Sexy Friends Toronto

Toronto couple built an addition to house without permits told to tear it down.

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,068
3,999
113
Daniel Dale
Urban Affairs Reporter

64 Comments

After a six-year battle that included appeals to the courts, the Ontario Municipal Board and even the United Nations, an elderly Brunswick Ave. couple will probably now be forced to demolish a two-storey backyard addition built without a permit.

A committee-of-adjustment panel voted Wednesday to reject the couple’s last-ditch plea to retroactively legalize the $80,000 structure. It was unswayed by renowned lawyer Clayton Ruby, who argued that dismissing the request would amount to discrimination against the disabled — and noted that other members of 70-year-old Yang Tseng’s family have committed suicide.

“No justice,” Shih Tseng, her 76-year-old husband, said in an interview after the decision. “My lawyer mentioned my wife’s family had suicide history. They don’t care. They don’t care. They totally disregard our health.”

Councillor Adam Vaughan, who opposed the addition along with a group of local residents, said Ruby’s human rights arguments were irrelevant to the question at hand.

“This is not a human rights issue. It’s a planning issue. The addition was too big, and it was built without permission,” Vaughan said in an interview.

“It’s unfortunate. But the lesson here is a very clear one: Do not build without permission, because there are consequences. And the consequences become very expensive if you choose to fight rather than cooperate.”

Rory “Gus” Sinclair, a former Harbord Village Residents’ Association president who spoke against the proposal, said the Tsengs are now supposed to have 30 days to demolish the addition. A city spokesperson was not able to confirm.

The property is owned by the couple’s daughter, lawyer Pauline Tseng, who was heavily involved in the legal battle. As of last spring, when the Star first wrote about the case, the family had spent more than $200,000 on lawyers and other professionals in an attempt to save the addition.

The Tsengs’ two other children bought them the home near Kensington Market for $718,000 in 2006. They soon tore down the existing addition, a rotting wooden structure, and hired a contractor to build a new brick addition of about half a metre longer.

They did not get a permit. And their addition extended about 10 metres farther than allowed under today’s rules.

“At that time, we don’t know permits. When we found out, we tried,” Shih Tseng said.

Ruby cited a psychiatrist’s belief that Yang Tseng’s “significant psychiatric disorder” is directly attributable to the battle over her home and that demolishing the addition would cause an “adverse and serious impact” on her health.

Both Yang Tseng and Shih Tseng have been diagnosed with depression. Shih Tseng said he has heart problems and has had two strokes; Yang Tseng suffers from osteoporosis, anxiety, sleep apnea, and a Parkinson’s-like brain disorder that causes balance problems.

The Tsengs live on the bottom floor of the addition and the original house, Shih Tseng said. Because of his wife’s difficulties sleeping and walking up and down stairs, they could not live in the original house itself, he said.

Link to rest:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...legal-80-000-addition-likely-to-be-demolished
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,068
3,999
113
I guess they thought that they didn't have to play by the rules. Didn't want to pay the fees, or go through the necessary steps. Typical.

Now it's going to be "break out the bull dozers"

What's amazing is that their daughter is a lawyer and SHE is actually the one who owns the house. What was the daughter thinking?

I don't know the particulars of this as it's hard to tell from the the article, but it would appear from the photo that there is a large brick cube stuck on the back of the house. This would have far exceeded the maximum allowable lot coverage. Probably other zoning issues as well. And not to mention, no building permit, no inspections, etc. Since I can't see the exact details, it's difficult to say whether or not the addition is "excessive" or not. But if the whole back yard is taken up with addition, then yes, it's excessive.

Thing is, the entire saga could have been avoided had they simply gone to the committee of adjustment and gotten a variance.

Obviously, their neighbours called this one in.

In the end, I have to say I agree with the city, though I can't say whether it should be torn down or not. At the very least, a very expensive fine would be in order (assuming they didn't pave the entire back yard.)
 

fuji's mom

New member
Jul 14, 2011
102
0
0
I guess they thought that they didn't have to play by the rules. Didn't want to pay the fees, or go through the necessary steps. Typical.

Now it's going to be "break out the bull dozers"

What's amazing is that their daughter is a lawyer and SHE is actually the one who owns the house. What was the daughter thinking?

I don't know the particulars of this as it's hard to tell from the the article, but it would appear from the photo that there is a large brick cube stuck on the back of the house. This would have far exceeded the maximum allowable lot coverage. Probably other zoning issues as well. And not to mention, no building permit, no inspections, etc. Since I can't see the exact details, it's difficult to say whether or not the addition is "excessive" or not. But if the whole back yard is taken up with addition, then yes, it's excessive.

Thing is, the entire saga could have been avoided had they simply gone to the committee of adjustment and gotten a variance.

Obviously, their neighbours called this one in.

In the end, I have to say I agree with the city, though I can't say whether it should be torn down or not. At the very least, a very expensive fine would be in order (assuming they didn't pave the entire back yard.)
according to the article you posted it was half a meter longer than the original. they should have got a permit, but to tear it down over half a meter seems excessive
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,068
3,999
113
according to the article you posted it was half a meter longer than the original. they should have got a permit, but to tear it down over half a meter seems excessive


It's hard to say.

A half metre longer, yeah, but was is the width comparison?

How bout number of stories?

What the city considers is lot coverage ratio. You calculate the square footage of your lot, then add up the gross floor areas of first, second, third floors.

In that part of town, it's probably allowed to be 0.60 or 0.65 without a variance in place.

It could be only a half metre longer, but it may be 4 metres wider and 2 stories instead of the original 1 storie. Again, impossible to tell from the article.

There must be neighbours protesting. If your neighbours were on your side, they would simply have handed them a fine.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
28,733
6,512
113
I fucking hate Adam Vaughan
 

Buick Mackane

Active member
Mar 1, 2012
5,448
5
38
The land is the most valuable part.
Now they have an excuse to tear the entire building down without approval and stick in a 6 story building legally with a variance, then it's worth a couple million.

Then Adam Vaughn will have a reason to be pissed.
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,773
0
0
If they had followed proper procedures, would they have received approval? If yes, then why won't the authorities grant post approval?
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
28,733
6,512
113
Here's a pic of their house. I'm assuming the addition the newer part on the right??

 

Plan B

Race Relations Expert
Jun 7, 2008
1,055
5
38
Goes to show that you never really "own" your property. With these policies and the addition of property taxes, you are always "renting" from the government
 

Terminator2000

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
3,444
134
63
Goes to show that you never really "own" your property. With these policies and the addition of property taxes, you are always "renting" from the government
+1

you should be able to do whatever the f you want with your property.
 

ducttape

New member
Apr 21, 2005
568
0
0
according to the article you posted it was half a meter longer than the original. they should have got a permit, but to tear it down over half a meter seems excessive

"And their addition extended about 10 metres farther than allowed under today’s rules."
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
28,733
6,512
113
I have no problem that they broke the (by)law and they should be punished. But tearing the thing down just seems like the worst solution. Let them pay a large fine, that means more money in the City coffers too
 

fuji's mom

New member
Jul 14, 2011
102
0
0
The family argues the addition is only 45 centimetres — a mere foot and a half — deeper than the footprint of the clapboard structure they tore down. And there are other houses on the street that go back farther on the lot than theirs.

The city says what the Tsengs constructed, without any building or electrical permits, “leaves little open space, blocks sunlight and views from adjacent properties.”

The Tsengs point to committee of adjustment documents that show houses nearby on Brunswick received minor variances — one for an addition and another for a staircase — that brought their overall depth to twice what is allowed under current bylaws. Both of those houses are deeper than the addition the Tseng family built.

The attached neighbour to the north of the couple has no objection, neither does the neighbour to the south, the owner of an 11-unit rooming house that received committee of adjustment approval in 1980 to pave over the backyard to allow for six-car parking.
 

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,167
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
This house addition is not a handyman project. There would have been a builder involved that would know about permits and dealing with the city. The Star goes on and on about health concerns, but does nothing to find the truth.

Think the home owners decided to just do the project, and hope for the best. They gambled and lost.
 

Hurricane Hank

Active member
May 21, 2008
5,176
2
36
See how smart the neihbour was? Applied to pave his backyard for parking, and it was granted.

BTW, remind me to never use their daughter if I need a lawyer. What a dope.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,479
12
38
I have no problem that they broke the (by)law and they should be punished. But tearing the thing down just seems like the worst solution. Let them pay a large fine, that means more money in the City coffers too
Planning and zoning rules are already altered and varied to suit cases all the time. There's a whole Committee for accomplishing just that.

Everyone thinks their case is special, and everyone is right, to a degree. Figuring out where that degree best falls for everyone is all part of living in the city together. If the consequences of ignoring that process and building what you want are just to pay a fine, then all we would have accomplished is to run the cost of construction higher. But we would have given away what small chance we have together to try to keep our neighbourhoods growing and developing in a way we all like and want.

It's hard lines on the couple, but as others have noted, it's impossible to imagine how many people from their builder to the guy across the fence must have told them, "You need to do this the right way. There's a process and permits, and if you ignore them it will cost you big time."

If the neighbours on the street petitioned saying they like it, or even, they can live with it, I might go with the fine. Letting it stand offends against their right to have only buildings that meet that laws change their street. Only they should be able to grant a stay of demolition.
 

ducttape

New member
Apr 21, 2005
568
0
0
The family argues the addition is only 45 centimetres — a mere foot and a half — deeper than the footprint of the clapboard structure they tore down. And there are other houses on the street that go back farther on the lot than theirs.

The city says what the Tsengs constructed, without any building or electrical permits, “leaves little open space, blocks sunlight and views from adjacent properties.”

The Tsengs point to committee of adjustment documents that show houses nearby on Brunswick received minor variances — one for an addition and another for a staircase — that brought their overall depth to twice what is allowed under current bylaws. Both of those houses are deeper than the addition the Tseng family built.

The attached neighbour to the north of the couple has no objection, neither does the neighbour to the south, the owner of an 11-unit rooming house that received committee of adjustment approval in 1980 to pave over the backyard to allow for six-car parking.

- it sounds like you (and the Tsengs, apparently) are assuming that the original clapboard structure would have been allowed by current bylaws had it been newly built. Are you willing to consider that the zoning bylaws may have changed since the original addition was built?

- seems like everybody else in the neighbourhood went through proper channels. As well, the article doesn't indicate when the minor variances were approved for the neighbours additions and staircases. Maybe they were approved over 30 years ago, like the backyard parking lot, and might not have been approved if they were submitted today.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts