One Hundred | 21 & 17 fl | U/C

[kevinchoi519]

 
so do you own all the properties next door and a have a preliminary plan to build a tower or what is the issue owen ? if the city creates tower separation guidelines...they would be "guidelines " not a by-law  or zoning regulation fyi ...but would your case to the omb not be more valid if you actually had a plan to develop your property ? will it not be impossible for that given the properties on arthur place are land locked and not on a public street rather a private lane ?

My comment about the development of tall building guidelines does not relate to our case or the 100 Vic development - any future guidelines won't impact either of those.   The point was that hopefully things will be done properly in the future with other developments in Kitchener.   In terms of the Arthur Place properties, I own 7 of them as well as the Arthur Place lane itself (it is not a city street), and Amarjit Singh (Councilor Singh's father) owns the two properties fronting Victoria street (86 Vic, and 92/94 Vic.)   Mr Singh also appealed at the OMB (he had his own separate planner and lawyer), and the owners of the other properties on Arthur Place not owned by Mr Singh or myself registered as participants in the OMB hearing.  The point is, together, the owners of the entire block of Arthur Place lands (houses up both sides, the lane, and the houses fronting Victoria) were represented in the OMB appeal.   In terms of having a preliminary plan - no, we don't have any kind of plan - I am not a developer - I'm just a property owner looking out for my interests - and the thing is, planning does not work on a "first come, first serve" basis - the whole point of planning is to plan ahead (which is essentially the opposite of just letting things happen on a first come first serve basis.)   For a whole host of reasons (you would had to have attended the hearing to hear them all) having tall buildings set back from property lines in the 10m to 12.5m  range constitute good planning - and the OMB is a court based on good planning, so like I said before: While nothing is certain, I'm optimistic that the ruling will require them to move the tower to a proper setback.

 
i did not realize you owned arthur place...and since it is not a city street does that not technically mean you have 0 frontage on a public street ? aka impossible to develop ?