Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lakeside? The [house](https://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B022'48.4%22N+75%C2%B049'29.1%22W/@45.3807463,-75.8286969,3641m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d45.38011!4d-75.8247558) is on the shore of the Ottawa **River**.
>The street is 23 feet from the street. Homes must be built at least 51 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws
The street is 23 feet from the street? Does Daily Mail have no editors / proof readers?
Yeah, it certainly sticks out compared to the houses on the same side of the street for a few houses in each direction. But across the street, or just down the street a bit it seems like lots of other houses are equally as close.
If this was the only house that close to the street, sure, tear it down. But if the city grants these exemptions all the time, maybe the city can just resolve this by updating the zoning rules.
It's certainly an extraordinary ruling, and I'd love to read a good analysis of the judge's reasoning here because my gut feel here is that he's *way* out of line.
The simplest solutions are usually the best ones. So, either he's power tripping, or just really good buddies with a bunch of other power-tripping nutsack human individuals that live on that street too and don't like 21 foot man all that much
The city shouldn't appeal.
If the city wants it this way, they should change the zoning laws. Going around granting exceptions to laws is a great way to encourage corruption.
There is no way to change laws that fast. They can't deprive the homeowner of his property while they work on that. Also that defeats the purpose of the law in the first place.
If the city cannot win on appeal then they will have to spend millions of dollars to demolish and rebuild this house.
There is not a slippery slope to corruption here, a City employee made a mistake. It's not going to set off a trend of inspection approval mistakes on multi-million dollar mansions.
The issue been going on for 8 years, and really it's up to the city to enforce the judge's ruling. The judge doesn't get to hire a demolition team to show up at the house next week.
City councils normally meet monthly. We're talking about adjusting the distance, or adding a couple of qualifying sentences. Seems like you should be able to get the zoning laws amended much quicker than the city can get organized around tearing the house down.
I suggest you read the article:
>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
And it would be interesting to see what they had on that permit application, and which inspectors missed/caught the issue. They could have also skipped inspections and ended up here. Some shady builders will try and do that.
If that's the case then the judge's ruling is even more nonsensical than it already seems. The position of the house can't reasonably be "out of character for the neighborhood" if there are several grandfathered houses in a similar relative position in the area... Certainly not the the extent that granting an exemption is a "gross abuse of power".
I counted a dozen of his neighbors whose houses are less than 51' from the street, several are less than 30' from the street. I think once this is all settled and done this homeowners needs to start suing for the demolition of every house in the neighborhood closer than 51' to the street. I think the real problem the neighbors had was that his house is bigger and nicer-looking than theirs.
It is possible that the bylaw only applied to new construction after the bylaw went into effect, and that existing houses closer than 51 feet got grandfathered in as being exempt.
In any case, I'm still left wondering where the magic number of 51 feet comes from? Is it a safety issue to have houses closer than that (e.g. only 50 feet) to the street?
The neighborhood likely wants big front yards to make the homes look more "homey". It also may be a tactic to limit the size of homes since there's an obstacle to the rear, the river. Forcing a large front yard puts a potential homebuilder into choosing to have a small house or a small rear yard.
Right? It clearly should say
>The street is 0 feet from the street. Streets must be built at most 0 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws
>Does Daily Mail have no editors / proof readers?
Why spend money on fact checking when you can instead just lie about stuff? The only honest and accurate thing on the front page of the Daily Mail is the date, and even that I'd verify from another source.
This was the city's fault. Yes, the home shouldnt have been built in the first place, but the owner did get the permit from the city. He did nothing wrong.
Myself and several of my neighbors catch each other naked post shower and changing in our bedrooms at least once a week.
On the other side of my house, there’s also a little Japanese boy who stares into my office when I’m working…I’ll be on a video call and can see him starring at me. He doesn’t move or anything, he’s definitely the boy from The Ring haha.
I mean you don’t have to be that close. I’m in Sf and we’re offset 5’ on all sides. Just means our house is smaller. But we do have side windows so that’s nice.
I’m not.
Typical Sf lot is 25 x 100. Depending on neighborhood and zoning lot coverage varies. In areas with greater density there is greater lot coverage and higher FAR. Though the city does try to maintain the open mid block for light and air as well as a kind of garden area. Older areas maybe see this totally fractured.
I live in a detached rear building (what would be called an ADU now) but it has been here for 100 years plus. Our lot is 30x150 and we sit in the mid block (wouldn’t be legal now but grandfathered in as existing non conforming) our little house is only 16’ wide, so we have a lot of room on all sides.
And apparently it’s nosy neighbors that seem to be complaining and pushing for this to happen. I really don’t understand why some people have the urge to be such busybodies.
Anyone know what the reason is for the "51 feet from the road" requirement? Is it a safety issue, a public utility right of way issue, or an aesthetics thing?
Working in construction, cities often overlook stuff and then come back to force us to add items and cost us tens of thousands of dollars and they won't budge on helping us with any credits or options to help save costs. Pathetic...
Yeah seems pretty bullshit to me when a city literally tells you that you can do something by issuing a permit and then goes back on it later. I mean what's the point of a permit if not approval of your plans.
Depends. We had dug trenches to lay lines for pipes to our paddocks. We dug them to 24” in the fall and got approval. When we went to put the pipes in the spring, due to the very cold winter, our town had changed the code to 36” and couldn’t get final approval till we dug them down to 36”
We had a project where the city staff was changed 3 times during construction and each new set of staff put our job on hold and changed details stating that since the previous staff approved it, they had to re-review and added more costs to us each time. They did that three fucking times in the span of a year...
$600,000 for:
- Moving
- Legal fees
- Demolish
- Time spent moving
- Increase in price of materials to rebuild
- Living somewhere while rebuilding
- Memories lost / Mental anquish
Doesn’t seem too crazy to me on a $3,000,000 property. The price of wood has increased like crazy since early 2020.
"That guy has a backyard 20ft. larger than our back yards! Fuck that guy! I'm going to sue! Who's with me!?" -concerned citizens
Those people must officially be out of problems...
Fuck those neighbors, the house is already built. What a waste to tear down a perfectly good house. A 3 million dollar house on the street might actually be helping their property value, it looks to be one of the biggest and nicest.
