I mean, at least it cleans up the lot in the interim. Good on Kaneff to repaving it, there are lots of lots in the City which are in comically bad condition and the City does nothing in terms of by-law enforcement on property maintenance standards (looking at you, 117 Jackson..). At least the lot here will be a bit cleaner and more attractive until it does redevelop.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Sign of life?

Kaneff bought an adjacent property to expand this site and wants to demolish it - the City does not want them to:


The report identifies that Kaneff has not made a resubmission on their site plan application here since 2021.
Click to expand...

The property in question:

1749125905851.png
 
This is a no brainer for demo inorder to create a better overall project and streetscape. Yes please to demo as there are lots of these around. I view it as silly to maintain single family homes in a district that should be all multi-unit buildings.
 
catcher_of_cats said:
This is a no brainer for demo inorder to create a better overall project and streetscape. Yes please to demo as there are lots of these around. I view it as silly to maintain single family homes in a district that should be all multi-unit buildings.
Click to expand...
to be clear - the city is not objecting to its demolition to make way for this project.

They are objecting to its demolition right now, when the development is not anticipated for several years. The City's standard practice is that they will not issue demolition permits for existing structures until they have permits for new structures filed at the same time. That is not the case here, with the applicant not advancing their site plan application at all in over 4 years.

Basically they don't want a vacant lot / expanded parking lot here for an undetermined amount of time until it redevelops.
 
innsertnamehere said:
to be clear - the city is not objecting to its demolition to make way for this project.

They are objecting to its demolition right now, when the development is not anticipated for several years. The City's standard practice is that they will not issue demolition permits for existing structures until they have permits for new structures filed at the same time. That is not the case here, with the applicant not advancing their site plan application at all in over 4 years.

Basically they don't want a vacant lot / expanded parking lot here for an undetermined amount of time until it redevelops.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree that demolition should only be permitted when permits are issued for a new structure. I didn't know that this was the case here.
 
Its hard to imagine how this entire, essentially two block area will be a completely new neighborhood. As long as I can remember, this portion of downtown was desolate. Exciting times.
 
City really needs an escalating vacant land tax. Assemble all the land you need, but keep structures functioning as residential buildings until you are ready to develop. Alternative is to let demo happen but pay city tax as if there was (in this case) a 30 storey building sitting on the site. Build or bail.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top