[Eug]

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...ar-over-court-order-to-demolish-home-addition

The family claims they just just paid a contractor, and the contractor went ahead and built it without permits.

It is an unfortunate situation for this elderly couple, but I do have to suspect that the contractor had the blessing of the family, considering that one of the kids is a lawyer who should have known better and advised her parents. OTOH the size is supposedly comparable to some other structures in the neighbourhood, which to a certain extent illustrates the sometimes arbitrary nature of the permit process.

 

[unimaginative2]

We consider these old neighbourhoods to be some of the most successful in the city, yet we have zoning laws that prohibit people from building that way. It doesn't make that much sense to me. If people want to use up some of their backyards (within reason), I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[Polkaroo]

But it reduces the values of their neighbors' properties.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you want to build an addition to your home just get a building permit. it's not that difficult, and IIRC the city doesn't even inform the Feds so you can still pay under the table if you want to say on taxes.

 

[doug]

When Brad j lamb built a condo sales office on carlaw, without a permit...the city simply fast tracked it and gave him the permit.
To go through regular channels would take up to 6 months.

 

[neuhaus]

^^^ a condo sales office is temporary, this addition is permanent.

The addition does stick out from the house quite a bit and creates an imposing wall between their neighbor's backyard and views.
I'm sure the elderly couple will still make a very nice profit when they sell their house after the addition demo.

 

[doug]

a condo sales office is temporary,

...but still requires a building permit.

The addition does stick out from the house quite a bit and creates an imposing wall between their neighbor's backyard and views.

Views are only temporary.

 

[jeff316]

Prosecuting the elderly to a tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars is kinda crazy but at the same time I dunno, this one strikes me as someone taking a risk and then throwing their hands in the air when caught. Just too many excuses - multiple offers, no home inspection, kids out of the country, paid the contractor, yada yada yada - not only is it larger than the existing structure, it breaks the new rules too. Hmmmm.

I don't understand why they didn't just get the permits. Particularly since the owners are the kids one of whom is a lawyer. I'd be pretty pissed if this happened to me too but I'd also be pissed if someone build an illegal structure that impinged on my backyard. It's bad optics but I understand why the city is going after them - otherwise, what's the point of having rules.

 

[junctionist]

Views are only temporary.

Not necessarily. Some views are or may be permanent thanks to urban planning.

 

[doug]

Not necessarily. Some views are or may be permanent thanks to urban planning.

Funny, whenever someone complains about losing their view, this forum responds with "it's the nature of city living, views are only temporary".

 

[BobBob]

This isn't about views and whether they are temporary in a city. This is about whether some people broke the law.

 

[doug]

This isn't about views and whether they are temporary in a city. This is about whether some people broke the law.

Yes, I know...just like when Brad Lamb broke the law, but in his case the city bent over to help him out.

 

[junctionist]

Funny, whenever someone complains about losing their view, this forum responds with "it's the nature of city living, views are only temporary".

Those people complaining often did have temporary views, like those looking towards some parking lot or car dealership in an area seeing lots of development. But some views are in fact permanent or could be through urban planning, so "views are only temporary" isn't always an appropriate response.

 

[BobBob]

Yes, I know...just like when Brad Lamb broke the law, but in his case the city bent over to help him out.

Do you now advocate for the abandonment of laws across the board?

I'm not sure which case you're referring to, but I'd be surprised if the law was indeed broken and nothing done about it.

 

[cdr108]

Do you now advocate for the abandonment of laws across the board?

I'm not sure which case you're referring to, but I'd be surprised if the law was indeed broken and nothing done about it.

was there more than once ?!?!?

i can think of one instance ... the construction of the presentation centre for Leslieville lofts @ Broadview/Queen.