Frequently Asked Questions

While HRM is experiencing an unprecedented need for housing, allowing the infill project with hopes of further development, is not the solution. As Councilor Sam Austin and MLA Claudia Chender have repeatedly mentioned, the zoning regulation for the land would only allow for zoning of the Dartmouth Commons - so essentially, parkland. If the developers chose to hold the city hostage, and refused to redevelop the land for anything other than mixed use, this likely will not be for affordable housing.

It’s true that infilling has been used within the Harbour for other projects such as King’s Wharf and the Cargo terminal in Bedford Basin. However, these were areas that had future development plans outlined as part of their project. This was not dumping for the purpose of getting rid of pyritic slate or to simply to create new land that could possibly be developed. There are also publicly designated sites throughout HRM where pyritic slate can be properly disposed of in a safe manner without ever using a private site such as this.

The developer chose Dartmouth Cove because they were able to purchase a pre-Confederation water lot. These lots, unlike most water bodies, are in private hands. The jurisdiction for these lots is fairly limited, and there are few rules that the Municipality or the Province have to oversee how these lots are used. The developer is choosing to try and exploit these lots for profit by getting paid to dispose of fill from nearby construction sites, and hoping that they can develop that newly created land.

The developer is claiming that because Dartmouth Cove was used as a dumping ground for raw sewage and industrial waste, that the area is unfit for anything other than infill. While it is true that waste was dumped in the Cove, and Halifax Harbour for years, local citizens advocated for years for proper waste water treatment. In 2008, a proper waste water treatment plant was opened and Halifax Harbour, along with Dartmouth Cove was cleaned up. This has allowed for recreational and fishing activities to recently resume in the area.

The developer states in his proposal that during infill, “Infilling activities will be visually monitored, and additional mitigation will be implemented as necessary in the event that a visible sediment plume migrates beyond the silt curtain.” Essentially there will be no testing of water quality or anything beyond waiting for a problem to be observed and trying to fix it after the fact.

After the waste water treatment system was opened in 2008, Dartmouth Cove has become an increasingly more attractive area for wildlife and recreational activities. Fish, lobster, seals, river otters and other animals have all been spotted in the Cove. Lobster fishermen specifically would be impacted if this proposal is approved. Infilling in other areas of the harbour already impacts their fishing, so this would have direct and detrimental repercussions for the lobster population in the Cove. There have been 115 bird species recorded in Dartmouth Cove on eBird.ca, two of which are species listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act: Barrow's Goldeneye and Harlequin Duck. In addition to wildlife, local residents have been using the Cove more frequently for kayaking, canoeing, paddle boarding and other recreational activities.

While the developer claims that the project is in early stages and they intended on consulting with the community once they received approval, it’s more likely that they were hoping that this proposal would move through the process unnoticed until it was too late. With pre-Confederation water lots, only federal approval is needed, and they’re primarily concerned with navigation rights.

The current owner of the land, Bruce Wood, purchased the pre-Confederation water lot in April of 2021. The easement for the waterfront trail and the wastewater infrastructure that it sits upon, was negotiated with the previous owner and would have been a condition of the sale of the lot.

The developer claims that there have been discussions about preserving access to the waterfront trail during the course of the project, however, no one in the municipality seemed to be aware of this project before concerned parties brought the proposal to light. They have outlined that there are times when the trail would need to be closed for safety reasons. There is no specifics given on how long this time period would be. In addition to closing the trail for safety reasons, it can be assumed that when the trail is open, heavy machinery, dust and noise will make it an unusable option for many pedestrians and cyclists.