Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man ordered to demolish brand new $500,000 home; it was built 12 feet too close to the road.
The Ottawa Citizen ^ | 4.27.02 | Dave Rogers

Posted on 04/28/2002 12:01:30 PM PDT by mhking

Too close to NCC land, $500,000 'dream' house must be torn down

Dave Rogers
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, April 27, 2002


Sunny Bad'aan offered the NCC $20,000 in landscaping to keep his 'dream house.'

Sunny Bad'aan offered the NCC $20,000 in landscaping to keep his 'dream house.'
 

A judge has ordered Ottawa builder and entrepreneur Sonny Bad'aan to demolish his nearly completed $500,000 home because he built it too close to the the National Capital Commission's Ottawa River Parkway.

Mr. Bad'aan, 57, and his wife Jo-Anne Bad'aan Bélanger bought the property on Lochaber Avenue near Westboro Beach on March 30, 2001, intending to build a dream home overlooking the Ottawa River for themselves and their three children.

After working as a builder for more than 30 years, Mr. Bad'aan knew he had to hire a lawyer to make sure he had clear title to the property and a surveyor so that the house would be correctly situated on the the lot.

He hired an architect to design the house.

Mr. Bad'aan claims the Ottawa law firm Honey/MacMillan failed to notice a restrictive covenant requiring the rear of the house be at least nine metres from the National Capital Commission property line on the parkway.

On Aug. 28, 2001 the NCC told him to tear down the 5,000-square-foot house because it was too close to its property line. The commission applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an order to have the house demolished.

In a ruling released this week, Justice Dan Chilcott said the main wall of the house is only 4.8 metres from the NCC fence, not the required nine metres and ordered the demolition of the house. Mr. Bad'aan said he believed there was nothing wrong with building the house so close to the parkway because the normal rear yard distance between a house and a neighbour's property is three metres.

"I accept that through no fault of their own the respondents (the Bad'aans) did not know of the restrictive covenant when they started building the house and I am sure that they did not purposely intend to violate the restrictive covenant," Judge Chilcott said in his ruling.

"However, if someone made an error who was retained by them, the respondents are ultimately accountable for that error."

Judge Chilcott said the house would be "detrimental to the public interest" and even if the front wall of the house was moved it would still be visible from the parkway and the NCC bike path.

"The court is not persuaded that if the structure is allowed to stay that the injury would be negligible," Judge Chilcott said. "Its impact is significant in my view.

"I am fully cognizant of the hardship and mental distress of the respondents as well as the great cost that will follow if the application is granted and that has given me great concern in arriving at my decision."

Mr. Bad'aan, who had spent $500,000 on the house by the time he stopped construction was in despair about the court order yesterday, but said he will demolish the house within two weeks.

"I can't believe they will waste $500,000 out of my pocket plus the land which cost $240,000," Mr. Bad'aan said. "It would cost about another quarter million to complete -- everything is done except the brick outside and the marble floors and carpets.

"We offered the NCC $20,000 for landscaping, legal fees and a penalty of $60,000 to show it is a mistake and I am ready to do something to correct it. This was to be my dream home and it fell apart because of (an) error. I knew nothing about the covenant."

Mr. Bad'aan said it is a waste to demolish a $500,000 house because the NCC wants the building to be four metres farther from its property line. He said the law firm is covered by insurance, but it could take years for the courts to hear his claim.

"I have never seen anything like this in 35 years in construction," Mr. Bad'aan said. "I am disappointed because I thought we could settle the problem with the NCC out of court.

"This was my dream. I wanted to build something out of the ordinary with a view of the Ottawa River. I will never build anywhere near NCC land again, not with such an arrogant organization. I will tear down the house and go somewhere else."

Mr. Bad'aan considered moving the house closer to the front of his pie-shaped property, but discovered the design of the front of the house would have to change for it to fit.

Moving the house to another lot would be too costly because of its size. The house would have to be cut in sections before the move or hydro lines would have to be taken down to provide clearance for the building.

Al O'Brien, a lawyer representing Eric Honey, Mr. Bad'aan's real estate lawyer, said he had been notified that Mr. Bad'aan will seek damages.

"There is a real issue to be determined by the court about what the parties knew and when they knew it," Mr. O'Brien said. "He has a right to commence an action against Mr. Honey and say what he believes happened. Then a defence will be advanced on behalf of Mr. Honey."

NCC spokeswoman Laurie Peters said the commission had to challenge the location of Mr. Bad'aan's house because allowing it to remain where it is would set a precedent that would encourage others to encroach upon NCC property.

Copyright © 2002 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp.
All rights reserved. Copyright terms & conditions


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: contstruction; demolition; homes; realestate; regulations; stupidlaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last

1 posted on 04/28/2002 12:01:32 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mhking
Mr. Bad'aan, who had spent $500,000 on the house by the time he stopped construction was in despair about the court order yesterday, but said he will demolish the house within two weeks.

It would make for much better media theater if he forces the State to demoloish it...with his family inside it. I would bolt all doors and bar all windows and make the police smash their way in to get me out. I guarantee the public outcry would end it before the end of the first day.

2 posted on 04/28/2002 12:07:39 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Im speechless, that judge has to make the list of one of the top 10 as*holes on the planet.
3 posted on 04/28/2002 12:08:42 PM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: mhking
"Judge Chilcott said the house would be "detrimental to the public interest" and even if the front wall of the house was moved it would still be visible from the parkway and the NCC bike path."

'Socialism'; it is a beautiful thing. Hope all the Candians are appreciating it.

5 posted on 04/28/2002 12:13:42 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Rather than honor the rule of law, should we just honor the law of the jungle where only the strong and the rich survive? So much for personal responsibility when law-breakers can whine to the media about how oppressive their ignorance of the law is.
6 posted on 04/28/2002 12:13:53 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Mr. Bad'aan claims the Ottawa law firm Honey/MacMillan failed to notice a restrictive covenant requiring the rear of the house be at least nine metres from the National Capital Commission property line on the parkway.

Someone's E&O insurance policy premiums will be going up. Ouch.

7 posted on 04/28/2002 12:14:11 PM PDT by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Mr. Bad'aan claims the Ottawa law firm Honey/MacMillan failed to notice a restrictive covenant requiring the rear of the house be at least nine metres from the National Capital Commission property line on the parkway

Mr. Bad'aan may be losing a house, but he's going to own a law firm.

8 posted on 04/28/2002 12:14:42 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Fikus
I guess it would depend on what the word 'easement' meant.

The judge must be a republican. The laws are the laws. Only a democrat would want to bend them to make the perpetrator "feel good". MOVE YOUR DANG HOUSE, LOSER!!!!

9 posted on 04/28/2002 12:16:10 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Good Lord. Is there a right to appeal??

Zoning laws must be obeyed, but there must be an equitable way to resolve this without destroying a home.

10 posted on 04/28/2002 12:17:04 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking; montag813
...a restrictive covenant requiring the rear of the house be at least nine metres from the National Capital Commission property line on the parkway...NCC spokeswoman Laurie Peters said the commission had to challenge the location of Mr. Bad'aan's house because allowing it to remain where it is would set a precedent that would encourage others to encroach upon NCC property...

2...It would make for much better media theater if he forces the State to demoloish it...

How does building on your own property encroach on any other property? Does Canada have no laws against taking of property without compensation? Why didn't the government buy the other nine meters it didn't want anyone building on?

That's a good idea - make the government to tear down the house instead of being good little sheep.

11 posted on 04/28/2002 12:17:42 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Mr. Bad'aan may be losing a house, but he's going to own a law firm.

Wonderful comment for a horrible situation!
12 posted on 04/28/2002 12:18:12 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
It's not a HOME. It's a house.
13 posted on 04/28/2002 12:18:22 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Clive;editor-surveyor
fyi
15 posted on 04/28/2002 12:22:18 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mhking
At least our country hasn't slipped this far, but we are headed that way.
16 posted on 04/28/2002 12:22:48 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jadimov
I hope you understand that "real estate" is the only 'real property' the is never really owned by the 'owner'. Don't pay your property taxes and it will be taken from you.

A car, a coat, a television, or any other "property" is yours forever, with no chance of being taken away.

Not so with so called "real estate".

It's not yours, you're renting it from the authorities. Period.

17 posted on 04/28/2002 12:24:48 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Al O'Brien, a lawyer representing Eric Honey, Mr. Bad'aan's real estate lawyer, said he had been notified that Mr. Bad'aan will seek damages.

A "honey" of a case, I'd say.

18 posted on 04/28/2002 12:25:06 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
...Rather than honor the rule of law...So much for personal responsibility when law-breakers can whine to the media about how oppressive their ignorance of the law is...

What about civil disobedience in the face of an unjust law? The man may be forced to give up his house, but does he have to destroy the house himself?

19 posted on 04/28/2002 12:25:27 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
A car, a coat, a television, or any other "property" is yours forever, with no chance of being taken away.

Unless someone accuses you of smoking weed in the privacy of your own home. Trust me, when it comes right down to it, it's all government property if they decide they want it.

20 posted on 04/28/2002 12:28:37 PM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jadimov
Of course not. The taxpayers should pick up the tab for cleanong up his mess.

I guess I could go up there and help out on the weekends.

Should we send them some food and drinks?

21 posted on 04/28/2002 12:29:01 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
The very term itself means "property of the crown."
22 posted on 04/28/2002 12:31:04 PM PDT by Erasmus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jadimov
What I dont understand is the judge said even if he moved the wall back another 12 feet it would still be detramental because it would still be be visible from the road, but I dont remember reading any thing about it being illegal to be visible from the road, so either was this guy is screwed.
23 posted on 04/28/2002 12:31:05 PM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
.....I hope you understand that "real estate" is the only 'real property' the is never really owned by the 'owner'. Don't pay your property taxes and it will be taken from you.....A car, a coat, a television, or any other "property" is yours forever, with no chance of being taken away.....Not so with so called "real estate".....It's not yours, you're renting it from the authorities. Period.....

Yes. I know. The property tax is one of the vilest powers ever given to government. It turns every state into a socialist state. All land is owned by the government.

24 posted on 04/28/2002 12:31:06 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
You're right. Sorry I didn't think in those terms.

That thought never occured to me, nor did what could happen if one would murder, molest children, wife beat, or anything that would be similar to your "drug" scenario.

I was commenting from a purely "upstanding citizen" point of view.

25 posted on 04/28/2002 12:32:51 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I knew I'd find you here.......

lol!

26 posted on 04/28/2002 12:33:07 PM PDT by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
...Unless someone accuses you of smoking weed in the privacy of your own home. Trust me, when it comes right down to it, it's all government property if they decide they want it...

Good point. War-On-Drugs bump!

27 posted on 04/28/2002 12:33:10 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mhking
"I can't believe they will waste $500,000 out of my pocket plus the land which cost $240,000,"

If I lived in a neighborhood where just the lots cost $240,000 I would insist that all zoning be followed to the letter. After all it is the zoning that keeps the property values in this range. If you let one person ignore the zoning laws the next thing you know you are up to your armpits in trailer houses.

28 posted on 04/28/2002 12:34:03 PM PDT by Gaston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
In a town south of Boston Mass about 10 or 20 years ago, a man started construction on a large house on an empty lot he owned in a historic district. The day the foundation was poured the towns buliding inspector stopped by and saw that the contactor had not placed the foundation where it had been on located on their submitted plans, and that is was now too close to the street (by about 15 or 20 feet) to be in compliance with the setback regulations.

The inspector informed the contractor and the contractor got in touch with the owner (I believe he was a lawyer), and the owner decided as the pour was almost done that he would keep going and appeal the matter to the town. The inspector said he would seek a cease and desist order, but the owner had the framing crew come in a week later and quickly frame out the house, thinking that the town would never tell him to tear down a nearly bulit house.

The town issued a cease and desist order but the owner in defiance of the order, had the place finsihed with roof and windows and exterior trim/finish so it was "tight to weather" and he appealed to the town for a variance, once again thinking that the town would never make him tear down a nearly finsihed home.

Well, his attitude annoyed the neighbors and they pushed to have the town force him to tear it down and in the end, after some legal machinations and appeals that he lost, he did pay to have the house torn down. I believe he them sold the empty lot to someone else.
29 posted on 04/28/2002 12:34:56 PM PDT by BansheeBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jadimov
How unfair to think that everyone has to live in society, eh? How annoying to realize that we can't have everything we want. How unnerving to think that we can't stay infantile forever.
30 posted on 04/28/2002 12:35:30 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
...Should we send them some food and drinks?...

You'd better make sure you aren't breaking any NAFTA laws by transporting cheap American food across the border.

31 posted on 04/28/2002 12:35:31 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
I was commenting from a purely "upstanding citizen" point of view.

You only have to be accused to have your property forfited you need never to be brought to court.

32 posted on 04/28/2002 12:36:32 PM PDT by Gaston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Erasmus
...The very term itself means "property of the crown."...

Thanks. I never connected "real estate" with "royal property". It makes a lotta sense when I think about it.

33 posted on 04/28/2002 12:37:36 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
murder, molest children, wife beat, or anything that would be similar to your "drug" scenario.

LOL! Murder, wife beating, and child molestation are SIMILAR to using drugs?? Good one LOL!

I was commenting from a purely "upstanding citizen" point of view.

You have proved my point. If the state decides you are not an "upstanding citizen", your property becomes their property. Therefore, it was never your property to begin with.

The concept of property is dead in America.

34 posted on 04/28/2002 12:39:11 PM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gaston
You only have to be accused to have your property forfited you need never to be brought to court.

So true. And an eventual aquittal does NOT mean you get your stuff back!

