Conserving Long Branch – March 2017 Update from David Godley (Part 2)

A previous post is entitled:

Conserving Long Branch – March 2017 Update from David Godley (Part 1)

I have been slow in posting additional items from David Godley; at this point I am catching up. David’s Part 2 for March 2017 reads:

Comments Planning Applications for March 9 COA

11) 81 26th Street

12) 9 38yth Street

13) 24 33rd Street

14) Planner for 22 33rd hearing. Legal are saying they have approached 3 planners without success and will not approach a fourth despite being offered a likely candidate in Terry Mills qualified architect and planner who has previously worked on behalf of the City.
Thanks for getting in touch, Francesco.

I appreciate your point of view in considering the matter.

Clearly I remain of the opinion that the broader City interest is not served by rigorously sticking with the policy and I understand it has been breached in the past. The OMB never stick with policies!

Thanks for the recognition about my helping Long Branch and that I am not acting in my own self interest but rather the public’s and specifically the immediate neighbourhood of 24 33rd.

By copy I will ask the Councillors office to follow up with Mr Haley.

I am not sure of the underlying reason for the rule but assume it is to do with time. And we still have time.

I would also ask how the lists are compiled because if Mr Mills were on this the City may have been able to have its interests protected. However I do not know if Mr Mills would take this on.

I think the rules should be changed and the list be updated to include more community oriented planners although most have been gobbled up by the private sector.

There is no question of residents being able to afford the planner’s service. This is another injuctice injected into the system which I hoped as a lawyer you would feed into any judgment.

While the planner employed by the City does not represent neighbours, the neighbours are entirely dependent on the City’s planners. The OMB effectively exclude the general public from influencing planning decisions

Nothing can be lost by approaching more planners and everything can be gained.

I apologise if I this is going over your head but that is why we have a structure. I am aware you are involved in another hearing in Long Branch and wish you all the best with that.

I have to let Councillor Mark Grimes and Brian Haley, who I have previously had the pleasure of working with, consider the matter.

Regards, David

[End]

David had some attached files connected with Part 2; I will work on the latter items as well.