Posted on 07/25/2021 9:59:49 AM PDT by rickmichaels
A judge has ruled that a $3million luxury home in Quebec, Canada, built less than ten years ago must be demolished and the local city will need to pay for it.
The ruling is the latest in a roughly eight-year legal saga that began when the home was built too close to the street, violating local zoning laws in the city of Gatineau.
The judge's decision overrules an exemption the city gave the homeowner in a bid to keep the mansion as-is.
In his ruling this week, Quebec Superior Court Judge Michel Deniel said owner Patrick Molla had every reason to believe his home met building code requirements when the city granted him permits to build in May 2013, the Canadian Press reported.
That September, however, the city discovered that the planning official who approved the permits made an error when they allowed construction to go forward on the home, which is about 23 feet from the street. Homes must be built at least 51 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws.
Instead of telling Molla to stop construction on the home, however, the city allowed it to go forward, telling him that the problem would be taken care of. In February, 2014, Molla's family moved into the home, and in July, 2014 it granted him a 'minor exemption' to keep it in compliance.
Deniel's ruling override's Gatineau's exemption, and says there was likely little choice except for it to be torn down.
He sided with neighbors who complained the property was out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and argued that the city's exemption was an illegal abuse of power.
'Had he known the risk of eventual demolition, he would not have continued issued Moll construction on Sept. 25, 2013,' Deniel said in his ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
They really are racist there.
But they are french which means it should be expected.
“local city will need to pay for it.”
“the demolition or coast of the house?”
Exactly. That’s like telling the condemned he will have to buy the rope. I’m sure the city won’t lose a penny. They will most likely just send in a road crew to bulldoze it then bill the owner and then fine the owner for no demolition permit.
Exactly.
Sounds like there was some corruption going on to give one person special status.
Following the concept of “those at fault are the ones to pay”, the City should use eminent domain to buy the house, demolish it, and then put the lot back on the market to recover what costs they can.
Owner gets paid for what is not his mistake, and can repurchase the lot and rebuild further back if that is desired.
I actually like the style of the House, but I am perplexed that the Building Codes would allow having Residential Construction with a Flat Roof in Canada.
It would have to be reinforced to tolerate the Snow load I would think. That is an expensive proposition in relation to building a House with traditional sloped Roofing.
Where the heck is my favorite Canuck “Build it Right” Mike Holmes?
For that sort of money I would expect underground utilities.
We wanted to demolish a screen porch plus a hot tub deck and build a sunroom on the same footprint. The deck had originally been built in the rear setback which was apparently ok, but because the sunroom was gonna have HVAC, the city required me to apply for a special exemption permit ($150 fee). I had to mail a letter to my surrounding neighbors alerting them to the exemption and give them a chance to voice a complaint (none did). An inspector also had to come out and measure/take photos. We have a small, odd shaped backyard. When the inspector came out and analyzed the situation, he said one corner of our HOUSE was in the setback and the house should never have been built on the lot. He was cool about it though. He said since the original approval by the city was technically their fault, he would take his measurements off a corner marker further off, which made it all just fine measurement-wise. He also said the special exemption wasn’t needed and he would change it to a normal building permit. I asked if I could get my $150 back...he laughed and said “Don’t push it”. I also got the explanation in writing!
Best character; “Pawn Shop”!
Granby, Co. not Greeley. Yet, whatever, no big deal.
“He sided with neighbors who complained the property was out of character with the rest of the neighborhood”
I do not believe in local “by-laws”, or restrictions incumbent owners put in deeds restricting future owners, HOAs and similar junk “rules”. They are out of character with the whole idea of private property.
If the other million dollar home owners were unhappy, they could sell their homes. I am sure any buyers would not have had their objections about how far from the street this man’s house stood.
In ethical terms, I am only glad the judge also ruled the city was to blame and had to pay, but that is wrong too; because that means the taxpayers will pay.
The most fair ruling would have been to have judged in favor of the plaintiffs, but given a verdict of a $5.00 judgement against the defendant, to be paid for the defendant by the city.
-move the road
-shave 28 feet off the front of the home and keep the rest intact
-create an earthquake that creates a 28' gap (this may be a little difficult)
-hire a hypnotist and make the town SEE that the owner fixed it
Gotta think outside the box here.
“.. .Pea soup eaters.”
Hey now! Leave Pea Soup out of comparisons to the smelly French Canadian moronic egotists please.
A hearty homemade pea “stew” made with the Trinity*, loads of ham and sausage slow cooked for hours until thick and rich then ladled over hand made hot buttered egg noodles. Add warm bread of choice, perhaps a modest salad…food for the Gods.
What an eyesore, glad to see it go.
“From the looks of the house and the story involved it appears there were greased palms all around.”
I was thinking the same...would explain it all.
If the owner decide “to demolish”, blow the house (and the road—oops).
Or, since the owner is capable of maintaining such a house, find somebody to shiv the judge!!
Ain't it fun spending other people's money?
It may work out for the owner though to sell the house and avoid further hassles if he/she can get a good price. The city should have to pay his legal bills as well.
Hi.
Since the home owner greased the palms of the city guys/girls, why not grease the palms of the other 12 (?) property owners?
If that doesn’t work, I would employ liberal amounts of C-4 and walk away.
5.56mm
“From the looks of the house and the story involved it appears there were greased palms all around.”
*****
Homeowner pays city, neighbors pay judge. Neighbors win.
Ok, so pea soup is right out. How about, “poutine eaters”?
Sorry, I misremembered the town name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.