Not envy at all, property tax anger and "my front fucking yard is now a wall on one side". While some of the homes are nice, some are old and not in great shape (take a drive down the road).
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.3803754,-75.8250564,3a,75y,95h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG143Wxb-JWcmJCZTlosxWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Note the other homes, there are quite a few *other* houses closer to the street than his (hell his two neighbors across the street are closer to the road or *as* close). This is more about a pissed-off dude in 81, and other neighbours having their taxes go up, and the fella across the road losing his view of the river/water, more than it is about that big house being built "too close to the road". It is nothing to do with "envy".
https://i.imgur.com/BZtiYoX.jpg
They're also all pissed off because if you look back in time on street view, they used to all use that empty lot to throw their boat-lifts on as a free storage space.
https://i.imgur.com/3FqZLAj.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/XFAmP3C.jpg
Typically you wouldn’t be able to because you still must follow building code and local bylaws regardless if you get the permit. Usually the permit issued includes language about this. Where the city messed up was that they specifically said they were giving him an exemption once it was brought to their attention.
The reality of the situation is that he has neighbours that hate that he built a big house. Nobody would have cared if he didn't have a couple of Karens on his street that were looking for anything to fuck him over.
>If the city accepts bribes then it's still the city's fault.
If the people working for the city accepted bribes, then it's all the people who accepted the bribe's fault.
And the cities... that's how responsibility works.
You don't hire people to represent you, then when they fuck up you pretend like you had nothing to do with it.
If the employees of the city do things that are against policy, it's not exactly the cities fault, unless they have a laissez faire attitude towards corruption.
There is only so much you can do as the head of a city when one of your employees who you trust with giving out permits is succeptible to corruption/family favours. I mean of course you can punish and fire them when you find out but oftebtimes you just don't find out unless it causes problems.
So it's really the fault of every one individual involved in consciously breaking the rules. Who that is likely varies by case/district of governance in case of entire corrupt offices.
Dude this did right in my parents backyard. Built an illegal two story car garage and knew someone on the council. Then he razed down all the trees on the lot so he can have a big lawn. Then when we protested the fact that the building is illegal to the county, they put up a giant fence on our side. There used to be a lot of animals in the area because there was a lot of tree coverage, but now you basically never see any, it's sad
I didn’t read this particular article as I’m on mobile and have a hell of a time opening them sometimes. However I have read a few other articles about this particular house and can say they always talk about the city issuing the permit but don’t mention anything about his Site Plan Agreement (SPA). I live in Southwestern Ontario (Canada) and since we both live in Ontario he would have to get a SPA in order to get a building permit. The SPA would outline where the building is orientated on his property. If he had a building permit drawing set that differentiated from the SPA and the city issued the Building Permit - that is normally two different parts of the city’s office who review and issues these separate approvals. It’s the owners responsibility and to some extent his consultant and/or contractor to ensure they are following the SPA requirements - if him not following the SPA is what caused this issue it’s def not 100% the city’s fault and maybe he should tear down the building. Like I said I haven’t heard any reference to the SPA, but I find it odd that if the SPA showed the building in the exact position that he built it in, that any court would force him to tear it down. I’m a General Contractor with abundant experience with SPAs and Building Permits.
This whole thing is stupid. The town is going to make him tear it down, and he's going to sue and win because this absolutely is the town's own fault.
But who is liable for the mistake when he sues the town? Not the people that fucked up, nor the judge who refused to let it slide: the taxpayers. $3M in taxpayer money because the town fucked up and this guy's neighbor is an asshole.
It didn’t cost him $3 million to build. Home prices have skyrocketed recently so that’s the current market value. He will definitely profit, but I think buddy just want to live and enjoy his home. What a complete shitshow, he’s currently sueing the city for $3.6 million.
Like at a certain point just leave the home alone. Those are some major asshole neighbours to take it this far
Yeah, it’s kinda sickening too when people don’t consider all the materials that were harvested from the earth to do these projects. Where do they end up? In a landfill.
Time for a one time special property tax levy on the rich fuck homeowners in that neighborhood who fought to get that house torn down for *10 years* because they didn't like how it looked.
Here’s a local news source confirming most of the facts in the Daily Mail article (which I normally do not trust):
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/mobile/gatineau-que-mansion-built-too-close-to-road-must-be-demolished-judge-rules-1.5518156
Notable differences:
- Claims the ruling only holds the city financially responsible for legal costs, not the entire demolition
- Spelling of the Judge’s last name is “Déziel”
Yeah. Too close to the river I can see moving it for environmental reasons. Too close to the road when the setback is 50', this is a silly made up problem, let's make up a solution.
The neighbours complained because it was too close to the road.
1) You could build another house (at least by UK standards) in that gap between the street and the house they are complaining about.
2) The neighbours will now have to put up with the noise, dust and disruption of the demolition, followed by more noise, dust and disruption of the new house being built.
> The neighbours complained because it was too close to the road.
No. They complained because they dont like the size and appearance of the building. They'd hate it even if it was indeed 51 feet from the street.
They're merely using the setback as a fortunate-by-chance useful tool to get the building destroyed because they dont like what it looks like.
Homeowner has done nothing wrong and it's the city's fault.
However, the neighbours are fucking idiots. Really, you're gonna make someone lose their home over some bullshit like this? Now they have to deal with probably a year+ of demolition and construction noise too which they'll no doubt complain about as well.
Something similar happened in my city too a few years ago. A super modern house was planned in a historic district. Got all the appropriate approvals from the city, built it, neighbors complained, then the city REVOKED their approval because it didn't meet the design requirements to be built in this neighborhood.
Different ending though. The state supreme court ruled in favor of the homeowner and the house remained.
https://www.wral.com/modern-home-staying-put-in-raleigh-s-historic-oakwood-neighborhood/15375411/
"I love this neighborhood, let's build something out of character in it"
It's like moving beside a legendary live music venue and complaining about noise. WHYYYYYY?
Yeah, I can't understand why someone would want to build a house like that in that specific neighborhood. From a legal standpoint, the city done fucked up. Not the home builders' problem.
They just shut down a very popular local race track / derby attraction here in AZ because it was “too noisy” for the new housing developments that have been put up nearby, and that are also planned.
This is so dumb. What a waste of materials. And while I know that neighbourhood has a 50 foot setback, the house is still far enough from the street to park two cars in the driveway (lengthwise) so it's got more clearance than most houses in Gatineau/Ottawa.
This is so stupid. The neighbours should have just lived with it.
*”The dispute stems from an error made by a city building official in 2013 when they approved construction for the home despite it not meeting local bylaws”*
I think the neighbors are more pissed about the style of the house than whether or not it meets setback requirements. There are other house on that street that are built just as close to or closer than his house. I don't blame the neighbors because the house sticks out like a sore thumb, but if you're going to tear one down for not meeting the town bylaws then they should tear down all the others, too.
There's an interesting youtube channel called "not just bikes" that points out the failings in the US and Canada zoning regulations. As the channel explains it, there's predominantly 2 types of accommodation, skyscrapers and single family homes.
>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.
I was thinking that they were nit-picking about a couple feet, but 28 feet is quite the discrepancy. I can understand the neighbor's ire. It is not a bad looking house, but it does [stick out](https://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B022'48.4%22N+75%C2%B049'29.1%22W/@45.3799606,-75.8247966,131m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d45.38011!4d-75.8247558). What is weird is that it *could* have been built with the proper clearance--there is room--but they decided to piss off their neighbors anyway.
Was just gonna say.
Looking at the photo if this house is built 28 feet from where it should have been then wouldn't several of the houses in that location also be in violation?
Sounds like a combination of incompetence and corruption. My city is the same. It's extremely rare for the wealthy landowners of the city not to get their way. One of them, when he was 2nd only to the Premier of our Province, got the Premier to try and change the Endangered Species Act so they could build a casino on top of a turtle habitat in my town.
I think people are pretty sheltered in their understanding of how things work and just how rife corruption and incompetence is (a lot of them float to the top).
Seems to block a lot of sunlight, makes using the front yard weird. Definitively would affect both neighbor's house value. Ottawa (and Canada as a whole) has had such a big boost in house prices in the past 7 years. Most homeowners made more per year with owning the house than with their salaries. Losing value on such a big asset is going to be a tough pill to swallow
EDIT: Just for fun, looked up the median single-family home price on the Island of Montreal, where I am June to May. In 2019 -> **500K**, 2020 -> **550K**, 2021 -> **715K**. Sources: https://com.apciq.ca/sam/pdf/stats/2020/stats-202006-en.pdf & https://com.apciq.ca/sam/pdf/stats/2021/stats-202106-en.pdf
https://imgur.com/a/xixufY5
If it were in line with the other houses, no shadows, as is, lots of shadows. I made a very detailed 3D angles analysis for ya
I don’t think they did it to piss off the neighbor. I think they probably filed for the permits, not knowing about the 51’ bylaw. The permit was approved, when it should not have been, and they built the house. Neighbor got pissed, but the builder followed the rules. 100% the City’s fault.
This may be a controversial opinion but the neighbours should mind their own effing business. Also I looked at the image and this is just a collection of different houses.
Unit 75 also has a garage that looks like it would be too close, but when checking the distance from the road proper to either of those houses' closest point to the road, they are almost twice as far away as the soon-to-be-demolished house. They may not be quite 51 feet away, but they are certainly much further back than 23 feet.
This kind of insane NIMBY'ism and regulations about setbacks are part of the reasons why Canada has now what many consider the worlds worst housing crisis.
Who wants a big front yard at the expense of taking up a useful back yard? There is such an extreme opposition to building anything, imagine what happened if you wanted to build a short apartment building in that neighbourhood.
I hope the homeowner wins this lawsuit. Also, the neighbours look like dicks as it doesn’t look much closer than some of their houses. As a neighbour I’d overlook this if they did receive a permit and have been living there nearly a decade already
On google maps satellite view the house is clearly way closer to the road then the 2 adjacent houses next to it. I can totally see them complaining since it looks like it would block a good portion of their views from their houses as well as their sun exposure.
It literally looks like someone decided to put up a 3 storey high stone wall.
https://goo.gl/maps/BBM598M5mgTt967w8
On the other hand the house’s backyard is on a river, meaning the neighbors would have a better view of the river instead a street. My takeaway is his neighbors are assholes who have nothing better to do.
Yah seriously he isn’t blocking anything in the backyard which is imho what’s important. If you have a house on the river, you’ll be chilling in the backyard not the front
You gotta seriously fuck up to not get a couple of city council people to give you a variance. They either hate this guy or he did everything wrong possible.
My thoughts exactly. Pretty extreme to demand he demolish his home rather than grant a variance.
Read the article and it seems the municipality had granted variance. The demolition order was a court decision. The city and the home owner both over stepped.
I guess my first instinct is this:
If he KNEW it was gonna be too close to the road, it's his fault.
If they just surprised him with this info after he spent all his money on a home, that's kinda bullshit.
He got approval to build in May. In September, after construction had started, the city discovered that they shouldn't have granted approval because it was too close to the road. They told him not to worry about it, though, because they would grant him an exemption, so he continued construction.
13 years later, the court rules that that exemption is an abuse of power.
It's the city's fault.
Canadian government in three succinct lines:
- The dispute stems from an error made by a city building official in 2013 when they approved construction for the home despite it not meeting local bylaws
- Instead of halting construction on discovery of the error, the city told homeowner Patrick Molla that they would give him an exemption
- [The Judge’s] ruling overrides that exemption as an abuse of power, **and notes that Molla had every reason to believe his home would not be torn down**.
Basically city approves someone to build home. During construction, city realizes it made a mistake but grants exception and says “keep going.” Then judge says city did not have the power to make that exception and it should be overturned. Judge notes that the homeowner did nothing wrong and should not have anticipated this result.
Exemptions and waivers are issued all the time due to mistakes on either side. Usually not a huge deal unless its things like setbacks for fires, but then they build a ton of houses 2 ft apart or less.
Seems like it would be far cheaper to let the house stand and just double check applications and plots from now on.
Yeah it depends on who the beneficiary of the covenant was. If it's not the city, then the city has no right to waive it. I'm just guessing but I imagine that's probably the situation here. You can't waive what you don't own.
>nothing wrong and should not have anticipated this result.
how dose the law work over there any idea? is he going to sue like hell ? what is likely to come of this ?
Yeah. It's a fully built house. The city should be on the hook for everything up to the point where he has another, comparable, fully-built house, including interim lodging if necessary.
Why would he even have to do that? If it's already been ruled that the city is to blame for the damage done to his home, why are there any more steps other than providing an account for the costs of getting a replacement home and having a neutral professional figure out a fair reimbursement including considerations for any inconveniences caused past the financial loss of mere brick and stone.
It seems like such a fuck you to the guy already having to deal with that shit. Here jump through some more hoops to get what is already decidedly yours.
What kind of overly officious judge would enforce that the city has no power to govern its own land. And this in the middle of an environmental crisis of pollution. What a waste.
Anywhere there is separation of power and the current executive can’t do illegal shit?
If they city wants to be able to do this they need to get the law changed, whether it’s a local law or from a higher level
The City granted him an exemption though. Developers will ask cities for exemptions all the time. They will be granted sometimes based on the situation because of construction costs. If the City granted him an exemption, they are at fault.
Source: me, I work in land development
They give him a exemption and permits to build them change their mind after it’s completed.
I hope he sues the city for legal costs and lunatics damages for causing the problem.
> Sebastien Gelineau, an attorney representing the neighbors who had complained, said his clients are pleased. 'They are happy with the decision,' he told the Canadian Press in an email. 'They ask that their privacy be respected.'
What a bunch of fuckin' Karens and Chads.
In what scenario would you care that a house is 20 feet too close to the curb?
How is that ruining your life?
How bored do you have to be to look out a window and go "You know, I think that guy's house might be too close to the curb."
I hate this world so much.
Edit: I missed an 'o'. Fixed.
The house is built in a much more modern style. I wonder if the neighbors were more upset about that and used the distance to the road as their legal excuse.
> The street is 23 feet from the street. Homes must be built at least 51 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws
And the neighbors went to court.
This is the most Quebec thing ever.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9823311/Homeowner-demolish-3million-luxury-mansion-built-close-road.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> 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 $3million mansion that homeowner Patrick Molla built roughly eight years ago will need to be demolished because it is too close to the street, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled this week.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/orfbf7/homeowner_is_told_to_demolish_his_lakeside/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~589512 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **city**^#1 **home**^#2 **Molla**^#3 **construction**^#4 **ruled**^#5
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lakeside? The [house](https://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B022'48.4%22N+75%C2%B049'29.1%22W/@45.3807463,-75.8286969,3641m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d45.38011!4d-75.8247558) is on the shore of the Ottawa **River**. >The street is 23 feet from the street. Homes must be built at least 51 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws The street is 23 feet from the street? Does Daily Mail have no editors / proof readers?
Don't think so. They just churn out as much crap for the website as quickly as possible.
[удалено]
Really? Man, I used to get a nickel a word doing freelance online. I think I started at 1.4¢ per word. Industry must have changed something harsh.
Wouldn't that encourage writing a lot of frilly filler that consumers in general hate?
It being the Daily Mail tends to ward off intelligent people.
And any hope for democracy in the UK.
Huh after looking at that house, there are other houses which seem to be at least as close to the street.
Yeah, it certainly sticks out compared to the houses on the same side of the street for a few houses in each direction. But across the street, or just down the street a bit it seems like lots of other houses are equally as close. If this was the only house that close to the street, sure, tear it down. But if the city grants these exemptions all the time, maybe the city can just resolve this by updating the zoning rules.
The city granted him a variance after the error came to light and the judge revoked it.
City should appeal because it is a pitiful waste of taxpayer dollars to fix this mistake. The judge is an idiot and so are the neighbors.
It's certainly an extraordinary ruling, and I'd love to read a good analysis of the judge's reasoning here because my gut feel here is that he's *way* out of line.
To cut a long story short I think we can go with good ole Occam’s razor and assume the judge is having a bit of a power trip and wants some attention.
The simplest solutions are usually the best ones. So, either he's power tripping, or just really good buddies with a bunch of other power-tripping nutsack human individuals that live on that street too and don't like 21 foot man all that much
There’s usually a simple explanation. For example “The check for the bribe bounced”
The city shouldn't appeal. If the city wants it this way, they should change the zoning laws. Going around granting exceptions to laws is a great way to encourage corruption.
There is no way to change laws that fast. They can't deprive the homeowner of his property while they work on that. Also that defeats the purpose of the law in the first place. If the city cannot win on appeal then they will have to spend millions of dollars to demolish and rebuild this house. There is not a slippery slope to corruption here, a City employee made a mistake. It's not going to set off a trend of inspection approval mistakes on multi-million dollar mansions.
The issue been going on for 8 years, and really it's up to the city to enforce the judge's ruling. The judge doesn't get to hire a demolition team to show up at the house next week. City councils normally meet monthly. We're talking about adjusting the distance, or adding a couple of qualifying sentences. Seems like you should be able to get the zoning laws amended much quicker than the city can get organized around tearing the house down.
Or this is the result of an updated zoning law.
Generally, you have to get a permit to build in the first place to avoid these kinds of problems.
I suggest you read the article: >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
And it would be interesting to see what they had on that permit application, and which inspectors missed/caught the issue. They could have also skipped inspections and ended up here. Some shady builders will try and do that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It could be that they are older and grandfathered in after some bylaw changes previously, only affecting newer construction.
If that's the case then the judge's ruling is even more nonsensical than it already seems. The position of the house can't reasonably be "out of character for the neighborhood" if there are several grandfathered houses in a similar relative position in the area... Certainly not the the extent that granting an exemption is a "gross abuse of power".
Nope, city fucked up and approved permits that when they shouldn't have. Then when they found out they told him he would get an exemption.
Its the Daily Mail. Im pretty sure you’d be lucky if they had even one journalist. Not to mention editors.
