10-31-2017, 09:18 AM
No, not that someone who is upset should never be heeded, perhaps too strongly worded. I do tend to put less weight into the views of neighbours at times, rather than more, because understandably nobody wants something to change next to them in a way that they perceive as being worse. What matters more than one neighbour stopping hundreds of new neighbours from having homes is whether the new proposal makes sense in the broader context, beyond those who share a property line with the development.
Setbacks are not required, and this article further pushes false narratives about what "exemptions" are. These codes and setbacks are intended as the most unobjectionable codes available for a given zoning, such that were you to propose something within these codes anywhere at all within a particular zoning category, there should be no issue nor even grounds for discussion, because they are the most unobjectionable variety when heeded.
"Exemptions" are meant to (often too commonly) trigger the ability to further evaluate a proposal. Not all sites with a particular zoning are created equal, and zoning is set such that developers have to fight to build sensible things in a lot of places with a particular zoning, rather than the balance of responsibility shifting towards residents having to fight to keep inappropriate things out of out of context places.
On Victoria, given all its particulars as I mentioned, this is indeed a place where exemptions should be granted, because it is above and beyond as an appropriate place for this variety of density, compared to similarly zoned sites which do not have the nearby context that makes this site far more appropriate for density.
Setbacks are not required, and this article further pushes false narratives about what "exemptions" are. These codes and setbacks are intended as the most unobjectionable codes available for a given zoning, such that were you to propose something within these codes anywhere at all within a particular zoning category, there should be no issue nor even grounds for discussion, because they are the most unobjectionable variety when heeded.
"Exemptions" are meant to (often too commonly) trigger the ability to further evaluate a proposal. Not all sites with a particular zoning are created equal, and zoning is set such that developers have to fight to build sensible things in a lot of places with a particular zoning, rather than the balance of responsibility shifting towards residents having to fight to keep inappropriate things out of out of context places.
On Victoria, given all its particulars as I mentioned, this is indeed a place where exemptions should be granted, because it is above and beyond as an appropriate place for this variety of density, compared to similarly zoned sites which do not have the nearby context that makes this site far more appropriate for density.