interchange42 said:
[...]

Here's how to work things out: take down your illegally erected fence. I like restaurant patios, but there's nothing to work out: get lost.

42
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I believe that's what they ultimately agreed to do.

But, let's also be fair. This is probably not the restaurant's fault. They applied for a license from the city, apparently entitling them to the fence, and got it. The restaurant's lease with the owner of the commercial component of this building probably entitles them to use the space as a patio - this patio could very well have been planned and installed in good faith. I find it hard to believe a sophisticated business would lease a space, and not ensure that the patio it wants is contemplated by the lease.

For the restaurant to find out, at the beginning of patio season, that there is a fundamental problem with its outdoor patio could be pretty devastating to the business. I don't necessarily blame the restaurant for taking its time to get to the bottom of this and to give up without trying to see if there was some sort of solution (there really wasn't, but don't blame them for trying). I'm guessing they might have a cause of action against the owner, depending on the wording of the lease, but a potential legal remedy is cold comfort.

So, while in the technical sense the fence is very much an "illegally erected fence", I'm not thrilled with Keesmaat's use of the word "illegal" on Twitter as it implies the restaurant is blameworthy in all of this. The restaurant is actually the party who may, in fact, be more f*cked than anyone. The City bears a lot of the blame here - primarily for not ensuring that the database used by Municipal Licensing & Standards has some indication of spaces governed by agreements with the City. The City partly caused this problem, by issuing the patio license, and certainly had a hand in misleading the restaurant.
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
Agreed. And I believe that's what they ultimately agreed to do.

But, let's also be fair. This is probably not the restaurant's fault. They applied for a license from the city, apparently entitling them to the fence, and got it. The restaurant's lease with the owner of the commercial component of this building probably entitles them to use the space as a patio - this patio could very well have been planned and installed in good faith. I find it hard to believe a sophisticated business would lease a space, and not ensure that the patio it wants is contemplated by the lease.
Click to expand...

I haven't come across anything over a patio license so that is definitely interesting. The city screwed up royally if that's the case. No, it's not at all hard to believe someone signing a lease thinking they have rights to build a patio or whatnot without doing their due diligence with Licensing, Planning, etc.
 
Why can't the city simply apologize for their error, and the restaurant takes down the fence, and maybe reuses it at another location where they own the patio area. That way no feelings are hurt that shouldn't be.
 
From '50m' on Reddit (this morning):

TBpBFEV.jpg
 
Great that the fence is down but the site would probably be well served by leaving a couple wooden benches. As is, it's not easy for small groups of people to congregate on the site given the awkward layout of the seating.
 
@Skeezix, have you found a record of the City issuing a patio license? I cannot find a record of one on the City's website, where, AFAIK, it would have to appear had it been made, as any patio on a City sidewalk has to be approved by Council…

…except that it's not a City sidewalk. It's the condo—or at least the retail portion of the condo—that owns that area.

My take is that La Carnita asked the landowner if they could put up a fence and throw some tables in there, and they said yes. The problem is, the landowner has already got a binding legal agreement with the City that states that area is to be a Publicly accessible Privately Owned Space, or POPS: no fences!

So, would the City owe La Carnita an apology? No: the landowner was either clueless or acted in bad faith, counter to their agreement with the City. Have La Carnita asked for an apology from the City? No.

42
 
interchange42 said:
@Skeezix, have you found a record of the City issuing a patio license? I cannot find a record of one on the City's website, where, AFAIK, it would have to appear had it been made, as any patio on a City sidewalk has to be approved by Council…

…except that it's not a City sidewalk. It's the condo—or at least the retail portion of the condo—that owns that area.

My take is that La Carnita asked the landowner if they could put up a fence and throw some tables in there, and they said yes. The problem is, the landowner has already got a binding legal agreement with the City that states that area is to be a Publicly accessible Privately Owned Space, or POPS: no fences!

So, would the City owe La Carnita an apology? No: the landowner was either clueless or acted in bad faith, counter to their agreement with the City. Have La Carnita asked for an apology from the City? No.

