Prince Albert/Glenwood Development Conclusion

The revised 7 storey plus penthouse proposal. Rendering zoomed in view from Birch Cove Beach supplied to HRM

It was a challenging night at Harbour East Community Council. The revised design for Prince Albert/Glenwood (down a floor) was back before us. The reduction in height wasn’t enough to win over the immediate neighbours. The easy path for me would have been to side with the opposition and vote against the project. I didn’t do that. I didn’t because I firmly believe that the proposal will add to the fabric of our community. The proposal incorporates a lot of great urban design principles and is an opportunity to add new residents and business on a derelict site, in a mixed use area, that is identified in the upcoming Centre Plan as suitable for growth. I would have preferred a six storey building, but six storeys wasn’t viable. My judgement is that one extra floor and a small penthouse wasn’t a good enough reason to vote against the project given its many positive aspects. Below is a detailed account of my rationale.

Opportunities and Challenges: Managing growth will always be challenging. Change is hard, and doubly so when it affects the places we love and cherish. Development, however, brings with it opportunities to improve our community that we simply can’t ignore. We don’t need to look any farther than Downtown Dartmouth with its growing collection of shops and restaurants to see the difference that development can make. Projects like King’s Wharf and Founders Corner played a pivotal role in Downtown Dartmouth’s rebirth by bringing new residents and changing the perception of the area. If we cut off redevelopment in urban areas, we don’t just miss out on opportunities to enhance our community, we actively add to our problems. Pushing growth out to the edge of town results in higher taxes, more traffic congestion, less transit use, a decaying core, and a host of environmental issues. The key is to find a balance that allows for growth in the right locations without wrecking what we value most in our existing neighbourhoods. It’s not easy, but it’s doable.

New Shops on Portland Street

Planning Context: One of the big challenges we have in managing growth is Dartmouth’s existing 1970s plan is hopelessly out of date. It requires all buildings with more than three units to go through a development agreement process. That’s a very low threshold and it’s made worse by the lack of guidance on what more than three units means. If you’re a developer, how much more than three is appropriate? 10? 20? 50? The Plan doesn’t provide any answers. If you’re a resident, how can you have a reasonable expectation about what will happen on your street or in your neighbourhood with rules like these? Our current approach creates divisive fights over specific projects, like Prince Albert/Glenwood, and really doesn’t serve anyone’s interest.

HRM is moving away from this acrimonious process with the Centre Plan. When finished, the Centre Plan will allow for more as-of-right development, but it will also clearly identify where growth will happen, where it won’t, and what form it will take. It’s an attempt to replace acrimony with certainty. The draft Centre Plan designates a number of growth areas for more intensive use. Growth areas all have a mix of uses, access to services, transit, and underutilized land. In Dartmouth, this includes places like Wyse Road, Pleasant Street by the old Sobey’s store, Portland Street by Maynard Lake, and Grahams Grove. The Prince Albert/Glenwood site is part of the Grahams Grove growth corridor and the draft Centre Plan allows for a height of 20 meters there (approximately six storeys).

Where we’ll grow. Red = Growth Centres (ex Wyse Road), Pink = Corridors (ex Grahams Grove), Dark Grey = Future Growth Nodes (ex Penhorn). Orange = Existing Apartments (likely not much change). Downtown Dartmouth and Downtown Halifax will see growth but are subject to separate plan reviews

Prince Albert/Glenwood Design: While there is community consensus that Grahams Grove is a suitable location for new development, there is still debate as to what form growth should take. Is the Prince Albert/Glenwood design appropriate? My analysis is that the proposal is exactly the sort of project we want to see more of in HRM. The building manages the transition to the surrounding neighbourhood very well. It steps down from its high point at the intersection, which when combined with the change in elevation from the rising hillside, means that it is effectively a three storey building next to the first house on Glenwood. The building makes the most of its corner by adding new commercial space that’s oriented to the street while stepping back the floors above. It uses a variety of materials to create visual interest and break up the building’s mass, and it has several doors fronting on Glenwood to create an active street front. There is a lot to like from a design perspective and it’s exactly the sort of thoughtful approach to infill that the Centre Plan is looking for.

Prince Albert/Glenwood design on Glenwood: setbacks after the first floor, active street front, height reduced towards neighbouring properties

The community has had a lot of influence on this design. What started as a 15 storey tower proposal in 2011 was redesigned as 10, it then became nine after the Public Information Meeting and, after my motion at Community Council back in December, is now eight (7 plus penthouse). I had hoped to see the revised design at six storeys to perfectly align with the draft Centre Plan’s direction, but the developer has indicated that the project would no longer be viable at six. At the public hearing, the developer said that six would mean a total redesign to use cheaper materials (wood instead of concrete, steel and glass). The resulting pitched roof on a wooden structure would end up not making the building that much shorter. Basically, we would have a more Clayton Park/Baker Drive style approach. Given the long history, I believe him and staff when they say that seven plus penthouse is the final offer. Is it still too much?

After reviewing the design, I have to conclude that the eighth-floor penthouse isn’t much of a factor. It covers less than 30% of the roof area and is setback from the edges, which means it won’t be easily seen from nearby. That eighth floor will have little impact on Glenwood and when viewed from the lake, it will even fit underneath the ridgeline.

Prince Albert/Glenwood from above. 8th floor penthouse covers a small portion of the roof set well back from the edge
View across Banook from Birch Cove. 7 plus penthouse fits the ridgeline of the hill.

So what we’re really left with is a well-designed project, that infills a prominent corner in a place that has been identified for growth, that adds new residents and businesses, and potentially kick-starts other projects, but is one main floor (3.2 meters) higher than the ideal six stories. Is one floor and a small penthouse worth scrapping the whole thing over? Seven storeys, is shorter than several of the buildings on the other side of the lake, it’s two floors higher than the nearest five storey portion of Banook Shores, and it’s well below the 11 storeys that was approved back in 2013 just 200 meters away at 3 Bartlin Road (behind Napa). HRM’s planning staff are in support of the project and I’m satisfied that the pluses far outweigh any negatives.


I did want to touch on a few other issues that were raised in relation to this project in more detail. I spoke to these in December when I identified that compatibility was my main concern about the project, but they’re worth reiterating. Below you can read about wind, traffic, and density.

Wind: A number of people expressed concern that wind coming off the building could negatively impact the paddling course. This is understandable given the importance of Lake Banook and prominent local examples of wind causing problems in other spots in HRM such as Queen Square on Alderney, the Maritime Centre, and the new Convention Centre. All of our local references for negative wind impacts though are very different than the Prince Albert/Glenwood proposal. They’re all much taller buildings and they all have a sheer street walls that allow the wind to come right down onto the sidewalk. Prince Albert/Glenwood is less than half the size of these problematic buildings and it has a first floor podium, which should dissipate wind that might get channeled down from floors 2-7.

It’s worth noting as well that where wind impacts occur, the effect tends to be very localized. The corner of Spring Garden and Barrington can be quite blustery, but just a block away, the wind effect is gone. The race course is over 300 meters away from Prince Albert/Glenwood and there are other buildings and trees between the site and the lake. This a good buffer. For context, 300 meters is the same distance from the swirling winds at the foot of Queen Square to the First Baptist Church at Ochterloney and Victoria. The project is very unlikely to generate wind because of it’s relatively modest height and mitigating design elements and, even if it does, it’s far enough away that the winds won’t affect Banook.

Grahams Grove Area. Development site highlighted in blue.

This isn’t just my opinion. The developer completed a wind study for the previous 15 storey proposal (if 15 isn’t going to cause problems 8 certainly won’t), and HRM staff are satisfied with the conclusion. When development was proposed for the old YMCA site, which is much closer to the race course, Canoe-Kayak Nova Scotia intervened in the process. That work built a great deal of capacity in the organization on this subject. I know Canoe-Kayak is aware of the Prince Albert/Glenwood proposal and they opted not to provide any submissions to HRM.

Traffic: Traffic is a common issue of concern when it comes to development and again it’s understandable. New buildings and business mean more cars. We tend to fixate though on what’s immediately in front of us and imagine the worse. If the developer builds the maximum ninety units at Prince Albert/Glenwood, then we’ll have approximately 135 new residents, give or take. Not all 135 will drive. Some will take the bus or use the nearby Banook Greenway to get around by foot or bike. Of those that drive, they’re not all going to leave at the same time each morning causing traffic chaos. Their comings and goings will be staggered. The Traffic Study completed for this proposal bears this conclusion out.

I agree that there are problems with this section of Prince Albert Road, but those problems are pre-existing and related to the underlying design. Fixing Prince Albert Road is the municipality’s responsibility, which is why I have been pursuing a redesign for this section. I’m satisfied that the traffic impact related to this development will be very slight.

Density: The Banook Area Resident’s Association has cited 60-70 units instead of 90 as an appropriate density for the site in their campaign. Density, however, is just a number. More isn’t inherently bad and, in fact, we all benefit from situations where we can allow greater density where services already exist. Where things can go awry is when negative impacts result from allowing too much in one spot. Those impacts could be too much traffic, or relate to a building’s form becoming too big to fit in extra units. The results of density is what we should focus on, not an arbitrary number.

The density at Prince Albert/Glenwood is similar to developments that have occurred elsewhere in the urban core, such as St. Joseph’s Square. The density of the project doesn’t violate any existing rules since density is set through the development agreement process under the existing plan. The density proposed is also fairly close to the contemplated ground floor area ratio (GFAR) in the Centre Plan (3.6 versus 4.2). The developer and planning staff both indicated as well in the public hearing that it is extremely unlikely they would pursue the maximum allowable 90 units. The reduction in height to seven plus penthouse means 70-80 units. Nothing in my evaluation of the project suggests that the density proposed at Prince Albert/Glenwood is excessive, resulting in negative impacts. Without clear impacts that result from the site’s density, it really is just a number.


  1. I salute you Mr. AUSTIN for having the courage to allow for a new development in the core of Dartmouth, Not every voter or tax payer believes that this development with affect Lake Banook and on that note, not every tax payer or voter believes that Lake Banook is the most holy of holy grails. Dartmouth, does not need one more residential property sold and turned into yet another down at heel commercial property. What Dartmouth needs is considered development which brings people into the core of our City… this is a winning development and I thank you for leading the way to the future in design and development projects in the core of our City. Move forward Dartmouth … move forward.

    • Can you tell me where you live..I guess it is NOT on Glenwood Avenue..
      Perhaps not even close by..

    • We DO NOT need more runoff water from these unaffordable developments running into one of DARTMOUTH CITY OF LAKES lakes Banook, MicMac,Birch Cove and Lake Charles further polluting these once pristine chain of lakes.

      • Hi Angela. Lake pollution is a real concern. The uptake in weeds, high levels of e-coli and this summer’s algae bloom really suggests that things are changing. All three could have a common source in nutrient loading (dog waste and lawn fertilizer) which has been shown to be an issue in other lakes that have experienced similar problems such as Lake Champlain in Vermont. HRM is doing a study this summer to try and determine what’s going on in Lake Banook.

        This building though will have zero impact on the lake because the site is already developed. This isn’t a situation where a green space is being turned into pavement which means more runoff. In this instance a solid surface will become a different type of solid surface. In fact, this could be better for the lake as the surface parking will disappear meaning no dripping oil or other automotive stuff sitting around to then enter the lake.

  2. Great information Sam. Well thought out description of the issues and information relating to your decision.

  3. Excited to see something finally going ahead for this site. Higher density developments will keep our community vibrant and restore some of the density lost in neighbourhoods that once had homes occupied by large families, but now average less than 3 people per single family home.

    • The fallacy of course is there’s nothing to stop the older homes from being occupied by more people again, especially if the fabric and quality of the neighbourhood is preserved. I live on a street where homes recycle every generation. First there are two people. Then a family. The children grow up and leave home. The home is occupied by two now aging people. Then they sell and another young couple buys, and raises another family. I’ve lived here long enough, just over forty years, to see this happen twice, not every home all at once, of course, but as an ongoing process.

    • Can you tell me where you live..I guess it is NOT on Glenwood Avenue..
      Perhaps not even close by..

      • Ms. Craven lives on Oathill Crescent. People who do not support this project are being labelled as anti growth simply because we do not support this particular project. So wrong. It will do nothing for the neighborhood. I’m finding that there are a lot of people who have absolutely no appreciation for what it means to have an appreciation for what it means to live in a community where neighbors support neighbors, ie if it doesnt benefit all, then it benefits none.

    • Jean Chard’s comment is very valid. Homes on my street that were once owned by aging seniors are being purchased by young couples with children, and the older houses are being renovated and modernize, making these neighborhoods vibrant without high density units replacing older homes. Young families are buying these older houses on my street as soon as they go on the market, and there is often a bidding war to get these houses. Young families seem to be attracted to these older homes near the downtown, the hospital, the community college and the ferry. Young families are not eager to raise a family in a high density unit.

  4. Sam, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis and really have no issue with your conclusion. It is a nice looking development. However, it does raise a question about the Centre Plan. If that plan were already adopted, this development would not meet the restriction of 6 stories in that zone. Would that mean a potential developer would still be able to ask for a variance. If so, the advantage you mention of “certainty becomes moot and we are right back to community discord. I would have been happier if the decision had been based on the proposed Centre Plan. Let’s face it, developers will always ask for more and will cite many reasons they can’t possibly follow the agreed on plan. BTW…when will Council vote on a Centre Plan?

    • Hi Joan. The Centre Plan is expected right now to become real in the Spring. We’ll still have a transition period as applications that had been submitted under the old rules are dealt with. When it’s done, there really shouldn’t be much variation. The HRM By Design Plan is a good example. When Council was tested if they really meant it with the Skye Halifax proposal just after it was passed, Council gave a convincing no. There have been some variances, HRM By Design has been pretty much followed. No major upending of it by politicians. I expect the same will be true with the Centre Plan. The difference having rules that make sense and have buy in from everyone makes!

  5. Deeply disappointed about your decision Sam. Concerning to see how hundreds of voices from residents of the area were flatly ignored. At last their voice did not matter. As the meeting progressed last night it was clear the vote was already decided prior to the meeting, no matter what attending residents of the area had to say (and had consistently said it in the past). Those residents are not “development haters”, as some, disrespectfully, are calling them. They are not opposed to development, they were only, respectfully and consistently, asking for a more compatible development.

    • Hi Roberto. I’m really sorry to disappoint. The neighbourhood has most definitely not been ignored. This project started as 15 storeys, it then became 10, then 9 and then in December I sent it back to see if it could be further reduced in size. What came back was 8. I would have preferred another floor off (6 and penthouse would have been perfect), but we don’t always get everything we want in life. I can’t think of another development in HRM that has been revised and changed so many times over such a long time period to try and address the concerns of the neighbourhood. The community’s participation and involvement shaped the outcome considerably. The fact that I voted to allow this at seven plus penthouse doesn’t mean that people weren’t heard.

  6. Really Sam?
    Pretty disingenuous.
    This lake is too valuable to take a gamble on. This is not just another lake in the “city of lakes”
    The reason we voted for you in the first place was your expressed expertise in urban planning.
    Andrew Vaughan

  7. Same as Roberto I am deeply disappointed with your decision Sam. Knowing councillor Hendsbee’s record I did not expect much from him but I was hoping that you will be a voice of reason. I strongly believe that many of your arguments are quite weak. You admit to the fact that The Prince Albert/Glenwood site is part of the Grahams Grove growth corridor and the draft Centre Plan allows for a height of 20 meters there (approximately six storeys) but you don’t see much of a problem with 8 stories. So 9 stories was inconceivable but 8 is somehow okay. Why? You believe the developer when he says that at 6 stories the project is not viable on that site but you don’t believe hundreds of people directly affected by the project who opposed anything higher than 6 stories. Why does the developer have more credibility than hundreds of people? Do you have any numbers to support his argument? Frankly the developer’s argument is laughable -we’re not talking about prime real estate on Manhattan Island – and aren’t we creating a dangerous precedent? We’ve seen the same thing happen with the Willow Tree development, based on the same flawed argument that if they were not allowed to build higher they wouldn’t take on the project. So what? Can a developer give council an ultimatum? What makes developers so special? I don’t necessarily have a problem with the design of the building but again the argument that it couldn’t be done at 6 stories from cheaper materials is false. A clear example that such project can be done at 6 stories with wood is The Velo on Gottingen street. Ultimately why should we be okay with 8 stories on that site. Is it LEED building design and construction? Offers any public amenities that the community is lacking? Includes affordable housing units? Unfortunately the answer to all of the above questions is NO. For those who are thrilled with this project you better hope that mid-rise buildings won’t be popping out next to your single family residence. There’s a precedent now.

    • Hi Erik. The Willow Tree argument about viability, I agree, was ridiculous. On this one though, our building code allows six storeys out of wood. There is another developer that currently can building 10 at Wyse and Pelzant that is seeking to substantially amend his development agreement to reduce the height to six, precisely so that he can build with wood. A project off Richardson is also going wood. These are good projects for their areas, but wood brings with it limitations. They’re no where near the quality proposed here. As I weighed it, I simply concluded that the project had enough merit to be worthwhile. This developer isn’t special. The project was judged on the merits of what was proposed. If the design lacked quality, we would be having a very different conversation today.

      • mr.austin.there is no center plan.kings wharf. is half empty.irvings tax break is ending your buddy mikes career.the new building on ochterloney overlooks a cemetary.hehehe.has anybody in city hall heard about history?you are making it.

        • Actually King’s Wharf is full and Killam has bought the apartment building. The only new development that is really struggling is the Avery and that’s because the condo market has been very soft. Apartment vacancy is almost non-existent though. I understand that the new building under construction at Ochterloney and Victoria (the one that overlooks the cemetery) is already almost fully leased.

  8. Sam, you failed your constituents…plain and simple! It was obvious that you, personally, wanted this structure to go forward even before the December meeting! So now you have your way…precedence has been established, the doors are open! So many people were against this design…note: design, not development…yet you pushed it through anyway.
    Karma can be harsh, so I hope your political aspirations weren’t too lofty.
    Very disappointed in this outcome, but more so in an Elected Representative who chose to ignore his Masters.

    • Hi George. This project doesn’t establish any sort of precedence. We’re months away from the Centre Plan which will set actual clear height and density limits for what happens on the Grahams Grove growth corridor. That’s what will determine what happens in the future. This will, hopefully, be the last nasty fight under the old rules that create case-by-case battles.

  9. Thank goodness the ridiculous morning Sun from April – June argument was cast aside and good judgement won this fight.

  10. Disappointed that really an 8 story development is ok, when the centre plan allows 6. I know that a transition period is stated for allowing but if you know the direction the future plans are going why allow 8 stories. You feel there will be no/few traffic issues, I totally disagree. Living on Glenwood you cannot make left turn easily on to Prince Albert during rush hours, the driveway for Robins doughnuts is dangerously close to the entrance of Glenwood and there are no sidewalks. Obliviously the decision was made prior to the meeting. You have lost my support.

  11. Transient population occupy these places. Crime increases and property values plummet. Civil servants in NS never stand up for the people who voted them in. The higher the building, the more profitable for the builder – screw the people who invested their lives, and money in the area.

    • I have probably been into more of these buildings than most people in District 5 door knocking. Buildings like Avonhurst and Europa up by Mic Mac Mall, or the Killick at King’s Wharf. The people who are living in the high-quality apartment buildings that are being built are people who are downsizing from their homes and want to stay in the community. Folks like Tim Olive who spoke at the first public hearing (he’s up at the Mall). This place will be a mix of retirees and young professionals.

