A developer is seeking to have the city rezone a property right in the middle of Carver Street in the Woodlawn area of Dartmouth, (an  R1 street) so that he can direct all exits and entrances to the highrise apartment he wants to build on two other R1 pieces of property on Portland Street, along with multiple commercial units involving 17 parking spaces and entry/exit on Portland.

This application is CASE 23805 AND CAN BE RESPONDED TO DIRECTLY AT: HALIFAX.CA/PLANNING/APPLICATIONS. 

I would like to point out several concerns that he has not adequately addressed: 

1. The traffic survey used to make this case was conducted in JULY 2021, DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC and when school was not in session, giving a completely misleading picture of the traffic situation on Carver Street.
2. Rather than having the residents enter and exit from their official address, he is trying to insinuate the development into a residential neighbourhood that does not have the capacity for that extra level of traffic, created by 77 (potential) extra cars, and service, garbage and delivery vehicles as well as ambulances and firetrucks which will be trying to insert themselves into traffic backed up at the lights just two house-lengths from the exit.
3. There have already been problems with heavy traffic at peak hours and in the past few years, attempts to address this have included blocking access onto Carver Street from Portland, and installing speed bumps. 
4. The developer has claimed that he is seeking "a variance" to allow the property at 16 Carver to become "mixed use" when in fact it will create a slightly bent intersection with Elizabeth Street, and in reality, an angular, wonky de-facto 4-way intersection with no signage or lights right in the middle of what was an R1 neighbourhood composed of single family dwellings, including small children and seniors.
5. In actual fact, this developer is legally entitled to only erect three single family dwellings, so this is a massive leap to ask residents to have their neighbourhood substantially altered to accommodate something in the range of 150 new occupants.
6. Schools in the neighbourhood are already at capacity. Where, presuming he intends to rent to families, will these children be going to school, and will it involve crossing a busy, multi-lane highway?
7. While the city has been aiming to develop new housing along major traffic corridors, they have admitted that Portland Street has a problem with congestion.
8. Into this mix, the developer is hoping to add a multi-unit, ground-floor commercial component, (i.e. a strip mall), which will only allow customers to enter and exit in only one direction, from an additional 17 parking spaces. These kinds of exits are prone to illegal turns on an average of 15%. That's one in every six exits/entrances to this property making illegal turns on Portland Street, just after a four-way intersection. How can this be safe?
9. We also need to consider the shadowing impact that a building of this size will have. Houses in this area are prone to flooding. In fact, at the base of Cathy Cross is a brook that required a substantial amount of construction work to "daylight" it because covering it up in years past caused excessive flooding issues.
10. Many houses' yards become virtual bogs during the spring thaw and after heavy rains. They will now be subjected to substantially more shadowing from the outsized building, which will impact their property's ability to dry out, as well as destruction of gardens.
11. Will they be compensated for the loss of enjoyment of their properties? Will the builder be willing to compensate them for the increased flooding of their yards and basements? 
12. How safe will it  be to excavate two floors deep in order to install a parking garage in an area that is clearly having flooding problems?
13. Should a developer be allowed to create such an incursion into a quiet residential neighbourhood such that people can sit on their balconies in the many stories of this building and peer down at people in their once-private backyards as if they were Goldfish in a bowl?
14. Their privacy will be utterly destroyed. Will they be compensated for this violation of their privacy?