Toronto Peter and Adelaide | 152.39m | 47s | Graywood | BBB

[ChesterCopperpot]

There's a wooden fence and fire escape stairs on the building at the minute which look to have been erased from the rendering. It's all a moot point however as the heritage structure has nothing to do with this project.

 

[buildup]

Possibly the city will ask that the money's that normally go to city improvement in exchange for zoning variances be used to restore this gorgeous building.

 

[interchange42]

That's a privately owned building which is not part of the development. (Nor is the Templar Hotel to the west.)

There's lots of public realm improvements that the City will want in this area that this building can contribute to.

42

 

[buildup]

It is privately owned, but I'm sure the owners could use the funding since there is no way they will be permitted to develop the site sine the building is protected.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Submitted for rezoning on June 30, 2016. Supporting documentation is not yet available.

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...ion=init&folderRsn=3983031&isCofASearch=false

 

[maestro]

It is privately owned, but I'm sure the owners could use the funding since there is no way they will be permitted to develop the site sine the building is protected.

How often this is said on the forum is interesting to say the least. Redevelopment is a privilege. It is not a right.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

Redevelopment is a privilege. It is not a right.

Incorrect. Canada is governed by the rule of law, not the caprice of a dictator who grants privileges to the worthy. Whoever buys a property and meets the legal requirements imposed has the right to redevelop it.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Within the rules of law, which include the preservation of the building. A rezoning is in effect a request to modify the law regarding development permissions on your lands. Thus, it is not a right.

Zoning bylaws are in place to protect the public good and have a very strong background of rulings protecting them at the Supreme Court. You do not have a right to develop without meeting government regulations. That means you must meet building code and zoning.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

Within the rules of law, which include the preservation of the building. A rezoning is in effect a request to modify the law regarding development permissions on your lands. Thus, it is not a right.

Zoning bylaws are in place to protect the public good and have a very strong background of rulings protecting them at the Supreme Court. You do not have a right to develop without meeting government regulations. That means you must meet building code and zoning.

You're wrong. The entire procedure is governed by law, not privilege. I think you are just confused about the definitions of the terms.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Perhaps one day the mortgage will rub against the insurance policy and the resulting friction will cause a fire. Et voila - no more Deuxieme Empire dilapidation to worry about!

 

[Skeezix]

Redevelopment is a privilege. It is not a right.

A rezoning is in effect a request to modify the law regarding development permissions on your lands. Thus, it is not a right.

Yes and no. I'm not sure "right versus privilege" is the correct way to conceptualize it. Also, it depends what a landowner is proposing to build.

Redeveloping one's land is not like driving, the latter of which is a privilege. Canadian law recognizes the rights of owners to do as they wish with private property. Those rights are, of course, subject to applicable laws and regulations (including zoning and other land use controls) as @innsertnamehere correctly points out. In Ontario, the same stature statute which empowers municipalities to adopt Official Plans and pass zoning by-laws also enables people to apply to amend such instruments, and establishes a process (and appeal rights) for such amendment applications.

So, the right to develop property is certainly subject to controls and constraints

So, a landowner can't simply say "I'm going to build a 40-storey tower, this is a free country". This is what I assume @maestro is referring to. The landowner needs to apply for the necessary approvals. And the test on a rezoning is whether the proposal represents good planning. But @Waterloo_Guy is correct when he says it is a process set out by the law. The municipality (or the OMB on appeal) cannot arbitrarily withhold permission and there is an underlying assumption that the landowner can built what it wishes as long as it conforms to applicable policies and does not cause undue adverse impacts.

Important to note that a parcel of land will almost always have as-of-right permissions - the ability of the landowner to build something as long as it does so safely (i.e. in accordance with the Building Code). Subject to only a few limited exceptions, there is an important principle of law that municipalities cannot use their zoning powers to effectively sterilize land (i.e. if a municipality wants open space, it needs to buy the land - it cannot simply achieve the same result by downzoning the property so that the land has no development permissions). Which is another reason why I think calling development rights "a privilege" is not the correct terminology to be using.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

Redeveloping one's land is not like driving, the latter of which is a privilege.

This is also wrong. Driving manuals typically say this, but it is an error. The rules and constraints you mention are governed by law, not privilege. The term "privilege" does exist in law, but this is simply not what it refers to. When discussing driving and development, we are talking about rights.

This is the last post I'll make on this topic since we're in danger of derailing the thread.

 

[smably]

Important to note that a parcel of land will almost always have as-of-right permissions - the ability of the landowner to build something as long as it does so safely (i.e. in accordance with the Building Code). Subject to only a few limited exceptions, there is an important principle of law that municipalities cannot use their zoning powers to effectively sterilize land (i.e. if a municipality wants open space, it needs to buy the land - it cannot simply achieve the same result by downzoning the property so that the land has no development permissions). Which is another reason why I think calling development rights "a privilege" is not the correct terminology to be using.

However, if you buy a property that already has a heritage building on it, you may not be able to build anything new or remove the existing building. The right to build is a very limited one, and that is a good thing.

 

[Skeezix]

However, if you buy a property that already has a heritage building on it, you may not be able to build anything new or remove the existing building. The right to build is a very limited one, and that is a good thing.

Agreed, assuming it's designated, although there are rights of appeal in respect of demolishing or removing a building on the property.

 

[Skeezix]

This is also wrong. Driving manuals typically say this, but it is an error. The rules and constraints you mention are governed by law, not privilege. The term "privilege" does exist in law, but this is simply not what it refers to. When discussing driving and development, we are talking about rights.

This is the last post I'll make on this topic since we're in danger of derailing the thread.

There are fundamental rights attached to the ownership of real property at common law, as may be amended, revised or otherwise constrained by statute, but no such fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. Thus the adage that driving is a privilege, not a right. In fact, the adage has been upheld and/or relied on in any number of court cases as a valid statement of the law in this country - most recently in Ontario in R. v. Casselman (2014). It's not particularly correct to refer to one's "right" to drive or to hold a driver's license - these are more accurately permissions granted by provincial law assuming one meets all of the conditions.

Some would argue that since there is no constitutional right to property in this country, ownership of real property is similarly not a right. As such, there is no right to real property in the same sense as there is, say, a right to free speech or religion.

And in terms of your fourth sentence, there is more than one definition of privilege at law. There are the exclusionary rules of evidence, with which we are all mostly aware due to law and cop shows on TV, as well as the more general exemptions from certain rules or burdens. Here we are discussing it in the legal sense of benefits or advantages conferred on one party which might not be conferred on all. But the term in this sense can (although not necessarily) imply an exceptional right, potentially within the full discretion of the grantor, which is not the case for land development in Ontario.

For these reasons, and as I said above, I don't think it's helpful to conceptualize land development is terms of rights or privileges. A landowner has rights under the Planning Act (and other applicable legislation), and the development approval once given is a privilege not necessarily granted to other landowners, but use of the terms in the general sense (land development is a right - land development is a privilege) can be misleading.