      • And I keep wondering where will the people live like my family? Where are the small single family or duplex or townhouse units with little yards and gardens where you can raise children? Where are the small houses where people who don’t earn the money a high powered professional makes can live? Where are the decent homes for the poor who would like to live near where work is?
        One of the lost opportunities in Dartmouth was what happened off Baker Drive. Now there was a place where highrises and luxury condos could have been built Highrises would have allowed for the creation of large open usable green spaces. A more interesting hub than what’s happened. But, call me cynical, the rich have to have their waterfront properties so they are busy filling in one of the great harbours of the world, and, incidentally, stealing the view from the humble early to mid-twentieth century neighbourhoods with what used to be affordable houses but now, because they are so rare and desirable, are no longer within the reach of most.

        • Hi Jean. It is challenging creating attractive family-friendly spaces in the core. At King’s Wharf, they were required to include some three-bedroom units in their buildings but no families bought them. It simply didn’t make sense when they could have a house with a yard just 10 minutes away for a similar price. I do think it’s possible to make space that’s family-friendly in multi-unit buildlings. The Centre Plan will result in many units that are accessible directly from the street at the base of multi-storey buildings. Those are units that tend to be more attractive. One way to help ensure there is space for families is to make sure that folks in homes that are looking to downsize have a place that they can go to that’s still in their community. The decision to downsize might come easier and quicker if you don’t have to give up your neighbourhood in the process!

          • We have just bought a condo in an older building near our neighbourhood. Our old home is staying in the family. We could never have dreamt of buying a condo in Kings Wharf or the Avery even if we had wanted to. Ideal would have been affordable cohousing.

        • Hi Erik. There are many examples of mid-rise buildings near single family homes. Some of them aren’t compatible, but others don’t cause any problems. In my own backyard there is a 4 storey apartment and two doors up on the same street there is a six storey building.

      • PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD THESE HIGH RISE BUILDINGS. When is the city of Dartmouth going to start building nice affordable apartments for seniors instead of continuing to build condos that people can’t afford so they end up rented. I have lived on Glenwood over 15 years ago and it was hard enough to get out of there then. The traffic tie up is going to be terrible.

  12. Bravo Sam !

    The inane rhetoric and mis-information being circulated by the many unscrupulous, uninformed or misguided writers on this page and the BARA site are exactly the reason we need Informed / moral elected individuals like Yourself. By his absence Councillor Mancini continues to duck controversial issues such as this and Willow Tree while Councillor Nicoll panders to favoring which way the wind blows in the room (irresponsible governance on both accounts dedicated to preserving only their pensions). On the other hand, You sir, are an inspiration and exception to the government norms in this municipality and You should take great pride in your professionalism and dedication. Stick to your “bones” Sam and ignore the vocal minority mob. These nay sayers have only their own selfish interests in mind and Do Not speak for the people. Like it or not for them, We Will See you next term stronger than before and it will be our good fortunate to do so.

    Thank You.

    • I agree. Sam is a gem and we are lucky he’s our rep. I think it is possible to have a respectful disagreement, or feel regret that the world is the way it is and express a wish that things could be better.

  13. Thank you Sam for a well written and comprehensive report. I for one support this development if only for selfish reasons. I currently live on Sinclair St. with a view that I love of Lake Banook. I am looking to downsize when I retire in a few years and want to stay in the neighbourhood, but the options are limited. This is exactly what I’m looking for. I can’t wait to see it. Well done!

  14. I’m happy to have the representation of someone with such a keen understanding and obvious passion for civic planning. People tend to hate seeing neighborhoods change even when it will be for the better over the long run. These victories will all be hard fought against a vocal minority but I look forward to more of your fact-based analysis.

    • Exactly where was the fact based analysis – from Donald Trump’s speech writers? His facts were challenged on every level. The Developer showed up late for his own hearing. My guess is that if this going on your own backyard folks like you would be the first to complain. Such hypocrysy.

