Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Con Boland House

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Con Boland House

    "Photographer denied appeal to keep building ‘green’ dream home
    Con Boland wanted permission to continue construction despite building code violations

    EMILY SENGER
    EDMONTON JOURNAL
    [email protected]

    An Edmonton photographer’s Riverdale dream home will be put on hold after his appeal to continue building a three-storey residence, nearly one metre higher than building codes permit, was denied Thursday night.

    Con Boland told the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board his home was designed to meet building codes, but a special eco-friendly cement floor and a flaw in the roof trusses pushed the height of the house nearly one metre past the accepted height of 8.6 metres.

    The house is also half a metre too close to the property line."

    Full Edmonton Journal Article - http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...4-8c121a5e6c92
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 27-06-2008, 09:45 AM. Reason: Length, link added
    www.decl.org

  • #2
    Greenspace - please edit your post to include a link, and limit it to under 150 words please. No articles may be reposted with out a link and only 150 words may be quoted

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=5442

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ement.php?f=10
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

    Comment


    • #3
      Boland admitted the house was too close to the property line, but said that's because somebody stole the survey stakes out of the ground.

      The contractor, Boland's brother, Paulus, wasn't sure where to dig the hole for the basement.

      Paulus Boland said he used the holes left by the stakes when construction began, but wasn't certain where the property line was.

      "Once you start building there is no way to tell if you're high or low unless you survey," he said.
      Then I guess you should have surveyed. Does he think that rules and regulations and bylaws don't apply to him? The arrogance displayed here is unbelievable.

      Comment


      • #4
        Sounds like everything is everyone elses' fault but his.

        Sorry, there's no excuse for building too close to the porperty line or going overheight.

        And if the claims of cutting down his neighbors trees are true, well lets just say it's a good thing he's not my neighbor.
        Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

        Comment


        • #5
          ...Sorry Con but a 'three-storey residence' will NOT "further the green revolution."
          In favour of Architecture that is of our time and place.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by raz0469 View Post
            Then I guess you should have surveyed. Does he think that rules and regulations and bylaws don't apply to him? The arrogance displayed here is unbelievable.
            I thought this article was absolutely hilarious.
            www.decl.org

            Comment


            • #7
              ^ Me too.

              The surveys stakes disappeared, so they took a guess. Seems reasonable enough. It's not like property lines are legally important or anything.

              Comment


              • #8
                He must have taken a guess too about where that 'tree' was located.
                In favour of Architecture that is of our time and place.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That's mine. This is mine. Hey, that's mine too. Everything around here is mine!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    When he started building this house, I have heard he actually cut down a tree on the neighbors property without telling them. They came home, or were called home and it was gone.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      the excavation and the foundations were surveyed prior to the start of construction and the house was resurveyed to ascertain whether the as-built conditions were in accordance with all of the permits that were issued prior to construction. when that turned out not to be correct, the city's processes to address the discrepancies were complied with and con will have to abide by the decision that was rendered. i do not know what he will choose to do but it would appear that he has attempted to comply with all of the appropriate criteria and precedures involved in good faith and i would assume that will continue.

                      it should also be noted that the "survey stakes" at the bottom of an excavation for layout for constuction purposes are not the permanent iron pins that delineate property lines and the potential for error is in fact common enough that all buildings are required to secure real property reports confirming on-site conditions and compliance. variances are not all that unusual and they are not restricted to homes and garages or decks and fences - there are a number of office buildings downtown that were granted variances or sit on easements or land acquired after they were built in order for them re-acquire compliance status and the need to do so is virtually never a result of "arrogance". there are mechanisms to deal with errors or mistakes - and we all make them. the issue is how they are dealt with, not whether they happened.

                      the only thing really unusual here is the press coverage of an ugly neighborhood dispute that doesn't tell the full story without including pictures of rocks being throwing through windows and balloons filled with roundup being tossed into gardens and spray painted vandalism on fences and signs [AND THE FULL STORY OF WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PRESENT EACH AND EVERY TIME ANY SINGLE EVENT IS BEING REPORTED UPON]... i am not trying to excuse or minimise the seriousness of the situation, just to point out how easy it is to arrive at erronious conclusions or make judgements without all of the facts [REGARDLESS OF HOW ACCURATE THE LIMITED ONES BEING USED MAY BE].
                      Last edited by kcantor; 27-06-2008, 06:06 PM. Reason: hopefully adding additional clarity per subsequent posts
                      "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ^ Well put. There are always two or more sides to any story.
                        Almost always open to debate...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^^I appreciate you bringing another side to the debate, but Con Boland isn't doing himself any favours here. There has to be an underlying reason(s) that his neighbours are mad at him.

                          Working in development myself, I know first hand that getting the community on side and appeasing any neighbourhood concerns is priority number 1. I realize you can't always please everyone, but he doesn't seem to be able to please anyone.
                          www.decl.org

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                            ^^I appreciate you bringing another side to the debate, but Con Boland isn't doing himself any favours here. There has to be an underlying reason(s) that his neighbours are mad at him.

                            Working in development myself, I know first hand that getting the community on side and appeasing any neighbourhood concerns is priority number 1. I realize you can't always please everyone, but he doesn't seem to be able to please anyone.
                            knowing that you "haven't pleased everyone" does not translate to "not pleasing anyone". con actually had a quite a bit of written support from the majority of his immediate neighbors in favour of his request for a variance (more than were against for what that is worth). the divisions within riverdale that are the underlying reason(s) you allude to having to be there (and your allusion is correct) have nothing to with con's house or even a tree that was already dying. con offered to replace it during the design stage and the offer was declined so it was left alone even though it was as much on con's site as the neighbors. it was left even when construction excavation necessitated the removal of a large portion of it's root system (which would certainly not have contributed to it's health either) presenting a risk to the houses on both sides. it was not cut until it started to fall into the adjacent excavation presenting a hazard to those working in the area. again, i am not trying to excuse anything or even to suggest that much of what has transpired could not have been much more appropriately handled by all involved (with the unquestionable benefit of 20-20 hindsight of course), just to note that some of the conclusions being drawn are not particularly well informed. and as for neighborhood trees, con is some distance from me but more of the boulevard trees and schoolyard trees in his area were planted by him than by the city so while some here have expressed reservations about sharing their neighborhood, he would be welcome in my block (at least by me) in that regard.
                            "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              ^nuff said...I appreciate the complexity of such situations. The SDAB hopefully had more facts that we do to make its decision. I thought it was an interesting discussion in City Planning/Building Code anyhow.
                              www.decl.org

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X