This could be a big week for councillors with the Municipality of East Hants.

Today, they will be holding a public hearing to discuss the breached development agreement between themselves and Corridor Development Limited (CDL).

In June, council found out local developer Robin Wilber and partners violated terms of the agreement he had with the municipality for a 32-unit apartment building on Kali Lane. Instead it became a 33-unit building.

The developer wasn’t present at the previous hearing to explain what precipitated the change after Lantz councillor John MacDonald told Wilber he didn’t need to be.

Why would he have done that? It still makes no sense.

As a lead up to the hearing, The Weekly Press approached councillors for comment on how they would deal with CDL. Four of the councillors, including MacDonald, declined to comment, while others didn’t respond to interview requests.

Wilber also refused comment until the matter has been heard and resolved in council chambers.

It was previously stated by Director of Planning John Woodford that the municipality has the power to levy a fine against CDL for the violation. Sure, a fine is great, but the fine should be one that hits a developer in the pocket book and not be just a light slap on the wrist.

The hearing outcome will say a lot about this council. This may be an Elmsdale development, but, whatever the outcome, it will affect all of East Hants.

Councillors need to continue to stand up for their areas they represent; I’m not saying they shouldn’t. However, when it comes to decisions like development agreements, they need to think of East Hants as a whole. This will impact all areas.

Now back to the issue at hand. The municipality has to send a message that it won’t be a puppet to developers, like CDL, and let them get away with it. CDL should be made to make the 33rd unit into the common room as it was stated in the agreement.

What about the people who currently rent that unit? This move would punish them, some would say? Well, in my view, CDL should be made to compensate the tenant(s) and help them find a new location.

That seems to be the only logical way to go about things. Otherwise, the tenants renting the unit are being punished for something not of their own doing.

I’m anxious to see the result of the public hearing. If the municipality doesn’t stand up for its residents and its own agreements, then it could open the door for more of these issues down the road. If they do, then it sends the message they won’t tolerate this.

Pat Healey