Came back to find them three cases from ours. Call for proposer of the amendment, call for opposers, usually one or two of each, and let them make their argument. But no one appeared for the next two cases, so then they came to us. Proposers? Up stand owner and his architect. Opposers? Up stand all fifteen of us. 'Oy vey,' says the older cttee man sub voce but audibly. 'I'm sending you out to discuss this first.' Now you'd think the discussions might have happened earlier, but apparently getting neighbourhood input is something one does after paying one's architect to draw up plans. (Or before- have never understood the architectural formula of 'we charge ten per cent of the total final cost' which seems an incentive for them to be in cahoots with the contracter to overrun the budget as much as possible. It's not like it won't go over budget anyway.)
But anyway, down we all sit and Fearless Leader and Owner square off. Owner affects to be surprised at level of resistance to his lovely plan and aggrieved that nobody told *him* about it. (Is told that the onus is on him to contact theneighbourhood rep, not vice versa.) FL, having clearly learned the wisdom of not responding at once to alpha male shows of aggression, runs rings abot him. Owner and architect agree to ask for a deferral while they reconsider their plans in light of our objections.
So am pleased, because my heart sunk when I saw the note to the Cttee's agenda that they 'do not rule on issues of sunlight and privacy'. Simply, how much do you want to bend the bylaw?
So we await the next round.