However, the board said it would be a waste of time, effort and money to call for an extraordinary general meeting to elect a replacement, as the current office bearers' term will expire on Sept 24.
They argued that the approval of a shop within the development did not alter the land use from residential to commercial and residential.They added that the Building Construction Authority and the Urban Redevelopment Authority stated in e-mail correspondence that the property is classified as a residential development.
It argued that the shop owner was rightly allotted a reserved seat on the council without having to be voted in.The board disagreed that the presence of both residential units and a commercial unit in the property made it a mixed-use development.