Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 25/2/2015 (2033 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

You can fight city hall, but it's going to cost you.

Cheryl and Darrell Pakosh spent upward of $50,000 in a lawsuit alleging the City of Winnipeg did not follow proper procedure when it approved a condo development next to their North Kildonan home.

They won -- an almost unprecedented ruling from the Court of Queen's Bench.

Late last year, the court overturned the city's decision, saying it did not follow its own bylaws in approving a zoning change for the condominium.

Yet the Pakoshes believe their struggle isn't over. They are bracing themselves for the possibility the developer will reapply and the fight will be on again.

"This home is our lifelong dream," explained Cheryl, a school teacher. "We just decided to protect our investment."

The couple has lived in the lot for over 20 years. It was just a 640-square-foot cottage when they first moved in. Eleven years ago, they built a two-storey, 1,900-square-foot home.

It's a very unusual property. It's one of those long, narrow lots along the Red River, off Henderson Highway between Bonner and Knowles avenues, dating back to the days of the parish-lot system of the Red River Settlers.

In those days, the lots had to back onto the river for water and transportation, and were, therefore, squeezed tightly together, making up in length what they lacked in width.

The Pakoshes argued the lot size next door -- just 20 metres across but almost 180 metres deep -- is not appropriate for a 10-unit condo building.

The court discovered the city never publicly posted the building-site plan, as it is required to do, prior to councillors approving a zoning change from single-family to a multi-family district, at an East Kildonan-Transcona community committee hearing.

"No reasonable site plan, which would provide the detailed information and disclosure to the applicants and to all members of the public wishing to attend the public hearing, was ever filed by the developer and considered (as it should have been) by the community committee at the public hearing on Dec. 11, 2012," said Court of Queen's Bench Justice Albert Clearwater.

"I conclude the applicants were not afforded procedural fairness."

The developers want to make it clear the court decision was against the city, not them. Betty and Werner Neufeld weren't named in the suit. As first-time developers, they followed instructions from the city, Betty Neufeld said.

Neufeld stressed there are condos and apartment blocks on parcels of land smaller than the one they propose to develop. They previously owned three small apartment blocks on lots 15 metres by 30 metres, she said.

Neufeld said they haven't decided whether to try again to build the condominium.

The Pakoshes raise several issues during their opposition of the condo plan. They maintain there is no room for visitor parking on the narrow condo lot; they also realized, once they saw the site plan, but after local councillors had already approved rezoning, they would have about 30 windows, including living-room windows, looking out over their property from a three-storey building; and, the condo builders obtained a variance, so the drive into the condo abutted the Pakoshes' property.

bill.redekop@freepress.mb.ca