Skeezix
Senior Member
Interesting. Fair of the neighbour's daughter to complain - the "treehouse" blocks light to her backyard (a reason we have zoning rules in the first place), and all they see from their backyard is the ugly wood-panelled rear face. Alpeza appears to have constructed this with little regard for his neighbours.
To be fair to Alpeza, he was told he didn't need a permit. But he was later told in 2014 that he needed a variance, and has done nothing about it. What's more, he now claims to have submitted plans and thought something was ongoing. In his column, Keenan appears to give Alpeza the benefit of the doubt ("It seems possible — likely even — that there has been some miscommunication or misunderstanding here about the process"), but I think Alpeza is being less than honest here. He applied several years ago for variances to add another storey to his house (he won at the CofA, but lost on appeal at the OMB). He knows the CofA process. For him to now say that he submitted drawings and applications "to apply for something" in 2014, and thought he'd made an application, just doesn't seem credible, at least not based on what is in that column.
To be fair to Alpeza, he was told he didn't need a permit. But he was later told in 2014 that he needed a variance, and has done nothing about it. What's more, he now claims to have submitted plans and thought something was ongoing. In his column, Keenan appears to give Alpeza the benefit of the doubt ("It seems possible — likely even — that there has been some miscommunication or misunderstanding here about the process"), but I think Alpeza is being less than honest here. He applied several years ago for variances to add another storey to his house (he won at the CofA, but lost on appeal at the OMB). He knows the CofA process. For him to now say that he submitted drawings and applications "to apply for something" in 2014, and thought he'd made an application, just doesn't seem credible, at least not based on what is in that column.
Last edited: