Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Was she though? Just because the landowner decided not rebuild doesn't mean the city shouldn't have let them.
I'm strongly in favour of upzoning everything. If I had unlimited power I'd convert all zoning in the city +1 immediately. Ie rc1--> rc2, rc2-->mcg, mcg--> mc1, RC1L--> mc2, etc
But that doesn't mean the city shouldn't allow people to rebuild a business they have with some changes when it burns down.
Different landowners will have different priorities and timelines for intensification. It's reasonable that the regulatory process respect that.
|
Well there can be a give and take when it comes to a new development. Just because the building burns down doesn't mean you can build whatever you want. From the City's tweet it seemed the issue was the new drive thru orientation. If the issue was a concern of the drive thru backing up onto a busy road that is not an unreasonable request for them to change it. There are a bunch of examples of this around the city and it's brutal. Obviously it's tough to know what exactly happened for this but I am sure the City said that something was an issue with their design and recommended that they change it (which they didn't').