[Halifax] Cowie Hill Projects (Cowie Hill Road) | ? M | 17&8 , 16&10 FL | Proposed

[Dmajackson]

Two major new proposals comin forward for Cowie Hill and Ridge Valley Road. Both Hazelview Investments (owner of Terrace View) and Universal Properties (owner of Ridgeway Towers) are proposing to infill their lots with new high density residential buildings. Both sites would have two new buildings constructed with a total of ~478 units. The projects are seeking initiation for the MPS/LUB amendments required to allow for this amount of density.

Case 23600 Initiation Report

[someone123]

Interesting. There are a couple old apartment buildings around there that are really visible because of the hill.

I always found that this area was fairly devoid of services (mostly shops and mixed use) and underdeveloped for where it is. Spryfield has a bit more but used to be pretty run down and is 2 km away.

I'm not sure there is an appetite for new car bridges or tunnels but I often thought this neighbourhood could be transformed with some active transportation infrastructure. One piece would be a small, attractive bridge or gondola over the Northwest Arm, which would partly be justified as a way to connect recreational areas on either side. Another would be some better pathways to improve connectivity around these roads. Many of the residents of this area are lower income and don't necessarily all have cars anyway. Allowing for options like electric scooters combined with buses could in theory be a game changer for a lot of people. Actually this particular site would just be walking distance to Dalhousie with a pedestrian bridge.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by someone123

Interesting. There are a couple old apartment buildings around there that are really visible because of the hill.

I always found that this area was fairly devoid of services (mostly shops and mixed use) and underdeveloped for where it is. Spryfield has a bit more but used to be pretty run down and is 2 km away.

I'm not sure there is an appetite for new car bridges or tunnels but I often thought this neighbourhood could be transformed with some active transportation infrastructure. One piece would be a small, attractive bridge or gondola over the Northwest Arm, which would partly be justified as a way to connect recreational areas on either side. Another would be some better pathways to improve connectivity around these roads. Many of the residents of this area are lower income and don't necessarily all have cars anyway. Allowing for options like electric scooters combined with buses could in theory be a game changer for a lot of people. Actually this particular site would just be walking distance to Dalhousie with a pedestrian bridge.

I cannot ever see any connections to the Peninsula for the very reasons stated in your comment. Spryfield and the South end are literally Worlds away. South end Halifax is in the top 25 for net Worth Neighborhoods in Canada and Spryfield to be kind is not.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I cannot ever see any connections to the Peninsula for the very reasons stated in your comment. Spryfield and the South end are literally Worlds away. South end Halifax is in the top 25 for net Worth Neighborhoods in Canada and Spryfield to be kind is not.

The South End is also a citywide destination, though. Universities, hospitals and other institutions, recreational amenities, and downtown/SGR nearby. I bet South Enders would appreciate being able to get to Sandford Fleming Park without driving all the way around the rotary as well.

I don't think it makes sense to imagine that because the relative income levels of the two areas are different, no one would be interested in connecting the two. I also don't think we can expect Spryfield to remain a lower-income area--given the way real-estate prices are going, a reasonably central area like it is destined to become more middle-class. A quick pedestrian connection to the peninsula wouldn't hurt that process either.

[Keith P.]

If a transportation connection from the South End to the Cowie Hill side were ever to be made it should have happened 50 years ago with an Arm Bridge of some sort. I will never forget watching a Council meeting a couple of decades ago and seeing the Councillor for the area get up on her hind legs and bray that the view down the Northwest Arm from the Armdale Rotary was far too beautiful to be sullied by a bridge or transportation structure of any sort in her lifetime. Just imagine if such a thing had been built way back when it was first proposed following WWII or in the '90s when it resurfaced before being torpedoed again by elite Southenders. And I'll say it: talk of gondolas as a viable transportation solution is simply silly.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

In terms of a piece of AT infrastructure that would get substantial use, a pedestrian / cycle bridge over the Arm would likely rate highly. I have to agree with Keith on the idea of a gondola. Not that a gondola couldn't get the job done but we're in the ferry business here already and it doesn't make sense to take on a different tech when a ferry could get the job done. I wonder if there is worry that any alternative to buses would negatively affect bus revenue?

[atbw]

Speaking from a South End perspective, having that kind of AT access to that area would be great. That would bring things like Dingle Park/Frog Pond and the McIntosh Run mountain bike trails into easily ridable distances for folks in the South End, while easing the commute for folks riding in from Spryfield area. At the very least it would make it so that you can get off the peninsula onto the mainland without having to ride through the rotary.

I do wonder about height constraints though, with all the sailboats in the arm.

[OldDartmouthMark]

A gondola would probably offer sufficient value as a novelty as well as practical AT conveyance, and would be less intrusive on the skyline than a bridge. It could become an attraction unto itself, just by virtue of being the only such conveyance in the Halifax region.

It might also be considered 'less permanent' for doubters, in that it would be easier to remove than more-permanent infrastructure. Not sure on the relative costs of operation and maintenance, though. One advantage of a bridge is that it doesn't require energy (except lighting) or maintenance of constantly moving mechanical parts (one also wonders about the risk of becoming stranded over the water during a breakdown or power outage).

I still think that Halifax missed the boat (so to speak) when it didn't build a bridge during the post-war period when such an idea would have been more tenable. I agree with Dartguard that there would be a lot of push-back from people in positions of power and political influence for this to easily happen today.

