City responds to Old Hospital Building Issues

Vandals have made their own access into the old hospital site, June 15, 2021 (Dan Gray/

In following up with the City about the old General Hospital site, SaultOnline reached out for comment to Tessa Vecchio, Communications Manager.

She was able to connect with Chief Building Officer, Freddie Pozzebon, to provide a response  to our inquiry.

In regards to ownership of the property-

Pozzebon -The City has never owned this property.  The hospital property was sold to a private developer, who has since sold it to another development corporation.  The property is private property.

Q-In regards to the numerous complaints by neighbours about the situation deteriorating quickly at the site, please see the exchange below-

Pozzebon – The City has not received numerous complaints, only two recently. One was regarding the tall grass which the owner has cut and the second is an Order to Remedy regarding the parking lot. A third Order to Remedy issued by the By-Enforcement Officer is regarding the securing of the building. This was done through a proactive approach by our office to periodically review the two buildings.

In the past the City has issued Orders against the first owner which followed the sale to the second owner.  Those orders were appealed and considerable time was spent defending those appeals, until a resolution was reached and compliance with the orders met.

Q-Where does the city stand with the new owner about the site? I know it was sold for an undisclosed amount of money, however, should the site not still need to meet all applicable by-laws?

Pozzebon – The owner was in compliance with the past orders that were issued under the previous Property Standards by-law – vacant building provisions.  The owner of the building is contacted when new issues arise on the site, plywood removed etc.  It is the owner’s responsibility to keep the building secure from trespassers.

Stay with SaultOnline as we continue to dig into the condition of this and other buildings inside the city.



  1. Maybe the present owner is waiting for someone from down south to want to relocate to the zoo and make an offer they can,t know how real estate is going here now

  2. Who would want to live near that rat infested biohazard slum? Anyone that invested in one of the units in the building next door can’t be happy when they look at their surroundings, this is no doubt killing their value.
    Chances are high that five years from now nothing will have changed with it, especially if city hall is expected to do something about it.

  3. Private citizens are held to a different standard than Corporations/Businesses. A senior citizen, John Umbrasas, had his house demolished after years of orders from the city to fix up his house and to make it safe. Yes he was a hoarder and yes the house was unsafe structurally but the order was issued because he wasn’t someone important or financially capable of fighting the city. From the looks of this building, it doesn’t look like it is structurally safe, and unkept. Why haven’t orders been served to the owner to demolish the building or fix it up? Oh yes, he/they have the money to fight the orders that will not be given until something drastic or terrible happens there. This Mayor/council has to go, even before the next election.

    • Someone didn’t read the article.
      3 orders have been issued and the owner met all conditions.

      A vacant property isn’t against the law, last I heard, as long as you secure it.

  4. So John. You have decided that the city is run by fools. What is your answer to the problem at the old hospital site. I would love to hear it

  5. I walk by there almost every day. It’s usually sealed tight ( the old General site). Once the back door was breached but it was fixed within days.
    I believe a local security firm patrols there also.

    I never smelt anything bad.

Comments are closed.