IRAC has ruled against the appellants in the case of an apartment building constructed in the vicinity of a chemical plant. But in the process the commission has, by its own admission, wandered outside the scope of the question before it, making contradictory statements that on one hand endorse, and on the other, criticize actions of the city. IRAC lectures about dangers of the city using arbitrary discretion to deny applications, and then seems to suggest that’s what should have been done. They admit the site of the apartment building “meets code requirements” and that the “siting of these buildings represents an acceptable risk” but the city should not have allowed it anyway. They conclude, rightly, they would have no authority to hear an appeal of the zoning map adopted in the 1999 Official Plan, but then go on to offer their opinion on the matter. There’s even a cameo by the H1N1 virus.
This was a complicated file. Because it was an as-of-right application, meeting all requirements of the bylaw, National Building Code and the National Fire Protection Association codes NFPA 1 [Fire Code] and NFPA 30 [Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code] , the permit was issued by staff and council was not even aware of the development until it was underway. This is normal; Council is not involved in applications where all requirements are met. Staff were diligent in their examination of the safety issues involved and determined the risks were acceptable.
Would this apartment building be my first choice of residence, wedged as it is between the Trans-Canada and a chemical plant? Probably not. The property is zoned Highway Commercial (C2) but the developer chose, as was his right, to build a residential building.
IRAC ruled in favour of the city while seeming to go out of its way to appear even-handed, but in the process offered up contradictions and what amounts to editorial opinion on matters that were not within its mandate to review.
Recent Comments