30-40 Margaret Ave | 3 fl townhouses | Planned

[Momo26]

In a 2016 Spectator article the avg airbnb host earned $3900/yr....that's a little more than 30 days of the year that a unit would be occupied.  I'd be OK with not having any neighbors above, below, or beside me for the majority of the year.  And considering KW has a shortage of rentals available wouldn't you be a fool for not securing a long term tenant and guaranteeing income?

Something must be missing. Did it say these were exclusively rental units? Because that would be a massively poor investment for the buyer of a 200-500k unit (a lot more if Toronto is factored in). Must be owner occupied less a handful of nights and air bNb suuplimented or something....

[ijmorlan]

"Commercial use" likely would not cover short-term rentals, but we have a six-month minimum lease. (We do have people working from home, but at least to date that has been considered acceptable. And I suspect case law would support that as well.)

Historically, almost any activity conducted out of ones home should not count as “commercial”. The key is that the person conducting or in charge of the activity must live there. The only valid change for modern conditions is that if the activity is hazardous or (legitimately) vexatious to neighbours, then modern safety and quality-of-life considerations may intervene and rule it out.

Whether the modern legal system understands this, I have no idea.

A simple example: in the City of Waterloo I understand that conducting music lessons out of ones home is allowed only in a detached home, as part of the zoning code. I consider this to be an illegitimate exercise of zoning power, because historically one of the activities that has taken place in residential-use property is to give music lessons. Where do the authors of this provision think Mozart took his music lessons? The excuse I heard is that there could be sound transmission through walls in a non-detached situation, but we have a noise bylaw to deal with that at the legal level and all sorts of sound barrier options to avoid running afoul of the noise bylaw at the practical level.

By contrast, it is clearly legitimate to forbid propane distribution from (or even near) a residential property, because every so often those operations go boom.

[Momo26]

Well put ^. +1 feedback for you poster

[tomh009]

"Commercial use" likely would not cover short-term rentals, but we have a six-month minimum lease. (We do have people working from home, but at least to date that has been considered acceptable. And I suspect case law would support that as well.)

Historically, almost any activity conducted out of ones home should not count as “commercial”. The key is that the person conducting or in charge of the activity must live there. The only valid change for modern conditions is that if the activity is hazardous or (legitimately) vexatious to neighbours, then modern safety and quality-of-life considerations may intervene and rule it out.

These kinds of provisions are typically laid out in a condo corporation's declaration document, which is written by the developer's legal team and very difficult for the subsequent owners to modify (need 80% of all units to approve). So my comment is in the context of a restriction in the declaration rather than what "should" be allowed or not. And in that context, I expect that working (alone) at home would be fine, but a retail business, with customers coming and going, would likely be not. Just my interpretation, though, I only play lawyer in my spare time!

[panamaniac]

Historically, almost any activity conducted out of ones home should not count as “commercial”. The key is that the person conducting or in charge of the activity must live there. The only valid change for modern conditions is that if the activity is hazardous or (legitimately) vexatious to neighbours, then modern safety and quality-of-life considerations may intervene and rule it out.

These kinds of provisions are typically laid out in a condo corporation's declaration document, which is written by the developer's legal team and very difficult for the subsequent owners to modify (need 80% of all units to approve). So my comment is in the context of a restriction in the declaration rather than what "should" be allowed or not. And in that context, I expect that working (alone) at home would be fine, but a retail business, with customers coming and going, would likely be not. Just my interpretation, though, I only play lawyer in my spare time!

Iirc correctly, the Declaration for Arrow Lofts prohibits both short-term leases and any commercial activity involving visits by the public.  There are also some specific prohibited uses, like doctor or dentist offices.

[ijmorlan]

Historically, almost any activity conducted out of ones home should not count as “commercial”. The key is that the person conducting or in charge of the activity must live there. The only valid change for modern conditions is that if the activity is hazardous or (legitimately) vexatious to neighbours, then modern safety and quality-of-life considerations may intervene and rule it out.

These kinds of provisions are typically laid out in a condo corporation's declaration document, which is written by the developer's legal team and very difficult for the subsequent owners to modify (need 80% of all units to approve). So my comment is in the context of a restriction in the declaration rather than what "should" be allowed or not. And in that context, I expect that working (alone) at home would be fine, but a retail business, with customers coming and going, would likely be not. Just my interpretation, though, I only play lawyer in my spare time!

I was actually talking about zoning rules rather than condominium declarations. I’m not sure what I think of this sort of rule in a condo declaration. On the one hand, theoretically they are determined by a private property owner initially, and then agreed to by subsequent purchasers of units. On the other hand, in the US HOAs have clearly run rampant, where in many areas it is almost impossible to find a place to live that doesn’t have all sorts of detailed and unreasonable rules concerning how one must manage ones property.

Some of the same considerations still apply, however. For example, I would consider a ban on music instruction inappropriate, given that its impact on neighbours is indistinguishable from somebody who just regularly takes visitors. And obviously it’s simply nobody’s business at all if somebody remotes in to their office from home, no matter what the rules say. What next, it’s against the declaration to log in to online banking from home?

Also not a lawyer, just my musings.

[Rainrider22]

Last night I took my daughter to her dance lessons at the Church of The Good Shepherd at the corner of Queen and Margaret. We had to park down the street because when there is an event on at the Centre in the Square, the church charges for parking. This development is right beside the church and as we walked down the sidewalk with the snow falling, my children and me both said the same time, wow can you imagine how beautiful it is going to be here when this is done. My daughter even said that Jeje and Baba should buy a place there. When a 10 and 8 year old can identify a good location for a project on their own, you know you got a good thing going on.

[Momo26]

I might have to take a walk down to see where this project will be going to get a better street sense of it for myself!

[panamaniac]

Do a circle (Margaret, Maynard/Young, Ahrens or Roy, Queen) to get a good feel for the neighbourhood.

[Spokes]

I'm shocked (but happy) that this didn't get more of the NIMBY treatment

[jgsz]

I'm shocked (but happy) that this didn't get more of the NIMBY treatment

Well, at one time there were beautiful, elegant, mansions along Margaret and Queen Streets.  IIRC, the Schneider’s and Kaufman’s lived on Margaret Avenue.   Had I been around when the homes were still standing I gladly would have joined the NIMBY folks. Some things are worth preserving.

[panamaniac]

I'm shocked (but happy) that this didn't get more of the NIMBY treatment

Well, at one time there were beautiful, elegant, mansions along Margaret and Queen Streets.  IIRC, the Schneider’s and Kaufman’s lived on Margaret Avenue.   Had I been around when the homes were still standing I gladly would have joined the NIMBY folks. Some things are worth preserving.

Also the Augustine mansion (on Margaret).  I don't recall any Schneider homes on Margaret, but I don't know. Today, many of those homes might be saved but at the time they were demolished they had become more bother than anyone wanted to take on.  Too large to be SFH, many had become rundown mulit-family places.  Upkeep and repair costs were prohibitive and on Margaret Ave at least, they were on oversized lots that made them very attractive to developers.  At the same time, many of them dated from the Victorian favour, which was very much out of style at the time.  Even so, I recall that there was public consternation when the Margaret Ave homes came down (some were more Edwardian than Victorian and, as I recall, in pretty good condition).  On the more positive side, we have the KPL and CITS thanks to some of the demolition that went on back in the day.

[Momo26]

Just did my first walking self-tour of the area...up Queen, left Margaret, stopped and stared at the cite for while, looked at all the other homes across (including apartments), then cut left on whatever that other street is that includes one-way? Ended up on Young I think back to the core. It's a nice area. Is Margaret used as a major through street? It was quiet, but not crazy quiet.

Will this be a first of many developments like this in 'downtown neighborhoods'? I think there is already a (couple?) development(s) in the neighborhoods of Brethaup right. So this may not actually even be the first legit one.

[tomh009]

Well, at one time there were beautiful, elegant, mansions along Margaret and Queen Streets.  IIRC, the Schneider’s and Kaufman’s lived on Margaret Avenue.   Had I been around when the homes were still standing I gladly would have joined the NIMBY folks. Some things are worth preserving.

I don't recall any Schneider homes on Margaret, but I don't know. 

J M Schneider's mansion was 379 Queen St S, now the head office of Polocorp. If I recall correctly, he previously had a home on Courtland Ave, where he also had his first shop.

Kaufman ... Jacob Kaufman's house was at 621 King St W, now part of the Station Park property. His son, A R Kaufman, had a mansion at 516 Woolwich St in Waterloo, and also a large property at 165 Claremont Ave in Kitchener, although it's not clear whether he actually lived in the house at the latter address.

[taylortbb]

On the more positive side, we have the KPL and CITS thanks to some of the demolition that went on back in the day.

I think CITS is a great building internally, but for location and external design is it really something to be thankful for? If it built in a fully urban location, on Duke/King/Charles, it'd probably do wonders for downtown vibrancy on event nights. Right now most people see the walk as just a little too far to get dinner somewhere downtown, and just drive in and park at CITS. The building also has terrible street interaction. Not that concert venues tend to be great at street interaction, but I'd say it's much worse than average even within its category.

I think that whole block dates to an era of separation of uses (civic buildings all in one area), and of "X in the park" which has not aged well. I'd much rather have the old houses, and all the civic district buildings somewhere more central downtown with better urban form.