A local developer has at least two more weeks to get his development permits in place if he wants to build to the current 10-metre height limit.

Or he could see if he can fit his plans into an eight-metre height limit the Hillcrest Community Association is seeking.

City council has voted 5-2 to defer by two weeks a decision that would set an interim height limit of eight metres for buildings in a section of Hillcrest that includes Hillcrest Drive, Dalton Trail and Park Lane.

Kirn Dhillon is proposing to build triplexes in the area with those properties currently zoned to allow building up to 10 metres in height.

The interim order would be put in place after first reading of the bylaw. Residents of the area have asked for the order while a neighbourhood plan is developed.

Councillors Betty Irwin and Dave Stockdale were the only members to vote against the deferral on Monday evening, Stockdale putting his head in his hands and sighing as the vote came down.

In an impassioned speech before the vote, Stockdale argued Dhillon had time since his properties were rezoned last fall to come up with a plan and get the proper permits to build.

Dhillon had told council earlier in the meeting that he hadn't gotten the permits yet because he wanted to come to the city with a complete package detailing the plans. Site surveying and design work has been done, he said.

Stockdale, however, argued during council discussion his belief that the developer could build a good, sustainable development within the eight metres area residents are seeking.

If the interim order is not put in place, Stockdale continued, it "makes an absolute farce” of the neighbourhood plan being developed.

He went on to argue the area residents have made concessions during the process. The debate over height was sidetracked last fall during the rezoning by concerns over density, Stockdale recalled.

Dhillon had originally proposed putting in fourplexes. With the concerns over density, parking and traffic, however, the site was rezoned to allow for triplexes instead.

Meanwhile, Irwin stressed the importance of area residents keeping faith in the neighbourhood planning process and with council.

The city is obligated to abide by what the residents want after initiating the planning process, Irwin added.

She recalled Dhillon's plans to potentially sell the homes in the $400,000-plus range, arguing that homes in that price range don't fit her definition of affordable housing. The developer is looking for a profit, she suggested.

Countering that was Coun. John Streicker, who said earning a profit is not negative and should not be seen that way.

Like other council members, Streicker said the issue is a challenging one to consider.

If the city goes ahead with the interim order, it may send a message to developers that council may change its mind after making a decision.

And if council doesn't go ahead with it, it appears it's not listening to the neighbourhood, he said.

The situation puts the city between a rock and a hard place, Coun. Kirk Cameron suggested.

He noted that after speaking with Dhillon last week to see if there was any chance there could be a compromise, the neighbourhood rejected Dhillon's proposal for a nine-metre height limit.

If the interim order comes in, what ultimately ends up happening is the project is held hostage. On a principle of fairness, Cameron suggested Dhillon should be permitted to get on with his project.

"This is just about fairness,” Cameron said.

It was after Cameron's comments that Streicker wondered aloud if, during a two-week deferral period, Dhillon could look into his plans and see if they could be adjusted to the eight-metre height limit.

He then made the motion to defer. He also pointed out the interim order would take place after first reading, therefore not allowing for a public comment period.

Members then passed the motion to defer.

Earlier in the meeting, council heard both sides with presentations by Dhillon and Hillcrest resident Jim Gilpin.

The latter brought forward a petition bearing the signatures of 34 Hillcrest residents calling for the reduction in height limits.

Gilpin noted he's been in touch with 39 of the 40 property owners in the area and only four were opposed to the petition with the others undecided.

In many of his previous presentations when the rezoning came forward, Gilpin has pointed to numerous issues in opposing Dhillon's development. An example is the shadowing effect it would have on other properties such as his.

While he can appreciate Dhillon has spent time on his design, Gilpin said, it would be far more regrettable for the neighbourhood if council permitted buildings to be 10 metres tall.

Dhillon countered a number of Gilpin's points, arguing the 10-m height limit would allow for flexibility.

He also pointed out the community association rejected his compromise of a nine-metre height limit within 12 hours of it being brought forward. He proposed it at around 9 p.m., and it was rejected by 9:00 the next morning, he said.

Dhillon also argued a number of concessions were already made last fall when the rezoning took place. At that time, the height issue arose without council making any changes to the height limit.

It was just before Dhillon went on vacation that he found out about the community association's plan to look for the lower height limit.

"My back is against the wall,” he said, arguing he wasn't given the time needed to look at other plans.

Dhillon also noted the higher height limit is needed to accommodate solar panels planned for the development.