irac dismisses another three rivers development appeal over standing issue
3 minute read
the island regulatory and appeals commission has dismissed an appeal against the town of three rivers concerning approval of a development permit for the great enlightenment buddhist institute society.
dave stewart
/
dave stewart • the guardian
the island regulatory and appeals commission has dismissed another appeal challenging a development approved by the town of three rivers, ruling that the appellant did not meet the legal definition of an “aggrieved person” under p.e.i. planning act.
in a decision issued may 29, the commission dismissed an appeal filed by charlie hicken against the town of three rivers concerning approval of a development permit for the great enlightenment buddhist institute society.
the permit, approved by the town on march 11, 2026, allows the society to construct a 1,200-square-foot visitor centre at heatherdale road, part of the gebis monastery campus.
the commission’s ruling did not address the merits of the development itself, only whether hicken had legal standing to bring the appeal.
under the planning act, only an “aggrieved person” may appeal certain planning decisions. the legislation defines an aggrieved person, in part, as an individual who in good faith believes a decision will adversely affect the reasonable enjoyment of their property.
resident’s arguments
the commission noted that hicken’s mailing address was located some distance from the proposed development, prompting questions about how the project would negatively affect his property.
hicken filed his notice of appeal on march 30, arguing that the development permit had been approved without adequate discussion of concerns raised by the public.
according to the order, hicken argued that allowing the permit to stand could set a precedent that would fundamentally change neighbourhoods. in his appeal, he stated that if the permit remained in place, nearby property owners could potentially follow a similar approach by constructing additional buildings on residential lots.
he argued that such a precedent could permanently alter property values, neighbourhood character, lifestyle and the overall atmosphere of residential areas.
advertisement
the commission said hicken also submitted that the approval failed to comply with municipal bylaws and that the decision could be used as a precedent for future development on another property located within approximately 97 metres of his own property.
his submissions also raised concerns about the town’s planning process, the qualifications of decision-makers handling the project, lot consolidations related to the development, and information concerning the developer’s directors, connected properties and institutional relationships.
the town of three rivers opposed the appeal and asked the commission to dismiss it.
no direct impact
the town argued that hicken’s address appeared to be about 14 kilometres from the property where the visitor centre is proposed. the town also argued that he had failed to identify any direct or specific impact that would adversely affect the reasonable enjoyment of his property.
according to the decision, the town maintained that hicken’s concerns were based on speculative future scenarios, generalized neighbourhood impacts and matters outside the jurisdiction of both the municipality and the commission.
the great enlightenment buddhist institute society, listed in the proceedings as the developer, did not file submissions on the preliminary issue.
after reviewing written submissions from hicken and the town, the commission decided the matter without holding an oral hearing.
in its analysis, the commission emphasized that the burden rested on hicken to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that he qualified as an aggrieved person under the planning act.
commission ruling
the order found that while hicken expressed concerns about the development and the town’s approval process, he did not establish an objective basis for believing the project would adversely affect the reasonable enjoyment of his property.
advertisement
the commission concluded that his arguments about potential future impacts on other properties were speculative and generalized.
it also found that concerns about the developer’s directors and connected properties were not relevant to determining whether he qualified as an aggrieved person.
the commission further ruled that concerns about whether the town properly followed its planning documents and bylaws related to the merits of the appeal itself, rather than the question of standing.
“the commission is not satisfied that the appellant has established any adverse affects as a result of the decision,” the ruling states.
as a result, the commission determined that hicken did not meet the definition of an aggrieved person under the planning act and therefore lacked standing to bring the appeal.
this is the second appeal by hicken that has been dismissed by the commission.
- stay informed: don’t miss the news you need to know. sign up for our newsletter today.
vivian ulinwa is a reporter for the guardian in prince edward island. she can be reached at vulinwa@postmedia.com and followed on x @vivian_ulinwa.
share story
