[Dartmouth] 18 & 22 Rosedale Drive | ? m | 11-9 fl | Approved

[Duff]

New Proposal for Rosedale Dr. in Dartmouth







Proposal Docs here: https://www.halifax.ca/business/plan...-ave-dartmouth

[teddifax]

Just a side note... showing children walking down the road, not using sidewalks....

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by teddifax

Just a side note... showing children walking down the road, not using sidewalks....

Well clearly they've just come back from Sweden (the bag in the second image) and have gotten awful ideas about shared streets from those dirty socialists

[Querce]

In their planning application they say

One of the impetus for this DA is the looming downzoning of this property from the allowable
development rights permitted under the current zoning, to an “Established Residential” zone which will
not permit multi-unit development. Right across the street (Rosedale) though, is the Wyse Road “centres”
zone which will allow this sort of multi-unit or mixed use development with a FAR of 3.5.

But that's not true, they're being zoned HR-1, with a height limit of 20 metres, and right across the street is a corridor (not a centre), with a max height of 26 metres (not max FAR)

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Well clearly they've just come back from Sweden (the bag in the second image) and have gotten awful ideas about shared streets from those dirty socialists

Yup, that must be it. Expect Austin to want to make the existing street less than one lane wide. Also he may want to ban delivery trucks too like the debacle that is the new part of Argyle St and proposed for SGR.

This is trying to get in under the wire to avoid the restrictions of the Centre Plan, so expect the councillor to decry it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Well clearly they've just come back from Sweden (the bag in the second image) and have gotten awful ideas about shared streets from those dirty socialists

I like it. Now I will have an excuse to drive on the sidewalk!

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Querce

In their planning application they say

But that's not true, they're being zoned HR-1, with a height limit of 20 metres, and right across the street is a corridor (not a centre), with a max height of 26 metres (not max FAR)

I think their application letter was from early 2018, so there may have been some changes to Centre Plan since then.

Regardless, it looks like they had a complete application on file before Council gave First Reading to Centre Plan, so they'll get in under the old rules.

[Dmajackson]

Staff is recommending AGAINST this proposal. The HEMDCC has two new members elected last month so this will be their first vote on planning matters.

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...hemdcc1313.pdf

[Colin May]

I don't know why any councillor would oppose the proposal. They are all for greater . Of course the councillors arguing for greater density all live in detached homes.
The old Timmies on Wyse Road and an adjacent lot are up for sale for $3.29 million !!!
Dartmouth house prices are wild, homes selling well above listing and in sold in 2-4 days of listing.
This council is once again dominated by daydreamers who have no connection to people who work for less than $30,000 a year. And one councillor told News 95.7 that cycling in the winter is possible because Scandinavia clears cycling routes !! The snowfall last week was not cleared until long after the storm passed. Obviously never been to Scandinavia and doesn't know that the meteorological data does not support his assertion. Another councillor apparently told the same station that reducing car traffic on the peninsula was a real goal !! In 2018-19 passenger 32.6 million passenger vehicles used the two bridges --- see page 11 https://www.hdbc.ca/wp-content/uploa...port-final.pdf

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The snowfall last week was not cleared until long after the storm passed. Obviously never been to Scandinavia and doesn't know that the meteorological data does not support his assertion.

This doesn't have much to do with this development per se but I don't understand the implicit assumption here that if you have a bike you must use it every single day of the year regardless of weather, or else it's pointless.

Why can't a person own a bike and then take the bus or drive a car when the weather is bad? Isn't this still desirable if it reduces environmental impact and traffic and if the person prefers it, even it's only used some of the time instead of for every single trip?

You often hear of "motorists" or "cyclists" as if they are different species of human. But cars and bikes are different modes of transportation, and you are allowed to use more than one!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

This doesn't have much to do with this development per se but I don't understand the implicit assumption here that if you have a bike you must use it every single day of the year regardless of weather, or else it's pointless.

Why can't a person own a bike and then take the bus or drive a car when the weather is bad? Isn't this still desirable if it reduces environmental impact and traffic and if the person prefers it, even it's only used some of the time instead of for every single trip?

You often hear of "motorists" or "cyclists" as if they are different species of human. But cars and bikes are different modes of transportation, and you are allowed to use more than one!

That has a lot to do with the rhetoric of the cycling activists who make the claim that cycling is a viable year-round activity and an actual thing that many will do to get to/from work and carry out their daily transportation needs year-round. It is absurd of course, but they have made the motor vehicle their sworn enemy, and HRM has foolishly bought in to that idea. Hence, the narrowing of streets, the deliberate moves to slow vehicle movement and create traffic congestion, and the overall view that downtown should be free of private vehicles to a large extent. It is a foolhardy strategy on the part of HRM and we are already seeing signs that downtown businesses are beginning to suffer as a result. It will only get worse as this continues.

[Dmajackson]

HEMDCC deferred the decision on this project last year. It is now back before them in a slightly altered version. Staff is still recommending against this proposal.

Case 21584 Staff Report

[Dmajackson]

Housing Accelerator Fund proposed changes to this site;

• September of 2021, Council approved a Development Agreement for the main property at 18-20 Rosedale Drive, containing provisions for the development of two multi-unit buildings of nine and eleven stories.
• This development is currently in preparation.
• The proposed change as-of-right would be against Centre Plan policy direction, as the maximum height in an HR-1 Zone where abutting ER is 7 storeys.
• The maximum height allowable by policy in the HR-1 Zone is 9 storeys, so a rezoning to HR-2 would be required to facilitate this request.
• However, HR-2 is only intended to apply to self-contained blocks, and not directly abut ER.
• As the proposal does not follow Centre Plan policy, staff are recommending against the proposed change and note that the approved DA does allow for additional density

Regional Centre Development Requests