Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 ::: Contempt of City Council

Welcome back to Contempt of City Council, where we show how advertising companies continue to operate illegal billboards after City Council rejects the variance for these signs. Today we look at 99 Spadina Ave and we also take a look at how Municipal Licensing and Standards botched their investigation of this illegal billboard and determined that it is legal.

In its November 2002 meeting, City Council rejected the variance for this Pattison Outdoor billboard on the northerly elevation of 99 Spadina Ave:

The Staff Report from the planning department notes that the sign requires four variances: Height, Size, Facing a Street and Separation of Signs.

Here is what the bad boy looks like:

Maxximum Outdoor applied for the variance. Pattison is now operating the sign.

The botched MLS investigation

After Pattison sub-leased this spot from Maxximum in 2003, Pattison’s Sid Catalano applied for a Preliminary Plan Review, 03-143401, which is a precursor to a permit application. A PPR is designed to identify possible variances before applicants proceed with a full application. This PPR was an application to paint a third party mural lower than the 4th floor of the building. Mr. Catalano knew that a third party mural at this location would not comply with the signs by-law because it faces a street, Oxley Street. However, the Buildings Department often makes errors and issues permit for third party signs facing streets and MLS officers often do not know what a Preliminary Plan Review is. Mr. Catalano’s PPR application was designed to game the system. In this case, the zoning examiner, Dwayne Tapp, got it right, identified the facing a street variance, and issued a rejection for PPR 03-143401:

On December 30, 2005 Municipal Standards Officer Anthony Bartolo attended 99 Spadina Ave and took this photo of Pattison’s illegal, un-nameplated sign on the north wall.

The file was passed to Officer Danny Baird. On April 26, 2006, Officer Danny Baird checked the IBMS System and determined the sign was legal by relying on Mr. Catalano’s Preliminary Plan Review application 03-143401, the one for a painted mural sign located lower than the 4th floor, the one Dwayne Tapp rejected due to the Facing a Street variance:

In Stupidity Up High. Audit: 341 Bloor Street West we saw that Officer Baird does not know the difference between a permit and a revoked permit; in Audit: 335 King Street West we saw that Officer Baird does not know the difference between a mural permit and a fascia permit; in Audit: CBS Roof Sign, 533 Manning Avenue, At Harbord we saw that Officer Baird does not know the difference between a permit for a double-sided roof sign and a permit for a single-sided roof sign; now we see that Officer Baird does not know the difference between a sign permit and a preliminary plan review. Nice work, Mr. Catalano.

At one point, in the summer of 2006, before IllegalSigns.ca started, Officer Baird refused to work on any of our sign complaints because we complained about his misunderstanding of the signs by-law to his manager, Joe Magalhaes. “You went over his head,” said one of Officer Baird’s colleagues, “so he stopped doing your complaints. Officers don’t like being told how to do their job.” Well fuck me running because somebody’s got to do it.

Read Seattle’s street furniture is so silly in Spacing Wire.