09-26-2014, 02:20 PM
nms Wrote:Perhaps the Arthur St owner is objecting to the apparent "First-come, First-serve" attitude that the neighbouring developer seems to have. The objection seems to be, to paraphrase, "Why is my neighbour able to push the boundaries to make more money when there is a possibility that it will later limit my ability to do the same".
The same might be said for any number of variance requests. Presumably, higher density buildings are approved based on staff analysis of the surrounding infrastructure's ability to accomodate. For instance, if one property owner proposed to use up all of the existing infrastructure capacity (water, sewage etc), would the neighbouring property owners be able to complain that their development potential is restricted? Similarly, regardless of density, there are presumably existing building code regulations that must be followed about how close one building can be to another or what provisions must be in place to protect one from the other, like a fire wall. If one property owner expands beyond what they would normally be allowed, their neighbours will be affected with either higher costs or lower ability to expand themselves. Or, for example, if a property owner proposes to go right up against an existing public right-of-way, that will restrict possible future expansion (think of wider sidewalks, bike lanes, transit stops etc).
As long as there is ability to accommodate the development and the City staff has exercised due diligence, I'm not sure how anything other than "First come, First served" could apply. This is why I asked a while back whether the objections of the adjoining property owner based on his hypothetical ability to develop his property were even a consideration? I'm not aware of anything official that would have prevented him from developing his property at any time prior to Momentum's applications, so I'm not sure I feel for him.