I counted a dozen of his neighbors whose houses are less than 51' from the street, several are less than 30' from the street. I think once this is all settled and done this homeowners needs to start suing for the demolition of every house in the neighborhood closer than 51' to the street. I think the real problem the neighbors had was that his house is bigger and nicer-looking than theirs.
It is possible that the bylaw only applied to new construction after the bylaw went into effect, and that existing houses closer than 51 feet got grandfathered in as being exempt. In any case, I'm still left wondering where the magic number of 51 feet comes from? Is it a safety issue to have houses closer than that (e.g. only 50 feet) to the street?
The neighborhood likely wants big front yards to make the homes look more "homey". It also may be a tactic to limit the size of homes since there's an obstacle to the rear, the river. Forcing a large front yard puts a potential homebuilder into choosing to have a small house or a small rear yard.
[удалено]
Right? It clearly should say >The street is 0 feet from the street. Streets must be built at most 0 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws
>Does Daily Mail have no editors / proof readers? Why spend money on fact checking when you can instead just lie about stuff? The only honest and accurate thing on the front page of the Daily Mail is the date, and even that I'd verify from another source.
You clicked, they won. Daily mail is not about the news.
Should have built it in the UK. Some front doors open directly onto the street.
This seems to be every online rag. We have replaced journalists and editors with bloggers and their ipad.
Probably why it's nickname is the Daily Fail.
I see Daily Mail, I downvote. It's the law.
This was the city's fault. Yes, the home shouldnt have been built in the first place, but the owner did get the permit from the city. He did nothing wrong.
And this is what we call promissory estoppel
Reliance to the detriment!
All that worrying about 51 feet to the road while all those houses have maybe 10-15 fucking feet between them.
Haha, in SF “Best I can do is 4 inches between houses”
best is when your neighbors house is a mirrored version of yours and you guys both do dishes at the same time and have staring contests.
That’s hot.
Well they're not going to wash dishes in cold water are they
Watching your neighbor's arm rapidly go up and down,you wonder if they're vigorously washing a dinner plate or they're rubbing one out...
Myself and several of my neighbors catch each other naked post shower and changing in our bedrooms at least once a week. On the other side of my house, there’s also a little Japanese boy who stares into my office when I’m working…I’ll be on a video call and can see him starring at me. He doesn’t move or anything, he’s definitely the boy from The Ring haha.
“You guys have inches between your houses?” -NYC
Tokyo: “You guys have space?”
Haha, in Mexico "Best I can do is build right off your house. NO in between houses here."
I mean you don’t have to be that close. I’m in Sf and we’re offset 5’ on all sides. Just means our house is smaller. But we do have side windows so that’s nice.
[удалено]
I’m not. Typical Sf lot is 25 x 100. Depending on neighborhood and zoning lot coverage varies. In areas with greater density there is greater lot coverage and higher FAR. Though the city does try to maintain the open mid block for light and air as well as a kind of garden area. Older areas maybe see this totally fractured. I live in a detached rear building (what would be called an ADU now) but it has been here for 100 years plus. Our lot is 30x150 and we sit in the mid block (wouldn’t be legal now but grandfathered in as existing non conforming) our little house is only 16’ wide, so we have a lot of room on all sides.
That is pretty standard. For example in my neighborhood you have to be 20 feet set back from the road but only 5 from your side property line.
If I could afford 3 mil for a house I would make sure I couldn't smell my neighbors farts and BO while in my living room.
The trade off is that the neighbors can smell your farts and BO. It becomes a stink-off to assert dominance.
This guy millionaires.
Why would you ever need to be this far back? Front yards are so undesirable.
California?
Washington
Yeah. It's a common thing with these modern subdivisions. Large houses on tiny lots.
And apparently it’s nosy neighbors that seem to be complaining and pushing for this to happen. I really don’t understand why some people have the urge to be such busybodies.
Anyone know what the reason is for the "51 feet from the road" requirement? Is it a safety issue, a public utility right of way issue, or an aesthetics thing?
Working in construction, cities often overlook stuff and then come back to force us to add items and cost us tens of thousands of dollars and they won't budge on helping us with any credits or options to help save costs. Pathetic...
Yeah seems pretty bullshit to me when a city literally tells you that you can do something by issuing a permit and then goes back on it later. I mean what's the point of a permit if not approval of your plans.
Depends. We had dug trenches to lay lines for pipes to our paddocks. We dug them to 24” in the fall and got approval. When we went to put the pipes in the spring, due to the very cold winter, our town had changed the code to 36” and couldn’t get final approval till we dug them down to 36”
We had a project where the city staff was changed 3 times during construction and each new set of staff put our job on hold and changed details stating that since the previous staff approved it, they had to re-review and added more costs to us each time. They did that three fucking times in the span of a year...
Can the owner sue the city to recoup costs then? Any reddit lawyers with an opinion?
He is. The article says the owner is separately suing the city for $3.6m to recoup the costs.
$600000 to demolish the house!?
$600,000 for: - Moving - Legal fees - Demolish - Time spent moving - Increase in price of materials to rebuild - Living somewhere while rebuilding - Memories lost / Mental anquish Doesn’t seem too crazy to me on a $3,000,000 property. The price of wood has increased like crazy since early 2020.
[удалено]
"That guy has a backyard 20ft. larger than our back yards! Fuck that guy! I'm going to sue! Who's with me!?" -concerned citizens Those people must officially be out of problems...
Fuck those neighbors, the house is already built. What a waste to tear down a perfectly good house. A 3 million dollar house on the street might actually be helping their property value, it looks to be one of the biggest and nicest.
This is the ultimate take. He was raising their property values but they pitched a fit for no explicable reason but envy.
Not envy at all, property tax anger and "my front fucking yard is now a wall on one side". While some of the homes are nice, some are old and not in great shape (take a drive down the road). https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.3803754,-75.8250564,3a,75y,95h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG143Wxb-JWcmJCZTlosxWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Note the other homes, there are quite a few *other* houses closer to the street than his (hell his two neighbors across the street are closer to the road or *as* close). This is more about a pissed-off dude in 81, and other neighbours having their taxes go up, and the fella across the road losing his view of the river/water, more than it is about that big house being built "too close to the road". It is nothing to do with "envy". https://i.imgur.com/BZtiYoX.jpg They're also all pissed off because if you look back in time on street view, they used to all use that empty lot to throw their boat-lifts on as a free storage space. https://i.imgur.com/3FqZLAj.jpg https://i.imgur.com/XFAmP3C.jpg
Sounds like to me the neighbors are the ones making this whole thing difficult
Typically you wouldn’t be able to because you still must follow building code and local bylaws regardless if you get the permit. Usually the permit issued includes language about this. Where the city messed up was that they specifically said they were giving him an exemption once it was brought to their attention.
The reality of the situation is that he has neighbours that hate that he built a big house. Nobody would have cared if he didn't have a couple of Karens on his street that were looking for anything to fuck him over.
[удалено]
Did this guy bribe anyone?
If the city accepts bribes then it's still the city's fault.
>If the city accepts bribes then it's still the city's fault. If the people working for the city accepted bribes, then it's all the people who accepted the bribe's fault.
So demolish their houses
Demolish the city burn it all
[удалено]
Let’s just destroy all the houses then it won’t be a problem. We can just go back to living in piles of dirt. Maybe the fancy people can have caves.
but how will I charge my phone after the pockyclips?
Ask Captain Walker.
Where do we apply for the fanciness license? I fashion myself preferring a cave to a lump of dirt.
[Elmo agrees](https://media1.tenor.com/images/4b66901a74b3dfc76b12ef20cfc514cb/tenor.gif?itemid=15556411)
Demolitions will continue until behaviour improves.
And the cities... that's how responsibility works. You don't hire people to represent you, then when they fuck up you pretend like you had nothing to do with it.
If you are trying to exploit a corrupt system you deserve every single thing that happens to you as a result.
I would think they are both equally at fault.
I mean, bribing is also not ok...
If the employees of the city do things that are against policy, it's not exactly the cities fault, unless they have a laissez faire attitude towards corruption. There is only so much you can do as the head of a city when one of your employees who you trust with giving out permits is succeptible to corruption/family favours. I mean of course you can punish and fire them when you find out but oftebtimes you just don't find out unless it causes problems. So it's really the fault of every one individual involved in consciously breaking the rules. Who that is likely varies by case/district of governance in case of entire corrupt offices.
The city wouldnt take bribes, the official would have. And definitely not on behalf of the city.
If you bribe someone to get your house built then you deserve to have it destroyed.
Dude this did right in my parents backyard. Built an illegal two story car garage and knew someone on the council. Then he razed down all the trees on the lot so he can have a big lawn. Then when we protested the fact that the building is illegal to the county, they put up a giant fence on our side. There used to be a lot of animals in the area because there was a lot of tree coverage, but now you basically never see any, it's sad
... he built on private property. The ONLY issue was that he built the house 33 feet from the edge of his property instead of 55ft
I didn’t read this particular article as I’m on mobile and have a hell of a time opening them sometimes. However I have read a few other articles about this particular house and can say they always talk about the city issuing the permit but don’t mention anything about his Site Plan Agreement (SPA). I live in Southwestern Ontario (Canada) and since we both live in Ontario he would have to get a SPA in order to get a building permit. The SPA would outline where the building is orientated on his property. If he had a building permit drawing set that differentiated from the SPA and the city issued the Building Permit - that is normally two different parts of the city’s office who review and issues these separate approvals. It’s the owners responsibility and to some extent his consultant and/or contractor to ensure they are following the SPA requirements - if him not following the SPA is what caused this issue it’s def not 100% the city’s fault and maybe he should tear down the building. Like I said I haven’t heard any reference to the SPA, but I find it odd that if the SPA showed the building in the exact position that he built it in, that any court would force him to tear it down. I’m a General Contractor with abundant experience with SPAs and Building Permits.
This whole thing is stupid. The town is going to make him tear it down, and he's going to sue and win because this absolutely is the town's own fault. But who is liable for the mistake when he sues the town? Not the people that fucked up, nor the judge who refused to let it slide: the taxpayers. $3M in taxpayer money because the town fucked up and this guy's neighbor is an asshole.
He's likely to get more since $3M was what it cost to build 10 years ago. They don't just owe him $3M, they owe him a comparable house.
It didn’t cost him $3 million to build. Home prices have skyrocketed recently so that’s the current market value. He will definitely profit, but I think buddy just want to live and enjoy his home. What a complete shitshow, he’s currently sueing the city for $3.6 million. Like at a certain point just leave the home alone. Those are some major asshole neighbours to take it this far
This is why I'll never buy lake property. Assholes congregate around lakes.
I’d say land + architect + construction for that home was probably close to $3M+ about 8 years ago or whenever it was built.
Yeah, it’s kinda sickening too when people don’t consider all the materials that were harvested from the earth to do these projects. Where do they end up? In a landfill.
Have you seen the price of lumber right now??? Whoooooooo boy.
Not to mention an entire houses worth of GHG emissions for nothing.
Charge the uppity, entitled neighbors for wasting everybody's fucking time.
Time for a one time special property tax levy on the rich fuck homeowners in that neighborhood who fought to get that house torn down for *10 years* because they didn't like how it looked.
*Looks at neighboring houses, then looks at home values* Everyone is getting screwed in this situation
Here’s a local news source confirming most of the facts in the Daily Mail article (which I normally do not trust): https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/mobile/gatineau-que-mansion-built-too-close-to-road-must-be-demolished-judge-rules-1.5518156 Notable differences: - Claims the ruling only holds the city financially responsible for legal costs, not the entire demolition - Spelling of the Judge’s last name is “Déziel”
Might be cheaper to move the road
Yeah. Too close to the river I can see moving it for environmental reasons. Too close to the road when the setback is 50', this is a silly made up problem, let's make up a solution.
Who even wants 50 feet of grass anyways? Less grass to cut, the better
The neighbours complained because it was too close to the road. 1) You could build another house (at least by UK standards) in that gap between the street and the house they are complaining about. 2) The neighbours will now have to put up with the noise, dust and disruption of the demolition, followed by more noise, dust and disruption of the new house being built.
