Planning Fraud: Why the 48 Pattison Pillar Permits Should be Revoked
Welcome back to Billboard Permit Fraud, where we show you how advertising companies have been obtaining permits for signs by filing false information with the City. Today, we take a look at the biggest case of fraud we know of: the Pattison Pillars.
Pattison obtained permits for 48 of these signs, and installed about 37 without permits. The 37 unpermitted signs have all be ordered removed. Buildings officials have already agreed that 12 of the 48 permits should be revoked for improprieties unrelated to planning fraud. This post explains why we believe the remaining 36 permits for these Jerry Kramer-designed, brightly illuminated monsters should be revoked.
Short-Cutting the Planning Process
The manner in which these 48 signs obtained permits is already of some controversy. In this case, the planning process for signs, was short-cutted and it is against this short-cutted process that we are alleging Pattison committed fraud.
In the normal course of events, a variance application for a billboard proceeds after the Planning Department conducts a study of the proposed sign and then provides its recommendation to City Councillors.
In this case, that process was by-passed. Pattison told Councillors that their new signs were of the “same width and height†as the old signs and would be installed on the “same footprintâ€. Thinking the signs were very much the same as the existing signs, but newer, when in fact they are about 20% wider than the originals, and after being offering thousands of dollars in community benefits for their wards, Councillors Rae and Chow agreed to order staff not to conduct a planning study for the signs. We believe that these Councillors honestly believe Pattison when Pattison told them the new signs were the same height and width as the old signs. Unfortunately, the Councillors were lied to.
The Motion at Community Council
In order to bring the pillars to City Council without conducting a public hearing or a planning study, Councillor Chow had an off the adgenda motion passed at Toronto East York Community Council that stated the following:
The motion then proceeded to direct the Planning Department to issue a report to City Council recommending signs which have the “same height and width” and the existing signs.
Pattison Files False Information with the Planning Department
Pattison now had a problem. See, TEY CC’s motion was to install new signs that were the same size as the old signs but Pattison’s new signs were 20% larger. If the Planning Department followed TEY CC’s direction, it could not recommend the new signs since the new signs were 20% larger. [The new signs are wider than the originals to make room for the illumination at the corners.] To get around this problem, Pattison filed false information with Planning and lied about the size of the signs. The false information was filed in this letter to Planner Gary Wright dated July 12, 2005. Here it is:
Then, the diagram of the old sign that Pattison submitted to the Planning Department was not fully dimensioned, in that the diagram did not show the overall width of the sign, but only the width of the poster.
Here is a fully dimensioned diagram of the old Daytek signs, which shows they are 4 feet and 6 13/16 inches wide, and here is a fully dimensioned diagram of the new Kramer signs which shows they are 5 feet, 8 inches wide.
The new signs simply do not have the “same overall dimensions†as the existing signs. In addition, because the new signs are 20% larger, in many cases they couldn’t be installed in the “same footrpint” as the old signs. Check out these photos which show how Pattison had to move the footprint of the new signs because they wouldn’t fit in the old location.
We believe that the Planning Department was fooled into thinking Pattison’s new signs conformed to TEY CC’s motion because of the false information Pattison filed with respect to their size. Planning therefore failed to follow TEY CC’s direction because it relied on Pattison’s lies.
Permit Revocation and the Building Code Act
Section 10 (a) of the Building Code Act states that the Chief Building Official may revoke a permit “if it was issued on mistaken, false or incorrect information.†The Chief Building Official has already more or less agreed to revoke permits for 12 of the 48 signs for other improprieties. City Council does not have the authority to revoke or issue building permits. This issue will be decided by the CBO and his lawyers.
Nevertheless, this morning we mailed a letter to Councillors Rae, Vaughan, McConnell and Deputy Mayor Pantalone asking for their support to work with Staff in getting these permits revoked.
When the permits are revoked, a few as-of-right locations will develop for third party fascia signs in CR zones that are within 60M of the pillars.
In addition, when the permits are revoked, the pre-existing signs that were replaced cannot be re-installed without a new City Council-approved variance. All signage rights have therefore been lost at these locations. In addition, signage rights have been lost at the 37 locations where unpermitted pillars were installed in place of legal pre-existing signs. Pattison has been very foolish and over-confident.
There are numerous other improprieties in this file. We will have more on this issue later.
This article originally stated that Councillor Rae accepted community benefits for his ward. This is not so. No community benefits made their way to his ward. We regret the error.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I totally forgot that these things were “designed” by Kramer, whose street furniture creations are the favourites to win the RFP. Perhaps I just repressed that knowledge in order to avoid crying myself to sleep.
Funny thing is, we don’t see Kramer taking credit for the pillars on his web site. But we have seen his name on the all the drawings. Maybe that’s because of Answer 58 on page 18 of this document wherein “Street Furniture” staff slam Kramer’s design as “unnecessary light pollution,” the only negative sentiment about Kramer to ever come out of the City. I suspect that answer was written by Urban Design, because, in an earlier Staff Report, “Street Furniture” staff thought the pillars were cool (page 27, paragraph 3, of this document) - of course that was before Pattison turned on the lights -Rami
March 15th, 2007 at 8:25 am
These pillars’ sins don’t stop at fraudulent placement and God-awful ugliness, either — they’re confusing, with more than one ad per face. The photo above isn’t too clear, but you can still sort of see what I’m talking about: there are smaller banners above the main posters, as though Virgin’s number 6 is somehow brought to us by beer. It’s actually more confusing in daylight, when you can see the body of the pillar as well as the ads, because there’s more of a visual connection between the banner and the poster.
In the Beer Store parking lot at Gerrard and Logan, for example, there’s big ol’ ad pillar. Oriented toward the street, a “The Beer Store” banner sits over a large poster showing an unconscious person sprawled on a grocery store floor. The first time I saw this thing, I honestly thought that it was meant as a warning not to get drunk in public.
It’s actually trying to tell us about cystic fibrosis, but just imagine a big bold “The Beer Store” headline above this image: http://www.cysticfibrosis.ca/pdf/CCFF_Mag_E_Girl.pdf
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
What are the ramifications for these companies that violate city laws. I’ve been reading a lot of these cases and it seems that although the city issues a notice of violations, these companies don’t comply. I’m sure if the fine was stiff enough, this wouldn’t keep happening. I’m sure there is no fine for that matter, just pay off the councilors. The surprising thing to me was Astal operating a sign that was told to come down for 12 more years, how can we let this happen. If i get a speeding ticket and don’t pay they revoke my licence. These guys are not following the city’s laws and yet nothing? This is truly a mystery, lets fine these guys so that they don’t do it again.