  15. WE ARE and were very disappointed in this discussion from the very start, Sam Austin had his mind make during the very first meeting, nothing had changed during the follow-up meetings. Sam Austin just kept it going… back to council for what reason, I have no idea. Perhaps just to prolong, and eventually he made a game out of it, often even with a smirk on his face. Sam you need NOT knock on OUR door when you are campaigning for your election. We are completely disgusted with you. YOU do not listen to your constituents.

    • Respectfully Irene and John, there was a change. The building was reduced by 1 floor. I would have liked to have seen 2 floors come off and we can argue about whether accepting the removal of 1 was sufficient or not, but to say there was no change since the meeting in December is inaccurate.

  16. I applaud the decision to allow this to move forward. A signalized intersection will solve the left turn onto P. Albert. With respect to the wind issues…look at the facts before spouting off! Worthy of mention perhaps is that Gloria M. supported the initial proposal…The Nimby argument only serves to stifle good developments.

  17. Banook is the holiest of holy grails. Recognized as one of the top flat-water lakes in THE WORLD. I don’t consider a 7 1/2 story apparation attendent to the trees, parks, and single-family homes and lake fitting my concept of the area. And many others who are against development at any cost expressed the same concerns. I found your reasoning wholly subjective and pre-ordained. This not a good way to commence a political future.

    • Hi Michael. Nothing was pre-ordained on this. The community has had a major impact on this process. What started as 15, became 10 then 9 and finally 8. I can’t think of another project that has seen so much revision over such a long time period to try and address neighbourhood concerns. If it was pre-ordained, I would have just voted to approve back in December.

    • I totally agree. My brother, now living in Calgary, and I walked the Lake and he remarked how nice, unique, and natural feeling that area had. Chances are that if you grew up in Dartmouth then you would want to hold on to an unfettered Lake. If not, then you probably have no real attachment or understanding to what my brother was saying.

  18. Sam, I cycle past this lot every day and I applaud your decision to move this project forward. The traffic that I contend with on a bicycle is not locally generated, most of it is coming from waverly road, main street. More density on this lovely area is due and warranted.

  19. As a homeowner at the other end of Banook I am disappointed the counsellor ended up supporting the development as it is. The residents on the side street are stuck looking at a structure that’s out of scale with existing homes. Mr Austen’s seems to be grasping at straws in justifying his approval. There is never a “final offer” when dealing with development. The builder owns the property and therefore will do something with it eventually. Why is the council so intimidated by developers? Who are they representing? Certainly not the residents of this neighbourhood. How many of the councillors voting in favour received campaign contributions from this individual? Glossed over too is the traffic problem it will create. 135 residents translates into over 200 cars coming and going at an already problematic bend in the roadway. Mr. Austen’s solution is to redevelop the intersection- no doubt at the taxpayers expense not the developer who exacerbated the situation. Anyone else notice that none of the conceptual images are close-ups or views from Glenwood? Very telling.

    • Thanks David for your feedback. A few points. I wasn’t intimidated at all. The developer is one guy. The only pressure on me was to vote it down and if all I cared about was politics, that’s what I would have done. I didn’t simply because I think the proposal is beneficial to Dartmouth. The community has had a major impact on how this turned out (15, 10, 9, 8). We’ll have to agree to disagree about traffic. The intersection piece is the taxpayer’s responsibility. It doesn’t work very well right now! We can’t expect development to fix everything for us. HRM has responsibilities too and this one is ours. I’m not aware of this developer donating to anyone’s campaigns. You can peruse the donations to councillor’s on the municipal website here. I didn’t take a dime from anyone involved in development, my donations were all from community residents, and the bulk of them were given in small amounts.

    • I too felt Sam’s explanation was weak. Also it has been my common experience that the architect’s conceptual drawings seldom reflect the finished product. Mr. Austin is entitled to at least one mistake. Let’s hope he is less inclined to favour similar developments in the future

Comments are closed.