The proposed development at the end of Ingram Drive, near Cobequid Road, has been canned by HRM, says Councillor Steve Streatch. (Healey photo)

WINDSOR JUNCTION: The proposed mixed residential/commercial development for the end of Ingram Drive in Fall River Village has been nixed, as proposed.

Councillor Steve Streatch confirmed the news in an interview late on the afternoon of March 24. There had been word that HRM staff would be rejecting the proposal from Perry Lake Developments for the Windsor Junction end of the Village, but official word didn’t come until the interview with The Laker.

“I can tell that as of today (March 24) that HRM has rejected the proposal that was brought forward by Perry Lake Developments at the end of Ingram Drive,” said Streatch at his office in the Gordon R. Snow Community Centre.

The proposal from WM Fares Group, on behalf of Perry Lake Developments, called for the development of three multiple unit residential dwellings (with a total height of three storeys), consisting of 116 residential units in total; a commercial building which will accommodate commercial and office uses (a 3,982 square foot commercial building which will house a take-out restaurant and office space); and a self-storage facility, which would be 13,961 square feet.

He couldn’t speak to the specifics as to why the proposal was rejected.

“What I can tell you is that the application was deemed not to comply with current legislation and municipal policy,” he said. “Therefore our staff had to turn down the application and it has been sent back rejected.”

Streatch said it’s been clear to him from the outset that residents were not in favour of it.

“It has been met with great concerns by residents both on Ingram Drive and but indeed throughout the majority of that area,” he said. “Several people raised concerns to me not only about the high density component in that setting, but more so the light industrial use that was proposed.”

He expected residents, whose emails and letters to him and HRM soundly gave the indication they did not want the development, will be thrilled with the news.

“I think there will be some residents who are relieved and some that are not happy, as every development has people that support it.

“I can’t speak to what the next steps are, but I can tell you that this particular application will be sent back. The next steps are up to the company and the developer as to what they decide to do next.”

Streatch said certain aspects and requirements of the application were not able to be met.

“Obviously there would have to be a rethink as it relates to the approach and maybe even the content as to what was proposed,” said Streatch. “I think we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks that we have to be cognizant of the local community’s concerns and we have to be respectful of both sides.

“In this case the people at this juncture will not be put in that position because the application has been denied.”

HRM spokeswoman Tiffany Chase clarified the rejection in an email on March 29.

“Councillor Streatch was correct in saying the proposal was sent back to the developer given the issue with the application respecting requirements of Policy RL-14, but the applicant has the option to apply for a plan amendment,” she said.

She said the proposal was not rejected based on proposed density or other design elements of the site.

“The proposal is still in the review process, but the applicant must either pursue a crossing with CN or submit an application for a plan amendment with respect to that policy provision in order for the proposal to continue to the next phase of the planning application process,” said Chase.