Thursday, July 10th, 2008 ::: Billboard Permit Fraud

On the right is Pattison’s fascia sign at 672 Dupont Street:

There are three problems with the sign, which is on the north elevation of the building, facing Christie. Firstly, it is too high. Signs on this part of Dupont Street are limited to 10 metres from grade, and the variance granted to the sign permits it to be only 12.5 metres up. The sign is about 20 metres high. Secondly, the sign is located within 60 metres of a CBS ground sign on railway land, according to Google Earth:

The third problem is that the sign is encroaching railway land without a registered encroachment agreement. The northern property line for 672 Dupont Street is built right along the property line, according to map.toronto.ca:

In early 1999, Pattison’s Sid Catalano applied for a permit for this sign without attesting compliance with the 60 metre rule in the required “Signs - Data Sheet.” The City responded by noting that the permit could not be issued for the following reasons:

Note that the City clearly indicates that the sign encroaches and that a Signs Data sheet signifying 60 metre compliance was not submitted at this point. It also noted that the sign is on a listed historical building.

Pattison Outdoor then applied for a variance to build the sign. The only variances Pattison applied for are historical and height. Pattison originally applied for 20 metres, then brought it down to 12.5 metres, at which point the Planning Department recommended approval of the historical and height variances, which were granted by City Council.

Because the variance for 60 metre separation was never granted, Pattison Outdoor’s Sid Catalano decided to lie about 60 metre compliance instead. He submitted the false information about compliance in this Signs Data Sheet along with the permit application he made after the height and historical variances were granted:

In July 1999, after the permit was issued under the strength of Catalano’s lies, and without the required encroachment agreement, the sign was scheduled to be inspected by Inspector Kelso, who signed out this inspection card:

Building inspector Kelso then proceeded to close the file without ever inspecting the sign. Let’s look at his notes attached to this card:

The inspector’s notes indicate that on September 9, 1999, he inspected a sign which is located on the “west elevation in the parking lot” and then closed the file for Pattison’s permit. He inspected an entirely different sign (a canopy sign, in fact) in order to clear Pattison’s permit, one that has no relation whatsoever to the encroaching third-party fascia sign on the northerly elevation of the building.

What a way to clear out your inbox of uninspected permits.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again. Inspector Kelso may as well have been on the take. A sufficiently incompetent buildings department is indistinguishable from a corrupt buildings department.