Quote:
Originally Posted by Gresto
I have been wondering the same. I don't understand why an extra 30 metres would be contentious, but it probably related to shadows cast over precious Jesse Ketchup schoolyard.
|
The previous City Councillor was adamantly opposed to more height here. The request was put through the regular planning channel (not minor variance); and Council hasn't had a regular meeting since July, because it was an election year.
I imagine the report on this will be at one of the first couple of meetings of the new Community Council, then Council thereafter. (haven't spoken w/planning staff, just a guess)
It will have to come with additional community benefits. But the proponent new that, and I don't imagine that's a material issue.
I lean that its likely this will go through now, but its not a given. The two principle arguments against it are both to do w/precedent, to my understanding.
One is about the absolute height, and the knock-on effect on other applications proposed or incoming.
The other is 'a deal is a deal'. The height was worked out after extensive negotiation w/the Planning Dept. and the local Councillor. There is some wariness about suggesting you can get approved at height 'x' and come back and vary it during construction.