Greenspace
Senior Member
A little late lolzzz
As far as I am aware, the Derelict Property subclass would not be applied to those sites. The Derelict Property subclass is only applied to residential zoned land, so the BMO site would be excluded, and specifically plots with a structure that has become derelict. It does not apply to vacant lots that have been fully demolished like the Arlington.
<sarcasm alert> Bylaw is way too busy giving out parking tickets downtown and tickets to private residential properties that aren't 100% weed free to be concerned with this trivial issue.Walking past last night. Weeds were up to about 5 feet in some areas of this site. Where’s bylaw enforcement?
View attachment 577858
I have a friend who owns a building in the 104 street area. He is a business owner and put up a large sign for his business on the side of his building and bylaw came by and had him take it down cause it was too big. All he could do is shake his head in disbelief at the priorities of bylaw/the city given everything else that should be much higher on the priority list.<sarcasm alert> Bylaw is way too busy giving out parking tickets downtown and tickets to private residential properties that aren't 100% weed free to be concerned with this trivial issue.
You just proved my point exactly......^Guaranteed that sign got a bylaw complaint that they followed up on. It wasn't random enforcement. You need a development permit for all signage.
Now, now…. everyone here is just implementing the same landscape “naturalization” policy the city is pioneering for their own public spaces.Don't get me started about this site and the COE's lack of care/attention and the owner's complete disregard.