Successful attempt to block condo development strikes panic within city administration: source

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/07/2017 (3005 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

There’s a saying that “you can’t fight city hall” but a North Kildonan couple has done exactly that, twice, and won each time.

Darrell and Cheryl Pakosh are waiting for formal word that, for a second time, they’ve successfully blocked a condominium development adjacent to their Henderson Highway river lot home.

But the couple’s fight with city hall has greater implications than simply what gets built next to their home – it’s forced the civic administration to launch a revision of its planning approval process and set off fears that other controversial but already-approved projects will be have to go back to the drawing board.

“All we wanted was a fair process and it looks like we’re going to get it now,” Darrell Pakosh said.

The concerns reverberating within the city hall’s administration building is the impact the decision will have on the approval process. Currently, developers make an initial application at a hearing of three area councillors, known as the community committee. Decisions of the community committee can be appealed to other civic committees. But there is no requirement for a re-opening of the public hearing.

For this project, the community committee approved the project but placed a caveat that no construction take place within 25 feet of the joint property line with the Pakoshes. However, at a meeting of the senior executive policy committee (EPC), the 25-feet requirement was removed and the rezoning was approved as the developer requested.

Concern among the administration was so high that the issue was brought to a closed-door session of Mayor Brian Bowman and EPC on July 12 and then later to all members of council during another private briefing.

“The administration was all in a panic saying how they were going to have to re-invent the process and change how hearings are conducted,” said an individual familiar with the issue who requested anonymity as the briefing was classified as confidential.

The city administration was asked to comment on the proposed settlement and its impact on the approval process but they did not respond, as the matter is before the courts.

The condo developers, Betty and Werner Neufeld of East St. Paul, could not be reached for comment. Their lawyer, Gord Steeves, said neither he nor the Neufelds would comment on the project or the Pakoshes dispute with city hall.

Lawyer Charles Chappell, who represents the Pakoshes, said the North Kildonan couple has been adamant that the city’s approval process – which allows elected officials to overturn decisions made at a public hearing – is a violation of fundamental justice.

“You shouldn’t be overturning the findings of a public hearing without holding another public hearing,” Chappell said. “That’s the issue. If (a standing policy committee) or EPC wants to overturn what was decided at the public hearing, then they’ve got to have a process for having a second hearing or just refer it back for a further hearing by the community committee.”

Chappell said the terms of the settlement were agreed to back in March but he hasn’t heard anything since then. He said he wasn’t aware the administration had briefed councillors in private earlier this month but added he’s not surprised.

Chappell said city hall has its hands full. In exchange for his clients dropping the case, the city has to undo all the approvals for the project and decide how to rewrite the appeal process.

A second source said the administration recommended to EPC at the July 12 meeting that it endorse the settlement with the Pakosh family but EPC decided to postpone a decision.

Chappell said if elected officials will not honour the deal the administration had proposed, he’ll advise his clients to resume the court case.

Chappell said officials are likely concerned that this will also affect other developments, where decisions of a community committee hearing were overturned, and how they’ll respond to them.

The dispute launched by the Pakoshes could likely see the city recommend the creation of an independent planning board, Chappell said, to replace the community committee hearings.

“The public hearing process is to hear what the people think about changes in land use. It’s not perfect but what would be a different system?” Chappell said.

Beating city hall – twice – is rewarding but also expensive

Darrell Pakosh said it’s cost his family more than $150,000 to challenge what he believes is a faulty plan approval process.

“We spent $50,000 going to court the first time …. and we probably spent another $100,000 this time,” Pakosh said.

The Pakoshes have been fighting city hall since 2012, when several civic committees – backed by civic planning staff – approved the apartment block-style condominium project on the lot immediately south of theirs.

The condo is planned to be built on a 66-foot wide lot, that runs 482 feet back to the Red River. The Pakoshes said it would be like living next door to a three-storey wall a few feet from their property line.

City hall initially approved the project without requiring the developers, Betty and Werner Neufeld of East St. Paul, to produce drawings of plans at a public hearing. The Pakoshes challenged the approval in court in 2013, which sided with them – quashing the bylaw, the rezoning and an amendment to the area’s secondary plan.

But the Neufelds went back to city hall with a new plan, increasing the number of units to 14 from 10, and wanting to construct the building within feet of the northern property line.

At a public hearing held by the community committee in July 2015, councillors approved the project but with the caveat that no building be constructed within 25 feet of the northern property line.

When Mayor Brian Bowman and members of his executive policy committee met on Sept. 23, 2015, they removed the 25-foot restriction and approved the rezoning, allowing the condominium project to be built where a single-family home used to stand.

An appeal committee met in November 2015 and removed most of the other conditions imposed by the community committee.

The Pakosh family went back to court in December of 2015, charging the process was unfair and asking the court – again – to quash the approvals.

Lawyer Chuck Chappell, who represents the Pakosh family, said it was the city who approached his clients in March with an offer to settle: the city would cancel all the approvals and require the Neufelds to resubmit their plans for consideration.

Darryl Pakosh said he suspects the Neufelds will submit another proposal but is confident the final design will be something his family can live with.

“They’ll have to sit down with us….not all this behind the scenes crap,” Pakosh said. “(The city) says one thing and then something totally different shows up. Eventually there’s something that’s going to be happening (next door) but right now, they have to sit down with us, consult with us and design with us, the way they should have five years ago.”

aldo.santin@freepress.mb.ca