hi Valerie and Lindell, > > Again thanks for your replies. > > 1. First, Lindell, I appreciate that this dangerous and unsightly premises is now the concern of ByLaw Enforcement. However, I’d appreciate hearing from you about whether the city put any timing constraints on site remediation and/or development as a condition of sale this time. As you’ll remember, the city got burned in that regard when It sold the site to Housing NS and endured 3 years of continued dereliction. Was there a lesson learned from that multi-year debacle? > > 2. And Valerie, I live in the area and so walk by the site routinely. I sure wish the owner and bylaw enforcement would also since it is so obviously dangerous and unsightly. And although I trust that some debris has been removed, it still appears that hypodermic needles, broken window glass, broken pallets, broken furniture, scattered garbage, broken asphalt and loose bricks litter the site. The lack of exterior maintenance and graffiti is obvious from all sides of the property. In short, it appears that it meets both conditions for ‘dangerous’ as well as nearly all of the conditions for unsightly, as per HRM’s website. As I understand, these are the basic requirements for all land owners: > > [cid:image003.png@01D7DA08.CAFE5CA0 <cid:image003.png@01D7DA08.CAFE5CA0>] > > 3. Through past experience, it appears that when By Law Enforcement receives a complaint it gives the owner a time limit for addressing the complaint. Please advise what that time limit is for this complaint so that we can continue our dialog as appropriate at the end of that time. > > 4. Also, I understand that By Law Enforcement suspends some of their monitoring over the winter. Please advise if that pertains to this site, and if so when it stops and starts again. > > Thank you both for your continued monitoring of this matter. > > Ron > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bnranews mailing list -- bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca> > To unsubscribe send an email to bnranews-leave(a)chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:bnranews-leave@chebucto.ns.ca> >

2 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

the future

by ken malay

ONE YEAR FROM NOW>>>>> Dear Brothers and Sisters of Moscowfax, I have been in the Correctional centre in Dartmouth for the last five months.Why you ask? I wanted to know from the Supreme Leader why the by-laws could not be changed to be more fairer to the masses. They said I was ungrateful. Look what we did for you! You are now the Fashionable North End . You now have to pay more tax but we threw out all the poor. Why can't you be happy like all the developers. Did they have a Lip service meeting with the community, after the building was half finished, I asked a neighbour. What were some of your questions? 1. What is that big space on the ground floor going to be used for ?The masses were told it would be a wonderful subsidized day care. Did it happen, I asked. No, crane fees went through the roof and they had to make it into a bar and a McDonald's.The developer could't believe we would complain.They know everyone in the area likes greasy food and a beer! 2. What about subsidized housing. The two, one and one half bedrooms, on the ground floor will be given to them for only $2250.00.For the first year! They also have to mop the halls twice a week. 3. What about outside recreational space? They will go to Walmart and get a plastic wadding pool for the kids.They'll place it out by the dumpster. As ridiculous this sounds there is a lot of on the mark! I know we have to stay focused. Shari-Lynn and P.Kipping have some good ideas.Is there a date that people feel would be a good time for a protest? I know this is a busy time for everyone but what else can we do? Maybe we could do social media to let more people know. Sorry,I'm not a Facebook user. Anyone know how to get the media involved? take care, Brother Ken

2 years, 5 months

3
2
0 0

Re: Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield

by Ronald Skibbens

Hi Mr. Hill, As you may be aware, I got your name from notices of dangerous or unsightly premises publicly posted on the front door at 2382 Creighton. The notices list the owner and the fact that the property is unsightly and give the owner a time limit to remedy the issues. Your recent email says that similar information about the dangerous and unsightly mess at the Bloomfield School site is confidential. Please explain why the two properties are treated differently by By Law Enforcement, especially as Bloomfield is so much more unsightly and is clearly dangerous. As per my emails and pictures of the past 3 weeks, the grounds there are littered with broken glass, syringes, furniture, pallets, garbage, bricks and much much more. Sincerely, Ron Skibbens > >> Hi Mr. Skibbens >> I just want to confirm the only information we are able to provide is that we have an open case and continue to follow up. >> This is in accordance with Freedom of Information / Protection of Privacy Legislation and is not a choice made by the Officer nor can be altered by myself or other Staff/Officials of HRM. >> >> Thanks >> >> SCOTT HILL >> >> SUPERVISOR REGIONAL COMPLIANCE >> BUILDINGS AND COMPLIANCE | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT >> T. 902.490.3588 >> >> H?LIF?X >> _______________ >> >> [Diversity and inclusion emblem. Two Xs overlap to bring disparate shapes and colours together to reflect the intent of valuing diversity and inclusion at the municipality.]The Halifax Regional Municipality is located in Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and traditional lands of the Mi’kmaq people. The municipality acknowledges the Peace and Friendship Treaties signed in this Territory and recognizes that we are all Treaty People. >> >> This communication may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended for the addressee(s) only. Any copying, distribution, or other use or disclosure of the information in this communication by person(s) other than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete or destroy all copies of this communication, including from your deleted items folder. >> >> From: Ron Skibbens <skibbenr7(a)hotmail.com> >> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 10:44 PM >> To: ab996(a)chebucto.ns.ca >> Cc: Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca>; Smith, Lindell <smithli(a)halifax.ca>; Support, By-Law <bylawsupport(a)halifax.ca>; BNRA <bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca>; Mayor <mayor(a)halifax.ca>; Hill, Scott <hills(a)halifax.ca>; Hill, Scott <hills(a)halifax.ca> >> Subject: [External Email] Re: [Bnranews] Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield >> >> Hi Roback, >> >> thanks for your letter of support about the dangerous and unsightly mess at Bloomfield, and Valerie Rodger’s lack of substantive information about ByLaw’s determination of when and how that will be remedied. >> >> I’ve taken the liberty of forwarding your email to the mayor and additional ByLaw staff in hopes of the courtesy of a reply to this and past requests for information from Councillor Smith and Inspector Rodger, as itemized below. >> >> All the best, >> Ron >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2021, at 1:59 PM, ab996(a)chebucto.ns.ca<mailto:ab996@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: >> >> Hello Ms Rodger and Mr Smith, >> >> As a long-time resident of the Bloomfield neighbourhood (40 years at 2620 Fuller Terrace), I would like to express my support for the issues raised by Ron Skibbens in his recent communications with you both. >> >> The Bloomfield school site has served both the immediate and larger community very well for over 100 years. The value placed on the site and its potential was made clear by how members of the neighbourhood mobilized in an effort to develop a plan incorporating commercial, housing, recreational, and creative opportunities in this space. Throughout the long and often interrupted process that followed, the site has been allowed to deteriorate, and stands now like in a bad dream. >> >> It seems to me that compliance with by-laws should not be ignored by claiming confidential agreements with the site owner. HRM - its elected representatives as well as its staff - has a responsibility to ensure its citizens and its built environment are safe and secure, and that responsibility means clearly demonstrating that the deserved safety and security be effected. >> >> Thank you for your attention, >> David Roback >> >> >> Quoting Ron Skibbens <skibbenr7(a)hotmail.com<mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com>>: >> >> >> Hi Valerie, >> >> As per this pic, I thought bylaw always posted a notice of dangerous and unsightly premises at the location indicating issues and the time frame to address the issues. Where can I find that notice at Bloomfield? >> >> Ron >> [cid:54127390-87A2-4E17-9C3B-A62CB481A531-L0-001] >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 15, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca<mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca>> wrote: >> >> ? >> Hi Ron >> >> As I stated, I cannot release specific details regarding communications with the property owners. I have an open case, which means that actions are ongoing. >> >> As for what happens during the winter, we do not expect property owners to do things that would be considered unreasonable given the weather. I cannot give you specific details regarding an individual case. >> >> Valerie >> >> From: Ron Skibbens <skibbenr7(a)hotmail.com<mailto:skibbenr7@hotmail.com>> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 2:36 PM >> To: Rodger, Valerie <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca<mailto:rodgerv@halifax.ca>>; Smith, Lindell <smithli(a)halifax.ca<mailto:smithli@halifax.ca>>; BNRA <bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca<mailto:bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca>> >> Subject: [External Email] Re: [Bnranews] Dangerous and unsightly bloomfield >> >> Hi Valerie and Lindell, >> >> Again thanks for your replies. >> >> 1. First, Lindell, I appreciate that this dangerous and unsightly premises is now the concern of ByLaw Enforcement. However, I’d appreciate hearing from you about whether the city put any timing constraints on site remediation and/or development as a condition of sale this time. As you’ll remember, the city got burned in that regard when It sold the site to Housing NS and endured 3 years of continued dereliction. Was there a lesson learned from that multi-year debacle? >> >> 2. And Valerie, I live in the area and so walk by the site routinely. I sure wish the owner and bylaw enforcement would also since it is so obviously dangerous and unsightly. And although I trust that some debris has been removed, it still appears that hypodermic needles, broken window glass, broken pallets, broken furniture, scattered garbage, broken asphalt and loose bricks litter the site. The lack of exterior maintenance and graffiti is obvious from all sides of the property. In short, it appears that it meets both conditions for ‘dangerous’ as well as nearly all of the conditions for unsightly, as per HRM’s website. As I understand, these are the basic requirements for all land owners: >> >> [cid:image003.png@01D7DA08.CAFE5CA0] >> >> 3. Through past experience, it appears that when By Law Enforcement receives a complaint it gives the owner a time limit for addressing the complaint. Please advise what that time limit is for this complaint so that we can continue our dialog as appropriate at the end of that time. >> >> 4. Also, I understand that By Law Enforcement suspends some of their monitoring over the winter. Please advise if that pertains to this site, and if so when it stops and starts again. >> >> Thank you both for your continued monitoring of this matter. >> >> Ron > > >

2 years, 5 months

1
1
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

Bnranews