Ferries are fine, and perhaps would more acceptable to the south end locals, but also have their limitations, mostly in capacity and scheduling limitations. From a climate change point of view, they also require energy to operate, like a gondola, and thus would appear to be a lower choice (on a philosophical level) for promoters of AT, as compared to a bridge.

[Maiasaura]

I've browsed here a few times over the years, but I'm signing up to follow this project. I don't know much about the planning process, but I live in the neighbourhood and I like the proposal. For whatever noise and inconvenience it brings, I'm pro-density. What happens next? Is there a public consultation? I don't want the NIMBY voices to be the only ones heard on this.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Maiasaura

I've browsed here a few times over the years, but I'm signing up to follow this project. I don't know much about the planning process, but I live in the neighbourhood and I like the proposal. For whatever noise and inconvenience it brings, I'm pro-density. What happens next? Is there a public consultation? I don't want the NIMBY voices to be the only ones heard on this.

I would expect there to be, you should go and voice your support for it. Welcome to the forums!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine that there will be a lot of NIMBY pressure in the Cowie Hill area. That seems to be more concentrated in some areas of the peninsula, but even then when I read the complaints about NIMBYs I tend to think that their power is overestimated a little. Stuff still gets built, maybe to the point where no one person gets everything they want, but it's not like there's a lack of construction activity in Halifax these days...

Welcome to the forum, by the way. I look forward to reading about the goings on in your area, as I don't get out that way as much as I'd like to. Best of luck in getting your voice heard!

[Maiasaura]

Do the new rules encapsulate the variances in this application?

https://www.halifax.ca/about-halifax/regional-community-planning/housing-accelerator-fund

Can this project go ahead now?

[Keith P.]

Despite the left hand of HRM grabbing the sack of federal accelerator fund cash worth a reported $73 million of JT's federal gold, the right hand of HRM Planning said a resounding "NO!" and rejected the Hazelview proposal. However, the developer pushed back and went to the courts where they apparently prevailed, at least for now:

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/hal...ts-from-halifax-over-housing-development (subscription reqd.)

Some snippets:

Developer wins appeal and costs from Halifax over housing development
At stake are two eight-storey residential towers in the Cowie Hill neighbourhood

Author of the article:
By Jen Taplin
Published Dec 23, 2025

Halifax Regional Municipality has been ordered to pay costs to a developer after losing an appeal.

The developer, who says they could have started building their Halifax housing project in July 2024 if not for HRM getting in the way, said they’re owed by HRM for the delay and the legal costs.

Hazelview Investments Inc. is planning to build two eight-storey towers on a shared podium behind an existing 11-storey, 109-unit apartment building on Cowie Hill Road. The project is considered “as of right,” but the developer needed exceptions (also called variances) from the stepback and setback requirements. Stepbacks are where upper floors are horizontally recessed to break up the vertical plane, and setbacks are mandatory minimum distances from things like property lines and other buildings.

Trevor Creaser, an HRM development officer, rejected Hazelview’s application for three variances — one setback and two stepback variances.

Hazelview appealed that decision to the Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board and at the hearing, HRM acknowledged that one of the two variances should have been approved. But Creaser explained that he rejected all three because the refusal of two of the variances would mean the third variance wouldn’t exist.

The board, however, sided with the developer in May, saying that HRM didn’t show that the requested variances conflict with the land-use bylaw or the Suburban Housing Accelerator Secondary Municipal Planning Strategy (SMPS).

HRM sent an appeal of the board’s decision to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on July 4.

Hazelview then went after the municipality to pay for their costs because of the appeal process. While the decision in May referenced costs, lawyers for Hazelview wrote to the board in July to say they hadn’t reached an agreement with HRM.

Not long after, an HRM lawyer sent the board a letter saying it’s not appropriate to award costs in this matter. The letter said that a “no costs award is in the interest of justice” because HRM’s “position is similar to that of a non-typical public interest litigant,” but if costs are required by the board, they should be reduced.

Plus, since HRM is appealing the board’s decision, costs at this time are premature.

The letter went on to say that the HRM sought to clarify a novel point of law that would affect future cases, and there is a “serious risk of a chilling effect as a result of this precedent-setting decision (that) should be considered by this board.”

Lawyers for Hazelview said the initial refusal and the appeal caused them “significant project construction delays.”

“Absent the development officer’s refusal, Hazelview’s development could have been initiated in July 2024,” legal representation for Hazelview informed the board.

In a decision released this week, the board again sided with the developer.

“Considering the text, context and purpose of the statutory framework underlying this appeal, the outcome of the appeal, the delay and costs incurred by Hazelview, the complexity and length of the hearing, and the circumstances of the appeal, the board finds that it is in the interests of justice to award costs to Hazelview in this appeal.”

The board didn’t buy HRM’s argument that it was “similar to that of a non-typical public interest litigant” or that there would be a chilling effect on development officers’ consideration of similar applications from developers.

“HRM’s planning officials have a statutory duty to apply the tests in the HRM Charter when considering development applications, including requests for variances. This duty must be carried out in an objective and bona fide manner, irrespective of any cost consequences for the municipality,” wrote the board in their decision.

Just how much HRM will have to fork over is still to be worked out between the two sides, but the board will step in again if needed.

“If the parties are unable to agree on the quantum of costs, the board is prepared to direct the filing of written submissions on the issue.”

Just amazing, really.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Just amazing, really.

I wish it were amazing, but this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened with HRM. To me it's just perplexing and disappointing.

I hope the developers get a substantial costs award. It can't possibly come close to compensating for their lost opportunity (that's not the point of costs) , but it should at least be significant enough to discourage this sort of misfeasance.