Winnipeg | St Boniface | Developments & Discussions

[cllew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I wonder if the city will close down the chocolate shop if she doesn't show them that she has addressed the issue....the adjacent building will already be creating a snow shadow on her's.

I recall her opposition in the variance hearings was that they would be covering up the sign she painted on the side of her building that faced the former parking lot.

Not the first building that had a mural removed from view. Operating Engineers of Manitoba Local 987 removed the Steam Train mural in Transcona when they took over the former TD Bank on Regent West.

Great Canadian Travel removed the Gar Gilles/Garnet amp mural from the building they took over in the 1300 block of Portage Ave.

In the OE 987's case the former bank had insufficient insulation causing high energy bills, and the only way to fix that was to apply insulation to the exterior walls.

The travel agency had to remove their mural because the wall underneath was having issues and needed to be repaired.

[Biff]

It seems like she just wants to complain but do none of the work required to prove her point.

Here is the Appeal wording:

Nature of Appeal: On July 10, 2024, Constance Menzies appealed the Decision dated June 28, 2024 issued by Manager of Commercial Construction, Development and Inspections Division, Planning, Property and Development Department regarding provisions of The City of Winnipeg Building Bylaw No. 4555/87.

The Decision stated:

• I understand your client and the owner of 174 Provencher Blvd have been in discussions since November of 2023 that would permit the owner of 174 Provencher Blvd to enter, assess, and address any potential snow-loading issues to your client’s existing building located at 180 Provencher Blvd that would result from the approved development at 174 Provencher Blvd.  As of today’s date, I understand that no satisfactory assessment has taken place due to delays on part of your client.

• Based on the chronology of events, and having reviewed the communications provided by both parties, please be advised that the City shall be issuing the remaining building permits required for the completion of construction located at 174 Provencher Blvd in accordance with Section 9.7.5 of the Winnipeg Building By-law No. 4555/87 (the “By-law”):

9.7.5 Despite clause 9.7.1(i) and subsection 9.7.3, the designated employee may issue a permit where he or she determines that 

A. the owner of a property in respect of which a building permit application has been submitted, or his or her designate, has made all reasonable attempts but has been unable to  determine whether the proposed building or structure will create an unsafe condition in respect of an existing building or structure; or 

ii. remediate or reinforce the existing building or structure as necessary to ensure that the proposed building or structure will not create an unsafe condition in respect of the existing building or structure; or

B. the owner of the existing building or structure has refused all reasonable attempts to
 
i. determine whether the proposed building or structure will create an unsafe condition in respect of the existing building or structure; or 

ii. remediate or reinforce the existing building or structure as necessary to ensure that the proposed building or structure will not create an unsafe condition in respect of the existing building or structure.

[1ajs]

wow what the so a building owners refusing to allow their building at someone els's expense to be inspected to see if it needs to be upgraded witch could mean a new roof to be done at someone els's expense?

[bomberjet]

Precisely.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

I noticed the other day that there’s now what looks like a pile driver on site at the SE corner of Marion and Des Meurons.

[bomberjet]

This thing.
http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/permalink.asp?id=A20240612(RM)BAC-3

Originally Posted by Biff

Marion and Des Meurons should start in Sept.

[buzzg]

So does anyone know, generally - if the new building does end up causing damage to the chocolate shop due to snow loading... is it just tough luck for her? And would her insurance also likely not cover it since she specifically chose to not allow them to assess/resolve any potential issues?

[bomberjet]

From reading the Cities response and direction in the meetings minutes, it's on the chocolate shop. It would, and probably will, end up in court I assume.

[EndIt]

I was back in town for the holidays and drove past 174 Provencher (didn't snap any photos, sorry :/ ). It's a great addition to the streetscape and the development across the way will complement it very nicely (hoping the design is not significantly altered...)

I wonder what the chocolate shop lady's problem is lmao. The shop looks very cute and quaint next to the new building and I'm sure will get a lot of local traffic. If I was still in town I'd like to see if we could rally some cycling and urbanist groups in the city to write her a nice letter and see if we get her on the side of densification. If we want improvements to happen in the city, we as a community can't have all of these projects devolve into silly pettiness.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by buzzg

So does anyone know, generally - if the new building does end up causing damage to the chocolate shop due to snow loading... is it just tough luck for her? And would her insurance also likely not cover it since she specifically chose to not allow them to assess/resolve any potential issues?

this the one where the building owner refused to let any engineers in to inspect and do an assement to determan whats needed to mitigate the issue ?

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

this the one where the building owner refused to let any engineers in to inspect and do an assement to determan whats needed to mitigate the issue ?

Yes

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by EndIt

I was back in town for the holidays and drove past 174 Provencher (didn't snap any photos, sorry :/ ). It's a great addition to the streetscape and the development across the way will complement it very nicely (hoping the design is not significantly altered...)

I wonder what the chocolate shop lady's problem is lmao. The shop looks very cute and quaint next to the new building and I'm sure will get a lot of local traffic. If I was still in town I'd like to see if we could rally some cycling and urbanist groups in the city to write her a nice letter and see if we get her on the side of densification. If we want improvements to happen in the city, we as a community can't have all of these projects devolve into silly pettiness.

Based on how this has already played out, it’s clear the person is obviously foolish and crazy. I wouldn’t waste your time. I’m sure she heard it all before at the development appeals meetings to absolutely no avail. Nice sentiment though, good of you.

Appeasement never works.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Yes

then the owner cant cry if they run into issues so weird

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

Based on how this has already played out, it’s clear the person is obviously foolish and crazy. I wouldn’t waste your time. I’m sure she heard it all before at the development appeals meetings to absolutely no avail. Nice sentiment though, good of you.

Appeasement never works.

prolly mad the parking is gone

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

prolly mad the parking is gone

Bingo

[FactaNV]

There certainly is no shortage of parking in the area.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

There certainly is no shortage of parking in the area.

And it's a chocolate shop...I can't imagine customers spend more than 10 mins in there on average, so the 2h limit on Provencher should be a non-issue unlike a restaurant or café where patrons might want to spend a bit more time. On top of all the available parking lots off the Provencher's back lane.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by WildCake

And it's a chocolate shop...I can't imagine customers spend more than 10 mins in there on average, so the 2h limit on Provencher should be a non-issue unlike a restaurant or café where patrons might want to spend a bit more time. On top of all the available parking lots off the Provencher's back lane.

This certainly appears to be a case of fucked around and found out on the part of the chocolatier. I don't feel too bad for them, the building is adding some nice scale.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by WildCake

And it's a chocolate shop...I can't imagine customers spend more than 10 mins in there on average, so the 2h limit on Provencher should be a non-issue unlike a restaurant or café where patrons might want to spend a bit more time. On top of all the available parking lots off the Provencher's back lane.

I thought her main issue was having the new building blocking the sign on the side of her building.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Pile driving appears to be close to finished at SE corner of Des Meurons and Marion. I imagine excavation will start soon.

Also noticed a single backhoe and dump truck at the old stock yards site (the very NW corner of the property). Clearly not a big enough crew to do any real excavation so maybe its related to the sewer and water work that was put in last summer?