On June 21 the appeals board will consider the rowhouse project development permit on 26a st. This is a lot formerly zoned rc2 that was rezoned by the builder to rcg. once successful the builder then designed a very nice four unit building and had it approved by the planning department.
My understanding of the situation is an arrogant and mean spirited bully type lawyer-neighbour decided to take it upon himself to launch a last minute appeal. Note the project has been blessed by mayor and council and the staff. It was reviewed by the Killarney planning committee and the design work was generally well received.
Other interesting information. The project approved didn’t require relaxations. The row house is a permitted use, not discretionary. The building height is well under the maximum allowed. The policy of adding some density to older grid areas is well liked by the elected leadership. Despite this, one person feels his own NIMBY bias against redevelopment should supersede that of society and its betterment through sensitive densification of a highly desirable part of the community. For a minuscule fee he has decided to try and use legal means to overturn a lot of costly design and permitted work. Is the intention here just to harass and delay the builder to punish his business with financial waste and loss? It is not clear.
The treatment of this permitted project by the appeals board will be very interesting. My preference would be to have the appeal tossed out and not even heard by the board. I’d prefer the appellant to not even have any standing before the board, and the phone reasons for appeal be rejected.
UPDATE - The hearing agenda is now posted on the appeals board website. It appears the builder is defending himself by hiring a lawyer, no surprise here, and they are attempting to have the appeal thrown out over lack of jurisdiction. They argue, as I thought, that the board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over a project that is a permitted use (not discretionary, no relaxations). Also, and very disappointingly, the appeal does appear hastily put together and lacking in evidence. The appeal states that the project violates the height restriction rule, but provides no evidence, as an example. You would expect better from someone trying to quash a $2.5M project that will employ many people than to fabricate nonsensical grounds for an appeal.