Permit Fraud: 544 King Street West
In today’s edition of Billboard Permit Fraud we take a look at Strategic Media‘s illegal permit for a vinyl fascia sign at 544 King Street West.
This is a very interesting case, because the Buildings Department not only issued a permit for a sign contrary to the by-law, it issued a permit for a sign that encroaches onto the abutting property. And it did this while having all the documents before it which clearly showed that the sign was both encroaching and in non-compliance with the by-law. This is a bit of a complicated file, but it’s pretty typical.
This is what the sign looks like:
As you can see from the photo, the fascia sign on the easterly elevation of 544 King West (advertising two magazines) is within about nineteen metres of a CBS roof sign at Zoe’s Bakery, which is a legal sign that was granted this permit at a time when this stretch of King Street was zoned industrial and such signs were allowed.
So how did Daniel Pitoscia of Strategic Media obtain Permit 06-134601 for the fascia sign when the by-law prohibits third party fascia signs from being within 60 metres of third party roof signs? Here’s what Pitoscia did. First he applied for a non-illuminated mural permit:
Notice that the word mural is crossed out and replaced with “fascia.” As readers of this blog are aware, a fascia sign needs to comply with 60M separation requirements from a third party roof sign, but a non-illuminated mural does not. Pitoscia then submitted this “Signs Data Sheet” in which he attested that a non-illuminated mural sign complies with 60M separation requirements, which it does.
Then, when Pitoscia amended the application to allow a vinyl fascia sign, the zoning examiner did not require Pitoscia to re-submit another “Signs Data Sheet.” Not only that, but the photograph that Pitoscia submitted with his application, actually showed the CBS roof sign in the background:
That’s a black and white photocopy of a colour photograph in which you can clearly see the CBS roof sign. You can even see the “Viacom” nameplate in the colour photo.
But that’s not all. The wall upon which the sign is erected is basically a party wall. In fact, according to city’s online property line utility, 544 King Street’s wall is actually located on 540 King Street’s property. In any case, based only on the “survey” that Pitoscia submitted, the zoning examiner determined that the distance between the wall and the abutting property line was 2 centimetres. Pitoscia had to submit an application for a sign that did not project from the wall by more than 2 centimetres. Problem is, all vinyl sign structures used by the industry, such as a typical flat bar system, project by at least half an inch. So Pitsocia submitted a plan for a sign affixed to the wall with “adhesive”. According to this document, the zoning examiner noted that an adhesive sign would not encroach by more than 2 centimeters:
Because the sign would not encroach, Pitoscia didn’t have to enter into an encroachment agreement with 540King Street, an agreement which would have killed his profit.
It gets worse. After the zoning examiner cleared the application through the zoning process, it had to pass Building Code compliance. That job fell to Herman Chiu. Chiu was concerned that the adhesive would not hold a sign of that size. So he issued this Building Code Notice:
In response to this notice, Pitsocia submitted specifications for a typical flat bar system, a structure which would encroach onto the abutting property:
As you can see from the stamp on the diagram, the the zoning examiner approved the flat bar system despite the fact that the structure projects more than 2 centimeters from the wall. In fact, the projection appears to be about an inch as the diagram is to scale.
Conclusion: the zoning examiner issued a permit for a sign that did not comply with 60M separation requirements while she had before her documents which prove that the sign does not comply; the zoning examiner also issued a permit for a sign that encroaches upon 540 King Street West without a registered encroachment agreement while she had before her documents which prove that the sign encroaches. Buildings is currently in the process of revoking this illegal permit.
This stuff is happening all over town folks. We believe that Buildings has issued at least 200 illegal permits for billboards and in tens of those cases Buildings has infringed upon the property rights of abutters. These are not elaborate frauds. Zoning examiners and building inspectors have been asleep at the switch for years.
As for Daniel Pitoscia. Well, when Daniel Pitoscia is not obtaining illegal permits for billboards, he is selling used cars on his web site ReLeaseMe.ca.
