WEST RIVER – Katie Edwards didn’t hesitate when asked if she and some of her neighbours would be launching an appeal of a recently approved development agreement that paves the way for construction of a 40–60-unit apartment complex on Church St. Ext.
“You betcha,” she told The Journal in a phone interview a couple of days after Municipality of the County of Antigonish council voted 6-3 in favour of a recommendation from the Eastern District Planning Commission (EDPC).
After receiving an overview of an addendum report, asking questions and further discussing the proposal, council approved the application from Riavan Investments Limited during its regular monthly meeting on Sept. 8. Edwards and about a dozen other residents of the neighbourhood, along with Riavan owner Kyle Van De Sande, were at the session. Because it was not a public hearing, people from the gallery could not address council.
EDPC Director John Bain informed council that the proponents had met the required provisions under the county’s municipal planning strategy and land-use bylaw.
Council initially entertained the Church St. Ext. development agreement in June, including holding the obligatory public hearing – where they received an EDPC report and recommendation, and provided the opportunity for people to speak in favour or against the proposal.
At that time, Bain explained – as part of the process – the developer had made concessions related to its design, including changes in the location of parking and agreeing not to place garbage storage units in the front area, and that there would also be only one entrance to the development.
Councillors asked questions about a variety of issues, including if the Town of Antigonish – which provides services to that part of the municipality could handle the water volume demands of the proposed development; not to mention a potential issue with water pressure related to fire protection. There were also misgivings regarding the height of the building – four storeys – in a residential area, along with safety concerns related to traffic considering there is only one access point to the new roundabout along Hwy. 4.
Edwards, who grew up on Church St. Ext. – and still owns her family home – was one of the speakers from the public who raised concerns. She reiterated many of them during the recent conversation with The Journal, including the absence of communication throughout the process. Last fall, she said, a group of neighbourhood residents sent a “letter of concern” to council regarding the “lack of consultation,” when it came to potential development projects.
At the close of the public hearing, council decided to table the development agreement recommendation to gather more information and have further discussion before voting.
Bain, in his follow-up report on Sept. 8, noted that the developer had withdrawn its request, which was a part of the initial proposal, to rezone a piece of land – the former well-known residential property owned by the late Willie Westenenk – to commercial.
Regarding concerns related to adequate water supply, Bain noted that they received written confirmation from the Town of Antigonish that it could handle the increased volume demand. When it comes to not having adequate water pressure for fire protection, he explained that the developer will have to take measures as part of the construction process, which was not a new component. Provincial officials reiterated confidence in the ability of the new roundabout to handle traffic flow, offering that upgrades, if necessary, would be carried out to address any issues.
Bain told council that the EDPC, once again, was “recommending approval” of the development agreement.
Coun. Sterling Garvie (District 10), who represents Church St. Ext., repeated his position from the June public hearing that there remained “too many ifs” involved with the proposal. He asked Bain for clarification regarding bylaws – such as ones related to building height and parking – and if they can be set aside by a development agreement. He offered that bylaws only seem to serve as “guidelines.”
Noting he visited the proposed site earlier in the day, Coun. Shawn Brophy (District 4) asked questions about an existing building on the property – the location of the former Pleasant Valley Nurseries – and parking measures. As far as the potential project, he described how the developer has a track record for doing “first-class jobs,” adding that the company is “not an absentee landlord,” which he said bodes well for the initiative.
Coun. Adam Baden-Clay (District 2), who could not vote on the proposal because he was not in attendance at the public hearing in June, asked if there was “any room for negotiation,” once a development agreement is approved. Noting the housing shortage, and how some concerns were addressed with “objective facts,” in the EDPC’s addendum, he said the scale of the development and its potential fit with the surrounding area “weighs on my mind,” calling it a “massive property.”
He added, “It really changes the nature of that neighbourhood.”
Although she offered, “I do understand your concerns,” Councillor Richelle MacLaughlin (District 3) said she was “comfortable in supporting” the development agreement. More broadly, she stressed the importance of municipality working with developers and holding them accountable.
When asked what would happen if council did not approve the development agreement, Bain explained that the developer could make “an immediate appeal” to the Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board. Noting he could not be a witness, the county would have to present its “reasons for rejection,” which would likely require hiring a consulting firm to help carry out that process.
Noting it has taken “a year to get to where we are” with the development agreement, Bain reiterated it was “reasonably consistent” with the county’s municipal planning strategy.
Six councillors, including Warden Nicholas MacInnis – who represents District 6; Wayne Melanson, Gary Mattie, Mary MacLellan, Shawn Brophy and MacLaughlin – voted to approve the development agreement, while Garvie, Harris McNamara (District 9) and Deputy Warden John Dunbar, who represents District 7, opposed the proposal. Again, Coun. Baden-Clay could not vote because he was not in attendance for the June public hearing.
Noting that the removal of the potential re-zoning from the proposal as a “significant victory,” Edwards told The Journal that questions regarding water supply, fire protection and traffic flow remain unanswered, offering aspects of the development agreement “remain vague.”
“It is a very, very small piece of land,” she said in describing the size of the two lots earmarked for the development, pointing out that projects – such as The Maples and the under-construction RK MacDonald Nursing Home, which is also located on Church St. Ext. – have been placed on much larger spaces.
Noting that the residents opposed are not anti-development, Edwards offered there were “already avenues” available for the developer within the confines of existing municipal development bylaws. For example, she added, the neighbours “would have agreed” with a proposed complex made up of three storeys and 40 units.
In conversation with reporters after council’s monthly meeting on Sept. 8, Warden MacInnis said he supported the development agreement for several reasons, including its ability to help fulfill the need for housing in the municipality.
“And … a project of this size is going to employ somewhere between 40 and 60 tradesmen and women over a period of probably two years; not to mention all the back-end work that went into it – engineering, architecture, and design. And the developer has a track record of hiring local labourers … So, overall, it is a great project and it will help meet the housing needs in the community, and it will help improve our tax revenue base.”
Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the date the notice of approval was posted to the Municipality of the County of Antigonish webpage, on or before midnight Sept. 23, 2026
