Billboard Permit Fraud: 30 Widmer
This is Pattison’s ground sign at 30 Widmer, a former Petrofina gas station that is currently being used as an illegal parking lot:
And from the Adelaide frontage:
We have obtained the permit for this sign and discovered that Pattison Outdoor filed false information with the Buildings Department in order to obtain the permit in 1995. For twelve years this permit has gone un-inspected despite requirements in the Building Code Act and City policy to inspect permits within 6 months. After the permit was issued, it was microfilmed and never inspected.
On July 13, 1995 Sid Catalano of Pattison Outdoor obtained this permit to erect a single-faced 12′x16′ ground sign at 30 Widmer:
In order to obtain the permit, Sid Catalano, Pattison Outdoor’s Director of Legislation (a man who just one year earlier was the City of Toronto’s signs planner) lied on page two of this document where Catalano attested that the ground sign was not located within 60M of a third party fascia sign:
The sign at 30 Widmer is in fact located within 60 Metres of the Pattison fascia sign on the westerly elevation 326 Adelaide which we wrote about here when we noted that it was erected too high:
The permit for a (non-encroaching) fascia sign at 326 Adelaide was issued one month before the permit for the ground sign at 30 Widmer:
A keen observer will note that Pattison’s sign at 30 Widmer is double-side while the permit is single-sided. Note too that Pattison’s ground sign is non-conforming because ground signs are no longer permitted in so-called re-investment zones but the fascia sign is conforming. So what’s Pattison to do? It can choose to give up its ground sign and keep the fascia sign at a lower height; or it can keep the ground sign, remove the illegal extra face, and give up the fascia sign. The one, legal face of the ground sign has lower visibility than the fascia. Because the ground sign is non-conforming, it can’t be re-oriented to face Adelaide traffic flow. Also, being on a vacant lot, it is subject to a much higher rate of attrition than the fascia sign. Another factor that Pattison may consider: the fascia sign may very well have an encroachment problem we don’t know about.