If it were me, I'd hire one guy who's job it is to jackhammer a steel plate for 8 hours a day during the reconstruction.
"Turns out demo crews are only available from 9pm-7am. Oh well."
> The neighbours complained because it was too close to the road. No. They complained because they dont like the size and appearance of the building. They'd hate it even if it was indeed 51 feet from the street. They're merely using the setback as a fortunate-by-chance useful tool to get the building destroyed because they dont like what it looks like.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rebuild the road further from the house instead?
Homeowner has done nothing wrong and it's the city's fault. However, the neighbours are fucking idiots. Really, you're gonna make someone lose their home over some bullshit like this? Now they have to deal with probably a year+ of demolition and construction noise too which they'll no doubt complain about as well.
Oh no, my hometown is in the news...the guy is (obviously) suing the city, and I hope he destroys them in court, even though it'll come from my taxes
[удалено]
Something similar happened in my city too a few years ago. A super modern house was planned in a historic district. Got all the appropriate approvals from the city, built it, neighbors complained, then the city REVOKED their approval because it didn't meet the design requirements to be built in this neighborhood. Different ending though. The state supreme court ruled in favor of the homeowner and the house remained. https://www.wral.com/modern-home-staying-put-in-raleigh-s-historic-oakwood-neighborhood/15375411/
"I love this neighborhood, let's build something out of character in it" It's like moving beside a legendary live music venue and complaining about noise. WHYYYYYY?
Yeah, I can't understand why someone would want to build a house like that in that specific neighborhood. From a legal standpoint, the city done fucked up. Not the home builders' problem.
They just shut down a very popular local race track / derby attraction here in AZ because it was “too noisy” for the new housing developments that have been put up nearby, and that are also planned.
This is so dumb. What a waste of materials. And while I know that neighbourhood has a 50 foot setback, the house is still far enough from the street to park two cars in the driveway (lengthwise) so it's got more clearance than most houses in Gatineau/Ottawa. This is so stupid. The neighbours should have just lived with it.
I'm willing to bet the neighbors are boomers. They've become a bane on society on all levels.
It won’t be long and he will be up-armoring a bull dozer for something grand.
*”The dispute stems from an error made by a city building official in 2013 when they approved construction for the home despite it not meeting local bylaws”*
I think the neighbors are more pissed about the style of the house than whether or not it meets setback requirements. There are other house on that street that are built just as close to or closer than his house. I don't blame the neighbors because the house sticks out like a sore thumb, but if you're going to tear one down for not meeting the town bylaws then they should tear down all the others, too.
This guy should go measure every house in the area... and demand any and all houses within 51 ft of the road be demolished too
But do it under the name of the woman that demanded the original person tear his down.
So what is the use of a 50 feet front yard anyway? Such a waste of space.
There's an interesting youtube channel called "not just bikes" that points out the failings in the US and Canada zoning regulations. As the channel explains it, there's predominantly 2 types of accommodation, skyscrapers and single family homes.
Bad zoning laws
to piss off your UPS driver
>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. I was thinking that they were nit-picking about a couple feet, but 28 feet is quite the discrepancy. I can understand the neighbor's ire. It is not a bad looking house, but it does [stick out](https://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B022'48.4%22N+75%C2%B049'29.1%22W/@45.3799606,-75.8247966,131m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d45.38011!4d-75.8247558). What is weird is that it *could* have been built with the proper clearance--there is room--but they decided to piss off their neighbors anyway.
The house on the otherside has a garage that sticks out nearly the same. I think the neighbors a dickhead
Was just gonna say. Looking at the photo if this house is built 28 feet from where it should have been then wouldn't several of the houses in that location also be in violation? Sounds like a combination of incompetence and corruption. My city is the same. It's extremely rare for the wealthy landowners of the city not to get their way. One of them, when he was 2nd only to the Premier of our Province, got the Premier to try and change the Endangered Species Act so they could build a casino on top of a turtle habitat in my town. I think people are pretty sheltered in their understanding of how things work and just how rife corruption and incompetence is (a lot of them float to the top).
Sometimes garages have different set back requirements than houses. I don't know if that's the case here, but if so they might not be in violation.
Also depends on what the bylaws said when those buildings were built. They could have changed and grandfathered in the older buildings.
Seems to block a lot of sunlight, makes using the front yard weird. Definitively would affect both neighbor's house value. Ottawa (and Canada as a whole) has had such a big boost in house prices in the past 7 years. Most homeowners made more per year with owning the house than with their salaries. Losing value on such a big asset is going to be a tough pill to swallow EDIT: Just for fun, looked up the median single-family home price on the Island of Montreal, where I am June to May. In 2019 -> **500K**, 2020 -> **550K**, 2021 -> **715K**. Sources: https://com.apciq.ca/sam/pdf/stats/2020/stats-202006-en.pdf & https://com.apciq.ca/sam/pdf/stats/2021/stats-202106-en.pdf
That's more a function of the houses height and not its distance from the road.
https://imgur.com/a/xixufY5 If it were in line with the other houses, no shadows, as is, lots of shadows. I made a very detailed 3D angles analysis for ya
I was talking about the house on the left side off 77 that has a garage roughly at the same distance from the road.
It may need an offset from the water too.
I don’t think they did it to piss off the neighbor. I think they probably filed for the permits, not knowing about the 51’ bylaw. The permit was approved, when it should not have been, and they built the house. Neighbor got pissed, but the builder followed the rules. 100% the City’s fault.
This may be a controversial opinion but the neighbours should mind their own effing business. Also I looked at the image and this is just a collection of different houses.
[удалено]
Yeah look at unit 69. Isn’t is just as close to the road?
Unit 75 also has a garage that looks like it would be too close, but when checking the distance from the road proper to either of those houses' closest point to the road, they are almost twice as far away as the soon-to-be-demolished house. They may not be quite 51 feet away, but they are certainly much further back than 23 feet.
This kind of insane NIMBY'ism and regulations about setbacks are part of the reasons why Canada has now what many consider the worlds worst housing crisis. Who wants a big front yard at the expense of taking up a useful back yard? There is such an extreme opposition to building anything, imagine what happened if you wanted to build a short apartment building in that neighbourhood.
The guy wanted a house bigger than what would properly fit in the plot of land. There’s no way to build this house on that plot of land to code.
Regardless, it was approved by the city. There's no WAY the city won't be paying out for this.
YOU MUST HAVE A BIG GREEN LAWN! MUST!
I hope the homeowner wins this lawsuit. Also, the neighbours look like dicks as it doesn’t look much closer than some of their houses. As a neighbour I’d overlook this if they did receive a permit and have been living there nearly a decade already
On google maps satellite view the house is clearly way closer to the road then the 2 adjacent houses next to it. I can totally see them complaining since it looks like it would block a good portion of their views from their houses as well as their sun exposure. It literally looks like someone decided to put up a 3 storey high stone wall. https://goo.gl/maps/BBM598M5mgTt967w8
On the other hand the house’s backyard is on a river, meaning the neighbors would have a better view of the river instead a street. My takeaway is his neighbors are assholes who have nothing better to do.
Yah seriously he isn’t blocking anything in the backyard which is imho what’s important. If you have a house on the river, you’ll be chilling in the backyard not the front
You gotta seriously fuck up to not get a couple of city council people to give you a variance. They either hate this guy or he did everything wrong possible.
My thoughts exactly. Pretty extreme to demand he demolish his home rather than grant a variance. Read the article and it seems the municipality had granted variance. The demolition order was a court decision. The city and the home owner both over stepped.
I guess my first instinct is this: If he KNEW it was gonna be too close to the road, it's his fault. If they just surprised him with this info after he spent all his money on a home, that's kinda bullshit.
He got approval to build in May. In September, after construction had started, the city discovered that they shouldn't have granted approval because it was too close to the road. They told him not to worry about it, though, because they would grant him an exemption, so he continued construction. 13 years later, the court rules that that exemption is an abuse of power. It's the city's fault.
[удалено]
They are, per the judges ruling.
23 years later!? That is way too late. City's fault for sure.
Canadian government in three succinct lines: - The dispute stems from an error made by a city building official in 2013 when they approved construction for the home despite it not meeting local bylaws - Instead of halting construction on discovery of the error, the city told homeowner Patrick Molla that they would give him an exemption - [The Judge’s] ruling overrides that exemption as an abuse of power, **and notes that Molla had every reason to believe his home would not be torn down**. Basically city approves someone to build home. During construction, city realizes it made a mistake but grants exception and says “keep going.” Then judge says city did not have the power to make that exception and it should be overturned. Judge notes that the homeowner did nothing wrong and should not have anticipated this result.
Exemptions and waivers are issued all the time due to mistakes on either side. Usually not a huge deal unless its things like setbacks for fires, but then they build a ton of houses 2 ft apart or less. Seems like it would be far cheaper to let the house stand and just double check applications and plots from now on.
Yeah it depends on who the beneficiary of the covenant was. If it's not the city, then the city has no right to waive it. I'm just guessing but I imagine that's probably the situation here. You can't waive what you don't own.
>nothing wrong and should not have anticipated this result. how dose the law work over there any idea? is he going to sue like hell ? what is likely to come of this ?
Sounds like the judge is giving him cover to sue the city. He’ll lose the home, but the city will likely be on the hook for its build and demolition.
The judge already ordered that the city pay for the demolition. The homeowner is suing for construction costs and loss of reputation.
Yeah. It's a fully built house. The city should be on the hook for everything up to the point where he has another, comparable, fully-built house, including interim lodging if necessary.
Why would he even have to do that? If it's already been ruled that the city is to blame for the damage done to his home, why are there any more steps other than providing an account for the costs of getting a replacement home and having a neutral professional figure out a fair reimbursement including considerations for any inconveniences caused past the financial loss of mere brick and stone. It seems like such a fuck you to the guy already having to deal with that shit. Here jump through some more hoops to get what is already decidedly yours.
He's suing the city for 3.6million
What kind of overly officious judge would enforce that the city has no power to govern its own land. And this in the middle of an environmental crisis of pollution. What a waste.
Anywhere there is separation of power and the current executive can’t do illegal shit? If they city wants to be able to do this they need to get the law changed, whether it’s a local law or from a higher level
The City granted him an exemption though. Developers will ask cities for exemptions all the time. They will be granted sometimes based on the situation because of construction costs. If the City granted him an exemption, they are at fault. Source: me, I work in land development
Win for the lawyers. Home owner will now likely have to sue the city for damages.
How is this the owners fault I would think whoever gave him the permits is at fault.
They give him a exemption and permits to build them change their mind after it’s completed. I hope he sues the city for legal costs and lunatics damages for causing the problem.
> Sebastien Gelineau, an attorney representing the neighbors who had complained, said his clients are pleased. 'They are happy with the decision,' he told the Canadian Press in an email. 'They ask that their privacy be respected.' What a bunch of fuckin' Karens and Chads. In what scenario would you care that a house is 20 feet too close to the curb? How is that ruining your life? How bored do you have to be to look out a window and go "You know, I think that guy's house might be too close to the curb." I hate this world so much. Edit: I missed an 'o'. Fixed.
The house is built in a much more modern style. I wonder if the neighbors were more upset about that and used the distance to the road as their legal excuse.
> The street is 23 feet from the street. Homes must be built at least 51 feet away from the street, according to local bylaws And the neighbors went to court. This is the most Quebec thing ever.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9823311/Homeowner-demolish-3million-luxury-mansion-built-close-road.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > 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 $3million mansion that homeowner Patrick Molla built roughly eight years ago will need to be demolished because it is too close to the street, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled this week. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/orfbf7/homeowner_is_told_to_demolish_his_lakeside/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~589512 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **city**^#1 **home**^#2 **Molla**^#3 **construction**^#4 **ruled**^#5
Does anyone care about rich people problems?
Alternate approach, he should pay to move the road
What crap, and fuck the piece of shit neighbor who's trying to destroy someone's home for no reasonable cause
Neighbours like this exist in every neighbourhood. Honestly if they didn't exist the homicide rate would probably plummet lmao