35 posted on 04/28/2002 12:40:52 PM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gaston
If I lived in a neighborhood where just the lots cost $240,000 I would insist that all zoning be followed to the letter. After all it is the zoning that keeps the property values in this range. If you let one person ignore the zoning laws the next thing you know you are up to your armpits in trailer houses.

Bravo!

36 posted on 04/28/2002 12:41:14 PM PDT by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mhking
That is why we have title insurance here in the U.S. If the building setback line was omitted from the title commitment he would have a claim. If he was seeking title "assurance" from the law firm, he probably has a claim against them, and a good one if they missed the BSL in their title report. My guess: The builders just goofed. Measure twice, cut once.
37 posted on 04/28/2002 12:41:27 PM PDT by AdA$tra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
It's not a HOME. It's a house.

Oh, for God's sakes....HOUSE, then.

38 posted on 04/28/2002 12:41:37 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gaston
Okay, you got me. That's true. I've heard that happens.

I'm truly depressed now.

We're totally screwed. We "own" nothing.

The most fortunate people around are the homeless derelicts.

They have nothing to lose. Whew, now there!.

I wanna be like them.

39 posted on 04/28/2002 12:41:59 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mhking
No offense, but if this guy has been in construction for 30 years he should have known to look for things like this. The fact is he built in error and is going to have to fix it. Otherwise, anyone could flaunt the building codes and just offer to pay off the city or building department. It happens all the time. Wealthy and connected people just do as they wish and find a soft palm in which to place a few coins.

"I have never seen anything like this in 35 years in construction," Mr. Bad'aan said. "I am disappointed because I thought we could settle the problem with the NCC out of court.

This has got to be a lie. Cities routinely make builders tear down contruction when it violates code. What he means by the second line is "I knew of the code but figured I would give them the finger, build and pay them off later to make them go away".

40 posted on 04/28/2002 12:42:33 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaston
.....If I lived in a neighborhood where just the lots cost $240,000 I would insist that all zoning be followed to the letter. After all it is the zoning that keeps the property values in this range. If you let one person ignore the zoning laws the next thing you know you are up to your armpits in trailer houses.....

I don't think you have to worry about trailers in an area where lots cost $240,000.

41 posted on 04/28/2002 12:43:00 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Gaston
If I lived in a neighborhood where just the lots cost $240,000 I would insist that all zoning be followed to the letter. After all it is the zoning that keeps the property values in this range. If you let one person ignore the zoning laws the next thing you know you are up to your armpits in trailer houses.

No one has any sort of "right" to high property values. Property is worth what it is worth on any given day. Your supposed "right" to high property values is in your imagination. Anyone who doesn't like the trailer down the block can move.

43 posted on 04/28/2002 12:45:16 PM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mhking

CITIES SUCK


44 posted on 04/28/2002 12:45:43 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
Don't call me trash until you've slept in my trailer.

--Big Smith
45 posted on 04/28/2002 12:47:08 PM PDT by AdA$tra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Rather than honor the rule of law, should we just honor the law of the jungle where only the strong and the rich survive? So much for personal responsibility when law-breakers can whine to the media about how oppressive their ignorance of the law is.

This situation is only the "rule of law" if one considers Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to be examples of the "rule of law".

This situation is an example of the tyrannical bureacracy which has infested Western nations. There are so many laws, regulations, edicts, etc.... that no one short of the Almighty knows them all. Bascially some pencil-necked-geek bureaucrat can destroy your life and property thanks to the control freak nature of many "laws".

One logical solution to this particular situation would to "let it be", the same way police officers don't enforce most traffic laws. Of course, that solution would involve the state admitting that there is such a thing as individual Rights and that the state is not God, which is never going to happen unless the state is MADE to realize it by the Supreme authority (a Free people), using any means necessary (see Declaration of Independence)

46 posted on 04/28/2002 12:47:52 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
.....How unfair to think that everyone has to live in society, eh? How annoying to realize that we can't have everything we want. How unnerving to think that we can't stay infantile forever.....

That sounds like the attitude of Parliament toward the complaints of the British subjects in the American colonies. Or the attitude toward blacks who wanted equal treatment before the sixties.

47 posted on 04/28/2002 12:48:39 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
And when Big Bart comes to assault and rape you, we'll "let him be" just like the when police don't enforce the traffic laws.
48 posted on 04/28/2002 12:50:58 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
.....cities suck.....

What would you do to make them not suck?

49 posted on 04/28/2002 12:52:10 PM PDT by jadimov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
Therefore it was never your property.........

I think that was MY point.

50 posted on 04/28/2002 12:52:20 PM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson