Tuesday, August 19th, 2008 ::: Encroachment

Last week, we told you how Jorg Cieslok’s Titan Outdoor obtained a variance to the signs by-law to legalize his illegal third-party fascia sign at 590 College Street only to have the building permit rejected because Jorg couldn’t obtain an encroachment agreement from the abutting property owner.

That happened in the spring of 2008.

We have discovered that Mr. Cieslok committed the exact same screw-up in the fall of 1994.

The screw-up concerns this fascia sign on the southerly elevation of 331 Adelaide Street West:

The sign is now invisible due to construction of the abutting property. Cieslok built this sign without any permits in early 1994, then made an application to vary the 1992 signs by-law to legalize his illegal sign. The Planning Department’s staff report [PDF], which was written by Pattison Outdoor’s future Director of Legislation, recommended approval of Cieslok’s application to “maintain” his illegal sign:

Former Toronto City Council adopted the staff report’s recommendations and granted the variance. Then, Cieslok applied for a permit. On the permit application, Danny Starnino wrote: “Erect non-encroaching fascia sign 19′ x 25′.” Note the stamp “PERMIT REFUSED FILE CLOSED:”

But Buildings Department had a different opinion on “non-encroaching.” On December 4, 1994, zoning examiner Michael Swan sent this notice to Mr. Starnino, noting that: The proposed sign will encroach onto the adjoining neighbours property. Please provide this Department with a letter from the adjacent owner identifying his/her acknowledgment and approval of the encroachment of the sign and its lighting:

Eleven months later, the file was closed after Starnino failed to obtain the encroachment agreement.

Building Inspector David Port inspected the sign and closed his file after the permit application was rejected. His notes illustrate that he was aware that the permit application was rejected:

The inspector writes in his notes on November 18, 1994: “Sign erected on South elevation.” On December 21, 1994, he shows that he is aware that the sign requires an encroachment agreement. On November 30, 1995, he notes: “Received notice that permit application was lapsed on 95/11/27. Spoke to Danny Starnino.” On June 24, 1996, he writes “No start - application lapsed,” although his previous notes illustrate that work  started on November 11, 1994. He then closes the file. Thus, the local building inspector was aware of all the facts surrounding the legality of this sign.

Despite Cieslok’s inability to obtain a permit for this sign, and despite the Buildings Department knowing full well that the sign encroached the abutter, and despite the local inspector having full knowledge of all these facts, the illegal fascia sign was operated more or less continuously on this wall from 1994 to 2008 when a hotel was built on the abutting property, blocking the sign. Actually the entire, massive, encroaching sign (a Pattison, now) is still there, you just can’t see it anymore. The local building inspector that inspected the hotel during its recent construction didn’t seem to have a problem with that.

So why didn’t Cieslok obtain the encroachment agreement before he obtained the variance? Because Cieslok knows full well that the Buildings Department routinely issues permits for encroaching signs without an encroachment agreement. He didn’t want to alert the abutter until he absolutely had to.