Construction of an apartment building beside the Falcon Ridge condo complex will be allowed to continue. At least for now.
The condo corporation that owns all of the 89 homes in Falcon Ridge is seeking an injunction to stop the construction of two four-storey apartment buildings in the complex.
Monday, Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale put off making a decision on the injunction. That means construction can continue through the holidays.
Construction on the buildings has been going on since the summer. But, according to court documents, many condo residents thought the new buildings would be duplexes, rather than multi-storey apartment buildings.
Even Helen Booth, the condo board president, only found out about what was being built after reading about it in the News.
All the other condo units in the complex are single-family bungalows.
Residents are concerned that the two large multifamily buildings will cast shadows, obstruct views, lead to increased traffic making the neighbourhood dangerous for children and the elderly, increase maintenance and repair costs and lower the value of their properties.
The board claims that the developer is violating the governing document of the condo board that states any land under the board’s control “shall be occupied and used only as a private single-family residence and for no other purpose.”
Under the territory’s Condominium Act, amendments to a condo board’s governing document, or declaration, can only be made with the written consent of all condo owners.
That never happened, so the board took the developer to court.
Veal’s decision to delay also means he won’t be making a decision on the developer’s petition to the court.
Falcon Ridge Development, which controls 37724 Yukon Inc., the numbered company that is building the apartments, wants the court to grant its president power of attorney so that he can approve changes to the condo declaration.
It’s asking for the board to be dissolved and assets divided into two new boards. Alternatively, it wants the judge to declare that the construction is not contrary to the declaration and to stay the proceedings. The third option the company put forward is for the court itself to amend the declaration to allow for construction to go forward.
Whatever happens, the company is also seeking costs for its legal expenses and any other relief the court sees fit to grant it.
Contact Josh Kerr at email@example.com