Haifa District Appeals Committee partly allows residents’ principled appeal against additional building rights in a TAMA 38 project

Attorney Uri Shiloh: “For all the importance of TAMA 38 projects, there is no justification for approving benefits that double building rights at the expense of, and to the detriment of, the quality of life of residents on the Carmel.”
The District Appeals Committee at the Ministry of the Interior partly allowed a principled appeal against the Local Planning and Building Committee’s approval of an application to demolish an existing five-unit building and erect an eleven-unit building, including construction exceeding the maximum utilization of TAMA 38 building-rights incentives, at 9 Litnis Street.
The fundamental question was whether, on a quiet, high-quality street on the Carmel, both full utilization of building rights and additional rights amounting to “double rights” could be approved even where this harmed the quality of life of neighboring residents.
The opponents of the new project, apartment owners at 11 Litnis Street, argued  through Attorney Uri Shiloh, founding partner at E. Shiloh & Co.,  and through Attorney and architect Lior Datz that the proposed construction directly harmed owners in the adjoining plot and completely blocked their view toward the sea, and that the project could be designed differently. They also argued that no rear-building-line relaxation should be approved that constituted a substantial deviation of more than 10%; that protected rooms outside building lines should not be approved; and that various relaxations, including the double building rights accepted by the Local Committee and enclosure of the open ground-floor column level, should not be allowed.
Through Attorney Shiloh, the opponents asked that the number of floors be limited to six rather than creating an eight-story shaft, and that no deviations or benefits doubling building rights be granted.
The District Appeals Committee, chaired by Attorney Dikla Musari Tal, partly allowed the principled appeal. It ruled that the building volume would be reduced, that the additional open column level above the one to be enclosed would be canceled, and that any encroachment by the parking level into the setback by more than 10% would be allowed only if a solid wall were built. Following a site visit, the Committee found that the view and sunlight reaching the appellants’ balconies would indeed be affected to some extent. It stated that, when balancing earthquake strengthening against some loss of view, it favored the former, but only after reducing the harm to the appellants.