[Dartmouth] 112-114 Wyse Road | 69 m | 20 fl | Proposed

[Colin May]

Hi Mark. A case of 'what could have been'
Under financial pressure of a growing population Dartmouth needed every nickel it could find and thinking long term was relegated to an afterthought.
HRM staff don't like the legislation and try to ignore it - the scent of money addles their brains.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Unfortunately, long-term thinking sometimes doesn't seem to be 'job 1' with the city. But, at the end of the day, the commons land that includes the baseball fields and Layton Dillman park is a very nice space, and has thankfully been preserved for public use over the decades.

[ns_kid]

I confess, your point is unclear to me, Colin. The site survey plan seems to show the project constrained by the properties identified by the PID numbers 00082800 and 00082792. The HRM charter (2008) identifies the properties within the Dartmouth Common lands and neither of these properties is included. You are right that the architect seems to cite language that was amended in 2008, carelessness that is frustrating. But I see nothing in the charter that blocks the developer's proposal. As you have noted, the Common master plan was adopted "in principle" as a "guideline for management and development" of the lands. It does not have the force of law. Overall, I think the proposal is a strong one. It brings high-density residential accommodation to an area that has been a community gateway for over 60 years. It is highly served by transit with access to recreation and retail/commercial services and directly faces other high-rise structures. I believe there is a lot of strength in this proposal.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

I confess, your point is unclear to me, Colin. The site survey plan seems to show the project constrained by the properties identified by the PID numbers 00082800 and 00082792. The HRM charter (2008) identifies the properties within the Dartmouth Common lands and neither of these properties is included. You are right that the architect seems to cite language that was amended in 2008, carelessness that is frustrating. But I see nothing in the charter that blocks the developer's proposal. As you have noted, the Common master plan was adopted "in principle" as a "guideline for management and development" of the lands. It does not have the force of law. Overall, I think the proposal is a strong one. It brings high-density residential accommodation to an area that has been a community gateway for over 60 years. It is highly served by transit with access to recreation and retail/commercial services and directly faces other high-rise structures. I believe there is a lot of strength in this proposal.

The question is this : Can the developer use the abutting property to facilitate development ? The abutting property is one large lot from Wyse to Victoria and Nantucket to Thistle and is PID 00023267
I am not arguing in favour of blocking development but pointing out the possible legal constraints on using Common land to enable construction of the building.
When 135 Wyse is also developed with a high rise the area will be quite challenging for pedestrians and cyclists in windy weather.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Colin May

T... When 135 Wyse is also developed with a high rise the area will be quite challenging for pedestrians and cyclists in windy weather.

I don't have access to a wind model, but to my eyes, this proposal seems to be designed to deal with "downwashing" sometimes associated with tall buildings - the tower portion avoids significant portions of flat unrelieved surface with the way it incorporates the balconies, and there's a fair amount of articulation within the podium and separation between the podium and tower. I suspect it should be pretty kind to pedestrians and cyclists.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The question is this : Can the developer use the abutting property to facilitate development ? ...

What do you mean by using the adjacent property/ies to "facilitate" the development? Are you feeling like this development will rely on surface parking in the adjacent parking lots, or is it something else?

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

What do you mean by using the adjacent property/ies to "facilitate" the development? Are you feeling like this development will rely on surface parking in the adjacent parking lots, or is it something else?

Can a builder use an adjoining property to build the structure ?
The design provides over 100 underground parking spots.
To the North and to the East is the Common. How is the building erected without encroaching on the Common during construction ?
HRM cannot lease or licence use of the Common without the approval of the Governor in Council ( the province).

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Can a builder use an adjoining property to build the structure ?
The design provides over 100 underground parking spots.
To the North and to the East is the Common. How is the building erected without encroaching on the Common during construction ?
HRM cannot lease or licence use of the Common without the approval of the Governor in Council ( the province).

I see - your concern is with adjacent parking lots being used for construction laydown areas, construction parking, site trailers, etc. during construction.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Can a builder use an adjoining property to build the structure ?
The design provides over 100 underground parking spots.
To the North and to the East is the Common. How is the building erected without encroaching on the Common during construction ?
HRM cannot lease or licence use of the Common without the approval of the Governor in Council ( the province).

Sorry I’m confused. The Dartmouth common is a giant parking lot... for the Sportsplex?

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Takeo

Sorry I’m confused. The Dartmouth common is a giant parking lot... for the Sportsplex?

The area bounded by Thistle, Victoria, Nantucket and Wyse includes Dartmouth High, the soccer field the bus terminal and the Sportsplex is one part of the larger area known and identified in section 66 of the HRM Charter as Dartmouth Common. That area is one lot with one PID.
The former Scotiabank lot was part of the original common but is not part of the legislation.
The parking area is for transit users and Sportsplex users and a permit is required and available for purchase from the Sportsplex.
The original common extended to Boland and then along Wyse to Lyle and down to the harbour.

This report provides all the details https://web.archive.org/web/20140714...icesforweb.pdf

and page 16 of the report shows the original grant of Dartmouth Common in 1788

[Keith P.]

I see little difference between what might happen here than with HRM letting developers block off a street lane during construction.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I see little difference between what might happen here than with HRM letting developers block off a street lane during construction.

I actually agree with this. If it's only temporary use during construction, I don't see it as a problem.

I thought the issue was using the commons property as an access point for the underground parking.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

... I thought the issue was using the commons property as an access point for the underground parking.

Right, so the developer may require deeded access across the Dartmouth Commons?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Right, so the developer may require deeded access across the Dartmouth Commons?

I would guess. And it actually doesn't seem like an unreasonable request as the land is already being used for vehicular access.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I see little difference between what might happen here than with HRM letting developers block off a street lane during construction.

As well, Sportsplex just used a large portion of the lot between them and the bus terminal to facilitate their reconstruction. I predict it will be a non-issue.

[Colin May]

HRM cannot give deeded access from and to the parking lot under existing legislation.
The property has access from Wyse Road and the developer could design the building to provide access and egress from Wyse. Or HRM could sell the abutting parcel known as 2A and provide egress to Nantucket.
The number of vehicles entering and departing the site is very low and would increase significantly.
HRM Charter : " 66 (2) The Dartmouth Common is held by the Municipality in trust
for the inhabitants of the Municipality.
(3) The Municipality may not
(a) sell, lease, license or otherwise alienate the Dartmouth Common;

https://nslegislature.ca/sites/defau...%20charter.pdf

Or the province could be asked to amend the HRM Charter and that would end up in front of Private and Local Bills Committee where members of the public are allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
Or deeded access may already be in place from when the bank building was built 60 years ago.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Colin May

... Or deeded access may already be in place from when the bank building was built 60 years ago.

Interesting. I hadn't considered that, but it might make sense.

[essaysmith]

I suspect there must already be some type of agreement in place for egress to the site from the Sportsplex parking lot. That was the only access to the Scotiabank.

[Colin May]

Access from Wyse has been available since the branch was built, clearly visible in the photos posted by Mark and visible by everyone who knows Dartmouth.

[Jonovision]

This one has a revised submission. Both the tower and podium appear more substantial now.

No update on the HRM website but Fathom Studios has a few renderings on their Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/fathomstudio.ca/