Mountain Man
Senior Member
If it's that lady, the city needs to block her for being a nuisance! haha
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
She's the reason Calgary will lose funding from a Conservative government... Can we talk about how the Conservative leader's policies completely fly in the face of Conservative councillors?
MichaelS
Senior Member
Someone already has:
www.westernstandard.news
McCOLL: Calgary's “Conservative” gatekeepers are standing in the way of Poilievre's housing revolution
"Calgary councillors talk a good game but don't walk the talk."
zagox
Active Member
The appeal for this one is now public.
The appelant lives in the apartment building 3 doors up the laneway. He says "I am appealing the decision is because the ground floor on the laneway side of the building, the part of the
building that will be seen by the most people up close, is ugly."
I feel like the SDAB should have some sort of process to dismiss appeals more quickly if they are baseless. One dude with $200 can hold up a $20 million investment for months.
The appelant lives in the apartment building 3 doors up the laneway. He says "I am appealing the decision is because the ground floor on the laneway side of the building, the part of the
building that will be seen by the most people up close, is ugly."
I feel like the SDAB should have some sort of process to dismiss appeals more quickly if they are baseless. One dude with $200 can hold up a $20 million investment for months.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Lol, has he looked at the rest of the laneway? This will be a massive improvement. So nice it’ll be out of place really.
zagox
Active Member
“It’s too attractive, it doesn’t maintain the character of the neighbourhood” would be a better grounds for appeal
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Perhaps they can add some development conditions that require open dumpsters to be littered haphazardly so new development will be contextually appropriate.
AtlanticAvenue
Active Member
Well this is the most insane thing i've heard today.
Nimbus
Active Member
Buried in all that nonsense is that nugget that he'd actually be for a TALLER building if they went with concrete construction.
zagox
Active Member
This one survived the appeal - from the SDAB decision:
"
98 The Appellant’s main concern was with the design of the west side of the building and its interface with the laneway, believing that the Development Authority did not follow item 2 of the Direct Control Bylaw, specifically section 35(a) and section 36(a) of the Bylaw. As well as, that the Development Authority did not follow section 3.1.3 of the ARP that development in the Medium-Density Mid-Rise Area must be street-oriented in design and a mid-rise format.
99 Under Part 2, Section 35(a) of the Bylaw, when making a decision on a development permit for a discretionary use, the Development Authority must take into account, among other things, any plans and policies affecting the parcel. The Board accepted the Development Officer’s verbal definition that street-oriented development is to be designed with minimal setbacks, which this development has adjacent to the laneway.
100 Therefore, the Board finds that the development specifically meets section 35(a) of the Bylaw and section 3.1.3 of the ARP.
101 There was no evidence provided to the Board by the Appellant that the development would unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighourhood or materially interfere or affect the use, enjoyment, or value of neighbouring properties.
"
"
98 The Appellant’s main concern was with the design of the west side of the building and its interface with the laneway, believing that the Development Authority did not follow item 2 of the Direct Control Bylaw, specifically section 35(a) and section 36(a) of the Bylaw. As well as, that the Development Authority did not follow section 3.1.3 of the ARP that development in the Medium-Density Mid-Rise Area must be street-oriented in design and a mid-rise format.
99 Under Part 2, Section 35(a) of the Bylaw, when making a decision on a development permit for a discretionary use, the Development Authority must take into account, among other things, any plans and policies affecting the parcel. The Board accepted the Development Officer’s verbal definition that street-oriented development is to be designed with minimal setbacks, which this development has adjacent to the laneway.
100 Therefore, the Board finds that the development specifically meets section 35(a) of the Bylaw and section 3.1.3 of the ARP.
101 There was no evidence provided to the Board by the Appellant that the development would unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighourhood or materially interfere or affect the use, enjoyment, or value of neighbouring properties.
"
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Thanks for the huge waste of time fool.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Copy and paste this for 99% of these. I have a theory that if the development process was less strenuous we would actually get higher quality end products. The time and effort put in has got to affect the money that's willing to be spent. You could argue it actually artificially inflates apartment/infill costs for buyers and renters.
I know someone who was told that, "you fought my proposal so hard and delayed it so much that I now have to add another floor to make it viable".
Last edited: