News   Jun 14, 2024
Dual High-Rises and Production Studio Space Proposed in the Port Lands
 2K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Exchange District Condos' Four Towers Progressing by Square One
 1.5K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
News Roundup for June 14, 2024
 787     0 

Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

That treehouse is fairly massive though. That said, as long as additional building structures don't contravene zoning by-laws and they have the required permits, then I'm fine with it. In this case, however, it appears that the treehouse is violating a city by-law in terms of its height. Apparently, permit applications were also submitted but rejected, yet the father, who is a licensed contractor, built the treehouse anyway. While I'm not abhorring the individual's commitment and desire to build a treehouse for his kids, I think all the facts need to be reviewed as well.

pjt-treehouse-6.jpg
 
James said:
That treehouse is fairly massive though. That said, as long as additional building structures don't contravene zoning by-laws and they have the required permits, then I'm fine with it. In this case, however, it appears that the treehouse is violating a city by-law in terms of its height. Apparently, permit applications were also submitted but rejected, yet the father, who is a licensed contractor, built the treehouse anyway. While I'm not abhorring the individual's commitment and desire to build a treehouse for his kids, I think all the facts need to be reviewed as well.
Click to expand...

Thank you, James. I'm a little annoyed at some of the media coverage of this, which unfairly portrays this as David vs. Goliath, Dad vs. Bureaucrats, Fun vs. Rules, etc.

Unless one believes that people should be able to build whatever they want in their backyards (would everyone be so charmed if Dad had built a similar structure for him and his buddies to drink beer and to peer into everyone's backyards?), this is not a case of ridiculous NIMBYism.
 
Exactly - he was rejected by the city, and yet he went ahead anyways. I don't think there should be any special accommodation for that kind of behaviour. In fact, choosing to spend 30K on something you weren't approved for is foolish and calls into question one's sense of judgement.

AoD
 
Skeezix said:
Thank you, James. I'm a little annoyed at some of the media coverage of this, which unfairly portrays this as David vs. Goliath, Dad vs. Bureaucrats, Fun vs. Rules, etc.
Click to expand...
This picture shows the other side of it. I can see being upset by living next to that monstrosity. Most of the media coverage seems to be carefully not showing that.
https://twitter.com/TorontoStar/status/722945445744549888

Apparently his kids don't have much imagination if they can't play pirate ship without an actual ship.
 
Soop said:
Apparently his kids don't have much imagination if they can't play pirate ship without an actual ship.
Click to expand...

Indeed. No ipad for you, but here, a 30K SUV treehouse *snicker*. Anyways, perhaps we can have a more Solomonic solution - the treehouse cannot stay in the current position, but it can go to a nearby park (let's forget the OH&S for a second).

AoD
 
Armour said:
That's a pretty sweet tree house. It should be a heritage property.

There's an easy solution for the father. He should say that it's a tree house for transexuals. The complaint will then be labeled a hate crime and a judge will order for its continuance.
Click to expand...
good one and so true
 
Treehouse guy's a whiny moron with no excuses - a licensed contractor who gets his plans turned down yet builds a 30K treehouse anyway? He's responsible for ruining his kids' fun, not the neighbour/city.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Exactly - he was rejected by the city, and yet he went ahead anyways. I don't think there should be any special accommodation for that kind of behaviour. In fact, choosing to spend 30K on something you weren't approved for is foolish and calls into question one's sense of judgement.

AoD
Click to expand...
well I would take the city more serious if not for the fact there has been cases that have made the news of people who went ahead and built massive homes without proper approvals as I am sure they knew they were building beyond by-laws and would be turned down, yet went ahead and built the homes. One was in North York in Shelly Carroll's ward. it looked like they were building 2 houses in one with 2 families but making it seem it was a single detached house. The city threatened homeowners (look I'm scared) to take down structure yet it has never happened. People hear this and feel that can go ahead and do the same. At least with a tree house, if house is sold those people would go ahead and tear down. It does not look like a large house so I assume house would be a knocked down along with tree and a larger house would be built. I can only imagine all the times people go to committee of adjustments, are turned down for various issues such as side yard setbacks, backyard setbacks, higher height restrictions yet build it anyways. They know there are not enough inspectors in the city to go around and take a chance especially because they know once its built city won't do anything about it. Case in point is tree house. They won't go after people building houses and not respecting bylaws and so try to show muscle by going after a tree house.

I know of a house that city supposedly passed yet from second floor balcony you could easily touch hydro wires as it was direct;y over balcony. You did not have to even get on tiptoes to touch it. How did that happen? Did an inspector really ever go by?

Direct connection of any new private sewer connection to the municipal storm sewer is prohibited for any new or reconstructed residential yet this same house, probably it seems contractor went too deep kept having excess water coming out of sump pump that he was given permission to tie into city sewer. Where were they at the beginning when construction began?
 
Palma said:
well I would take the city more serious if not for the fact there has been cases that have made the news of people who went ahead and built massive homes without proper approvals as I am sure they knew they were building beyond by-laws and would be turned down, yet went ahead and built the homes. One was in North York in Shelly Carroll's ward. it looked like they were building 2 houses in one with 2 families but making it seem it was a single detached house. The city threatened homeowners (look I'm scared) to take down structure yet it has never happened. People hear this and feel that can go ahead and do the same. At least with a tree house, if house is sold those people would go ahead and tear down. It does not look like a large house so I assume house would be a knocked down along with tree and a larger house would be built. I can only imagine all the times people go to committee of adjustments, are turned down for various issues such as side yard setbacks, backyard setbacks, higher height restrictions yet build it anyways. They know there are not enough inspectors in the city to go around and take a chance especially because they know once its built city won't do anything about it. Case in point is tree house. They won't go after people building houses and not respecting bylaws and so try to show muscle by going after a tree house.

I know of a house that city supposedly passed yet from second floor balcony you could easily touch hydro wires as it was direct;y over balcony. You did not have to even get on tiptoes to touch it. How did that happen? Did an inspector really ever go by?

Direct connection of any new private sewer connection to the municipal storm sewer is prohibited for any new or reconstructed residential yet this same house, probably it seems contractor went too deep kept having excess water coming out of sump pump that he was given permission to tie into city sewer. Where were they at the beginning when construction began?
Click to expand...

The inability of the city to monitor each and every structure does not negate the need to follow rules - and suffer the consequences if one doesn't. Just like rules around traffic - and we don't (and shouldn't) stop taking it seriously just because most violations can't be caught.

AoD
 
Skeezix said:
Thank you, James. I'm a little annoyed at some of the media coverage of this, which unfairly portrays this as David vs. Goliath, Dad vs. Bureaucrats, Fun vs. Rules, etc.

Unless one believes that people should be able to build whatever they want in their backyards (would everyone be so charmed if Dad had built a similar structure for him and his buddies to drink beer and to peer into everyone's backyards?), this is not a case of ridiculous NIMBYism.
Click to expand...

You echo my sentiments to a tee. One of my issues is with the media's recanting of this story. Instead of this being a legal story, each article is an emotional tale of a father bullied by neighbors who will be, in essence, destroying a family's treehouse. Add to that social media's insistence that the city and the neighbors have no heart or willingness to accommodate innocent outdoor childhood play and what you have are misdirected news stories that the general public eat up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top