Condo approved despite initial rejection

Returning to Charlottetown city council for another try was all it took for a developer to get a 22-unit condominium project approved.

'Massive changes take place without any real change in the official plan.' Ed Benson, local resident

The five-storey building proposed by developer Phillip O'Halloran will go up at the corner of Richmond and Rochford streets, overlooking a park, a few blocks west of the downtown. The project was first discussed by council in March.

"The discussion centred around the scale of the building and the size of the building and that it was inappropriate for that lot and that neighbourhood. Council rejected it," said planning chair Kim Devine.

The development breaches several sections of the city's planning bylaw.

The building will be taller than the bylaw allows; it will be closer to the street and closer to the back property line than is allowed; it will have more condo units than is permitted on a lot that size.

Despite all that, council approved the project when it came back before council Monday night.

Ed Benson lives down the street from the planned development. He can't understand how council could approve a project that contravenes so many sections of the planning bylaw.

"This is an unusual number of variances," said Benson.

"One would expect that city councillors would be forthcoming with members of the city in perhaps informing the public as to why massive changes take place without any real change in the official plan or the zoning bylaw."

Benson said people in the neighbourhood don't want the condominiums. They have concerns about parking, and say in general the building does not fit in with the residential character of the neighbourhood.

Benson also wonders how the project landed back before council after havingalready been rejected.

Councillors David MacDonald and Kim Devine had the same question. Both said they shouldn't even be voting again because the issue had already been dealt with months ago. They, along with Terry Bernard, again voted against it.