Courtyard 33 | 21.64m | 6s | RNDSQR | 5468796 Architecture

What's the consensus?

  • Great

    Votes: 9 16.7%

  • Good

    Votes: 21 38.9%

  • Okay

    Votes: 14 25.9%

  • Not Great

    Votes: 3 5.6%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 7 13.0%
  • Total voters
    54
Alkarimd said:
Hey All,

Thanks for your continued support and engagement on this project. Our group feels great and positive about how things are proceeding. An SDAB hearing is part of the process of building in the established areas and we welcome it democratically. That being said we have officially launched our landing page and public art campaign !!! I encourage you all to visit. www.cy33.ca and www.cy33.ca/art


Thanks everyone !! !
Click to expand...

That's a top-notch website. Super engaging! Well done.
 
IMG_1452.JPG
IMG_1454.JPG
 
Surrealplaces said:
Good news on this project. Looks like the appeal was thrown out, and the project is okay to go ahead. RNDSQR is look at demo soon, and possibly March dig. Sales centre expected to launch Feb 21.
Click to expand...
Based on my reading of the SDAB decision I would say that RNDSQR should feel very, very fortunate. The decision appears to completely gloss over how a set of simplified plans, containing no dimensions, attached as a schedule to a Direct Control bylaw that provides except as otherwise specified the rules of MU-2 apply, can be taken as specifying that various MU-2 requirements (eg. minimum MF ceiling height, minimum balcony dimensions, etc.) do not need to be complied with, or that Council's intention was to exempt the proposed development from having to comply with various MU-2 requirements. Council would have had no way of knowing that the proposed development did not fully comply with any MU-2 requirements other than those specifically addressed in the text of the Direct Control bylaw. In my opinion the correct result would have been a determination that the proposed development was approved as a permitted use with relaxations and therefore the appeal should have proceeded to a merits hearing to determine whether the proposed development unduly interferes with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially interferes with or affects the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties as per Section 31 LUB. I would also point out that Council's approval of a Direct Control bylaw in this situation, where the proposed development could have easily been approved under the standard MU-2 land use district with a few relaxations, is in direct contravention of Section 20 LUB.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top