Birch Cove Lakes

[Good Baklava]

This isn't a specific development but rather a plan for the region. I don't know about you guys but this looks like something that could have been built 10 years ago yet it's planned for the future. It just seems like annother burden to the already clogged arteries leading to the peninsula.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kUm14lc-dI

[OldDartmouthMark]

"This video has been removed by the user. "

[Dmajackson]

I think the deleted video above was related to the Facilitator's Report that has been made public this week.

http://www.halifax.ca/property/docum...Appendices.pdf

Halifax is in negotiations with the owners of the lands dubbed "Highway 102 West Corridor" which runs along Highway 102 between Bayers Lake and Kearney Lake. The issues at hand are how much land is needed to make the regional park? How intensive would the adjacent development have to be to keep the developments economical? And should secondary planning strategies be initiated now or held off for future demand?

Personally I think the developer plan is much more spread out than it should be. I support a new street connecting Chain Lake Drive to Kearney Lake Road and high density development nearby to support the capital cost but there is no need to stretch that far back.

[MeEtc]

I was at a meeting tonight presented by the facilitator and land owners. Comments and questions were not a part of the presentation. The venue was undersized, and I suspect many were turned away. Room capacity was 125 and many were listening from the hall.

The facilitator, Justice Heather Robertson, was brief and discussed her role in creating the report. The HRM rep (don't even remember his name) was even shorter.

The person representing the landowners went into a presentation to explain their proposal, showed some maps, and discussed their priorities. His emphasis was showing how much parkland they are "creating", but would not disclose until directly asked where developments would occur. A map similar, but less detailed, as shown on page 27 of the facilitator's report was shown on screen. The bright green area is existing protected wilderness. The dark green is the areas the developer proposes will be park area or untouched land. Suzie's Lake and Fox Lake would have untouched shores, and Quarry Lake would be partially developed. Untouched shores mean a minimum 30m buffer to development (which is the bare minimum they require by existing law/rules/whatever). The existing rock quarry would be turned into an artificial lake. the developer, of course, is providing the bare minimum of parkland that they require. The entire presentation was under 40 minutes.

The audience was of course extremely displeased. As of right now, the land is under a zoning of Urban Reserve until 2033. Council would have to make a zoning change in order for this development to continue. HRM also has the option to buy ALL of the land at fair market value. However, with the creation of this proposal, the property owners have now increased the value of their land. By continuing with the second, in depth phase of this proposal the land value will continue to grow. This decreases the ability of HRM to buy this land to stop the proposal.

All comments will only be accepted in writing (as approved by the facilitator). Comments must be sent to clerks@halifax.ca by 3pm July 4. Other mailing options and details available here: https://www.halifax.ca/property/blue...hcovelakes.php

[ILoveHalifax]

WOW!!!

Quite the proposal. Halifax might finally grow beyond hwy 102.

Really playing up the lakes to make a great new community.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Additional info and the previously posted video are at the Halifax Examiner link below:

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featu...-june-21-2016/

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Additional info and the previously posted video are at the Halifax Examiner link below:

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featu...-june-21-2016/

Naturally Bousquet has to post the point of view of an activist prior to that of a reporter.

Interesting that he spends a good portion of the entry wailing about how hard it is for him to do what he is doing. While several of the usual nodding heads in the comments offer attaboys and say how wonderful he is, it is interesting to see a few subscribers finally criticize him for his incessant negativity and SJW approach. I suspect this venture of his will soon fizzle out as soon as he finds another job.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Naturally Bousquet has to post the point of view of an activist prior to that of a reporter.

Interesting that he spends a good portion of the entry wailing about how hard it is for him to do what he is doing. While several of the usual nodding heads in the comments offer attaboys and say how wonderful he is, it is interesting to see a few subscribers finally criticize him for his incessant negativity and SJW approach. I suspect this venture of his will soon fizzle out as soon as he finds another job.

I typically take most of what is written on that site with a grain of salt, as much of it smacks of sensationalism and unnecessary negativity. There are a few bits and pieces of information there that have proven to interesting, however.

The link I posted above does have what I believe is the video that was posted previously in this thread and then subsequently removed.

[MeEtc]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Naturally Bousquet has to post the point of view of an activist prior to that of a reporter.

Interesting that he spends a good portion of the entry wailing about how hard it is for him to do what he is doing. While several of the usual nodding heads in the comments offer attaboys and say how wonderful he is, it is interesting to see a few subscribers finally criticize him for his incessant negativity and SJW approach. I suspect this venture of his will soon fizzle out as soon as he finds another job.

Bousquest's and others contributed descriptions of the meeting is definitely accurate, even though they are biased. I'm definitely on their side with this one. The ecosystem and watershed here is already pretty fragile, and Kearney Lake is downstream from this development. Water quality there is already questionable at best, and will just get worse.

There's no reason that this area needs to be developed. It is not included in HRM's current 25 year regional plan. Resources should be spent on the current centre plan and keep on track with that first. There's plenty of other housing developments in progress an planned, certainly there isn't that much of a demand with a stagnant population?

I'm usually pro development, but not this one.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by MeEtc

Bousquest's and others contributed descriptions of the meeting is definitely accurate, even though they are biased. I'm definitely on their side with this one. The ecosystem and watershed here is already pretty fragile, and Kearney Lake is downstream from this development. Water quality there is already questionable at best, and will just get worse.

There's no reason that this area needs to be developed. It is not included in HRM's current 25 year regional plan. Resources should be spent on the current centre plan and keep on track with that first. There's plenty of other housing developments in progress an planned, certainly there isn't that much of a demand with a stagnant population?

I'm usually pro development, but not this one.

Halifax's population growth isn't stagnant (this year will probably turn out to be the city's strongest growth in at least a decade, due to increased immigration) but I agree--there's no reason this land needs to be developed, especially as a bunch of low-density cul-de-sacs and the like. It's far more valuable to the city in its natural state.

[JET]

A shameful excuse for a public meeting where citizens are spectators rather than participants. Expropriate the land, and leave it undeveloped.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

A shameful excuse for a public meeting where citizens are spectators rather than participants. Expropriate the land, and leave it undeveloped.

Well, that is sort of what this is about, from what I can tell (Robertson's report is very poorly structured so it is difficult to follow). But I gather from plowing through it that HRM decided several years ago to designate a big chunk of lands two developers owned for many years as a park. They could not reach agreement on what those lands were worth. I did see that there is a number of $2.8 million suggested by HRM and $6 million suggested by the developer(s).

Beyond all that though, there is a seeming swampland of ineptitude by HRM Parks and Planning staff in coming up with a realistic vision, outline, and cost estimates for their desired park. The developers, of course, did a far better job of laying out what they saw happening and while it of course is self-serving to their own interests, it is at least something detailed and rather concrete.

Just from a layman's point of view it seems rather absurd to have lands immediately adjacent to the major transportation corridor for the city undeveloped. The question for me is how far beyond that corridor you wish to have the development intrude. Someone at HRM needs to simply say this is where it will be developed, this is where it will be a park, and this is how much we will pay the developers for their lands we need for the park.

It seems to me this has been bungled by HRM at every step of the way.

[lawsond]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

WOW!!!

Quite the proposal. Halifax might finally grow beyond hwy 102.

Really playing up the lakes to make a great new community.

I think many of those lakes exist dur to topography which traditional clearing and blasting of th almost exposed bedrock would affect or obliterate. A major corridor like 102 needs development. Why send more and more people to destroy Kinsac. But a narrowband with a firm boundary would ensure both keeping the wilderness and sensible development.

[Keith P.]

Annapolis Group apparently suing HRM for $119 million over this debacle:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ands-1.3938898

No surprise really. Typical HRM "Ready!, Fire!, Aim!" approach to things.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Annapolis Group apparently suing HRM for $119 million over this debacle:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ands-1.3938898

No surprise really. Typical HRM "Ready!, Fire!, Aim!" approach to things.

The owners are free to waste more of their money in the hope they will get a great deal less than $119 million.