Posted Dec 13, 2022, 1:01 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,277
|
|
Quote:
Jen St. Denis @JenStDen
Remember when Vancouver's development permit board rejected Beedie's proposal to develop a parking lot in Chinatown after community opposition?
A recent court judgement sends the application back to the board for assessment. https://bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/21/2022BCSC2150.htm
1:26 PM · Dec 12, 2022
|
https://twitter.com/JenStDen/status/...iswBWx649He_Fg
Quote:
Conclusion and Remedy
[109] In sum, I have dismissed all of Beedie’s arguments based on allegations that the Board denied Beedie procedural fairness and acted in bad faith. I have also refused to accept the argument that the Board lacked the legislative authority to refuse the DP Application. However, I agree with Beedie that the Board’s decision is substantively unreasonable because the reasons provided by the Board are inadequate.
[110] In these circumstances, I will exercise my authority pursuant to s. 7 of the JRPA to set aside the Board’s November 6, 2017 decision in respect of the DP Application. Pursuant to s. 5 of the JRPA, I will also direct that the DP Application be remitted to the Board for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons. In particular, it is incumbent upon the Board to reconsider whether the DP Application warrants being approved, approved with conditions, or refused outright. If the latter, the Board must provide detailed and sufficient reasons to transparently explain why such a refusal is justified in the case of the DP Application, as opposed to the Board’s ordinary practice of approving applications subject to conditions that must be satisfied before the permit is issued.
[111] Finally, in light of my findings, I do not feel it is necessary for me to determine what impact, if any, the October 2018 HA-1A rezoning ought to have on the Board’s reconsideration of the DP Application. I say this in particular because it is unclear from the evidence and submissions before me whether the changes to the City’s building development regime since the Board’s November 6, 2017 decision render it impossible for the DP Application to now be approved, as the City suggests, or whether the Board retains the authority to do so nunc pro tunc or otherwise, as Beedie suggests. I expect that if this question is germane to the Board’s reconsideration, the Board will provide an intelligible justification in its reasons that is sufficient for the parties and, if necessary, a reviewing court, to understand.
DISPOSITION
[112] For the reasons set out above, I order the following:
a) Beedie’s petition is allowed;
b) the Board’s November 6, 2017 decision to dismiss Beedie’s DP Application is set aside; and
c) the Board is directed to reconsider the DP Application in accordance with these reasons as soon as is reasonably practicable.
|
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/2...22BCSC2150.htm
|
Prev
Linear Mode