42
Click to expand...

I haven't researched the topic, no, or tracked all of their approvals. I'm just going by the media coverage, particular yesterday's Star article where the City acknowledged that it issued a license for the patio.

Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt that La Carnita leased the space without the agreement of the landlord of whether they could do a patio or not. Who leases expensive space like that without a firm understanding with the landlord as to whether or not there is a patio? I doubt it was as informal as asking one day if they could throw up a fence and put out a few chairs and tables.

I never said that the City owed the restaurant an apology. What I did say was that I wished City officials like Keesmaat would stop implying that the restaurant was blameworthy here, given that La Carnita seems to have acted in good faith, but the City helped create the problem by (a) one arm of the city not talking to the other arm, and (b) securing POPS that are not necessarily evident unless one does a title search or combs through Council Minutes (neither of which restaurateurs tend to do when leasing space and applying for municipal licenses). In fact, the City's new POPS initiative is a reaction to the fact that the City has done a piss poor job in the past of identifying, promoting, securing, monitoring and policing the POPS it does achieve. More work remains to be done, obviously.

But I agree that the landlord was likely a large part of the problem here too, and as I said above, depending on who-said-what and what the lease says, La Carnita might have a cause of action against the landlord. The landlord was the party here best placed to have acted to avoid this whole mess.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like municipal licensing and standards issued the permit for the patio, without going through planning. (Keesmat has said La Carnita had NO permission from Planning to build the patio)

Im thinking this is just a case of red tape and bureaucracy making the process too confusing. Typically, you would go through MLS for approval. How was the business supposed to know that they also had to go through planning, especially when MLS gave them the go ahead?
 
Agreed (with both @Tuscani01 and @innsertnamehere). Yeah, the issue is that the City hasn't yet figured out how to ensure all staff are using a database which identifies important issues, such as the presence of a POPS.

And no, a restaurateur would not typically have to go through Planning to get a license. Kind of crappy for Keesmaat to have said that La Carnita did not get approval from her Planning department (I hadn't heard that she'd said that). La Carnita also didn't go through Animal Services or the Water Treatment & Solid Waste Facilities department, as long as we are ridiculously naming departments that La Carnita did not first consult.

Part of the City's new POPS initiative is to secure signage which advises everyone (including passers-by, residents and businesses) that the space is to be publicly-accessible. That, in and of itself, will be a significant improvement (at least for newer developments subject to this requirement).
 
innsertnamehere said:
It falls on MLS then, it's their job to look for these sorts of things and to realize that the area is not a public sidewalk.
Click to expand...

I don't blame them though. Departments tend to operate in silos. They've dealt with countless applications and have a system in place that they follow. This is likely the first time they have encountered this problem, and they had no way of knowing it was even going to be a problem.

The good news is it is now clarified, and their processes are likely being re-worked to ensure that this never happens again.
 
Skeezix said:
Kind of crappy for Keesmaat to have said that La Carnita did not get approval from her Planning department (I hadn't heard that she'd said that). La Carnita also didn't go through Animal Services or the Water Treatment & Solid Waste Facilities department, as long as we are ridiculously naming departments that La Carnita did not first consult.
Click to expand...

She spoke to Global News about it a few nights ago, which is where I heard her say that. MLS does circulate applications around through various departments and to BIA's before rubber stamping them, so the comment isn't that far off. It sounds like there is potential to set up a patio in a POPS, but the application would need to be circulated and approved through planning. MLS likely wasn't aware of that, as they have never encountered an application for a patio in a POPS, nor would they have known it was a POPS.

You are right... until all departments are working off the same info/database, issues like this are inevitable.
 
Skeezix said:
And no, a restaurateur would not typically have to go through Planning to get a license. Kind of crappy for Keesmaat to have said that La Carnita did not get approval from her Planning department (I hadn't heard that she'd said that). La Carnita also didn't go through Animal Services or the Water Treatment & Solid Waste Facilities department, as long as we are ridiculously naming departments that La Carnita did not first consult.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that. I thought it strange that Keesmaat would say such a thing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top