, Thanks for all the information! I'm going to start reading up on all this asap. Really appreciate all the effort put in to helping me resolve this.
just reading the quote about 2.02.A:
- They definitely did not provide the minimum of 3 business days of notice in advance (signs were not there Friday).
- It also disrupted the flow of traffic greatly as lots of people within the area use that route to get onto Ness now that the bridge is under construction (would that count as a conflicting project?) and it seems as if none of them were notified as well. whether it be through the website or media release.
After getting further evidence (date on the back of the signs, maybe more), would It be sufficient?
I doubt it is a permanent sign, only a temporary convenience for the residents living within the neighborhood as they won't have as much traffic going through now. They'll probably remove it once the construction on Ness is finished.