11-18-2014, 02:41 PM
(11-18-2014, 02:08 PM)BuildingScout Wrote:(11-18-2014, 01:55 PM)YKF Wrote: I don't see anything wrong with Owen protecting the development potential of his properties. What does Owen's lack of development in the Region have anything to do with his OMB appeal? He's a landowner, not a developer like Momentum.
But the area is slated for development. The OMB is bound to take that into consideration. Still having a bit more separation than presently approved seems sensibly even in terms of intensification.
I think there's some confusion here . I was trying to point out that Owen has every right to appeal on the grounds of protecting the development potential of his properties (via an appeal to the OMB with regard to the sideyard setback of one of Momentum's towers). Appealing the sideyard setback does not limit development in the downtown. As stated in The Record and on this thread, Owen is not anti-development, nor is his future appeal anti-development.
It's very common for parties with an interest in a matter (be it land owners, developers, etc.) to appeal a City Council decision even when they are supportive of said decision. In this case, Owen's appeal wouldn't stop this development. At most, it would just push the tower further away from the lot line, while still allowing for development to occur on the Arthur Place lots.