REFUSAL OF BUILDING PERMIT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 290, 1 September 1920, Page 9

REFUSAL OF BUILDING PERMIT

— FOR A WELLINGTON TERRACE SITE QUESTION FOR SUPREME COURT A question, regarding the effect of sec-, tion 117 of tho Public Works Act was yesterday submitted for the decision of Mr. Justice Edwards in tie Supreme Court; The section provides that, wnere land having a frontage to an existing Mad or street of less than 6G feet in width is subdivided imto allotments for the purpose- of 6ale, the owner shall set back thefronmgo to the distance of at least S3 feet from the centra of the street, and shall dedicate as a publio road the strip of land between ilhe original frontage line and the line to • which this is set back. Then there is a proviso that the section shall not ap--1 ply ih any case where tho local authority. having control of the road or street by resolution declares thatf it shall not apply,;and tho resolution is approved by the Governor-in-Council. • • Tho question that itie'Court was ask-, ed to .consider arose between. Harryt' Amos (as director of Banks College), plaintiff, and the City Council and the Afabruey-General, defendants. The management of Banks College -recently decided to erect , a building on the site of ■ Dr. Adams's ■ house on Wellington Terrace. Part of Wellington Terrace had been declared by,the CJify Council, with the approval of < the Governor-in-Coun-cil, to be exempt from the provisions of 'section 117. Plaintiff, who was not subdividing the land for sale, applied to •■fthe corporation for a permit to erect a building which would stand at the street boundary. Tho corporation refused to issue the permit on the sole ground, thanl the building would bo erected in breach of the conditions imposed by the Order-in-Council approving the .vesolution of .the City Council.. Plaintiff claimed that vie said conditions did not affect him because ho was not subdividing- the land, and because the corporation had, :in any case,' no power to.withhold a permit for buildUc on the land; The corporation claimed that where an Order-fln-Councir was issued under section 117/ the conditions. imposed by ■the section affected all lands fronting the street or portion of street referred 4io in the Order-in-Council. irrespectively of whether any subdivision was being made or not. Mr. T. P. Martin appeared for the plaintiff. ' Mr. ,T. O'Slica renresented the City Council, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey the Attorney-General. . His Honour reserved his decision.