Confusion follows demolition approval for building’s non-owner
KITCHENER — Oneroof youth shelter was astounded to learn Tuesday that Kitchener’s heritage committee had approved a request by Vive Developments to demolish the shelter, even though Vive does not own the property.
“I am confused as to how a city committee can authorize the demolition to a developer that doesn’t own the building, and isn’t there on our behalf,” Sandy Dietrich-Bell, Oneroof ’s chief executive, said Wednesday.
Vive asked the heritage committee Tuesday to approve its request to demolish three adjacent properties, at 242, 254 and 262 Queen St. S. in the Victoria Park heritage district. It hopes to build a 125-unit, eight-storey rental apartment on the site.
The heritage committee considers any requests to demolish buildings within a heritage district. City council has final say, and a demolition wouldn’t proceed until the city’s building department issues a demolition permit. But Vive doesn’t own the Oneroof property at 242 Queen, where the nonprofit runs a 17bed shelter for youth aged 12-25.
The heritage committee rejected Vive’s request to demolish the two homes at 254 and 262 Queen, which were built in 1890, and which Vive owns. It did give conditional approval to the demolition of the Oneroof property, which was built in 2007, and urged the developer to come up with a design that would save the two heritage homes.
The heritage committee’s decision “is a concern, for our funders, our community supporters and those who we support,” Dietrich-Bell said. The heritage decision suggests “that our building is being torn down and that we’re moving,” something she said is “absolutely not correct.”
“We are here to stay until such time as we find something bigger and better” to serve Oneroof clients, she said. “We have no signed agreement with them (Vive),” she said. “We have no offer in writing from them.”
The city’s co-ordinator of heritage planning, Leon Bensason, said the documents on file list Stephen Litt, a principal at Vive, as the owner of the property.
Dietrich-Bell said Oneroof has had some discussions with Vive about selling the property, but nothing in the last couple of months. No one from the city contacted Oneroof about Vive’s request or about the meeting on Tuesday, she said.
Given the confusion, Bensason has contacted Litt and asked for updated information that makes it clear that Oneroof is the property owner and Litt is acting on the shelter’s behalf. “Until I get that, any recommendation from Heritage Kitchener will not be going to council,” Bensason said.
Litt confirmed Vive doesn’t own the Oneroof property.
“We do not have a binding purchase agreement,” he said. “However, we have sort of a — we’ll call it a handshake and partnership to move forward — conditional upon us working through the process that we are now, through site plan approval and heritage, etc.”
Bensason said the city relies on the signed documents it receives with application requests, and said it’s not unusual for developers to meet with city planners and request approvals before they’ve actually bought a property. It wouldn’t be realistic for the city to double-check every application with a formal title search.
Litt said he’s hoping to come to a formal agreement with Oneroof in the next few weeks.