A Hamilton, Ontario homeowner is facing demands from city officials to tear down a structure, patio, and driveway valued at over $400,000, built without permits on municipal parkland. The case highlights the complexities and disputes surrounding property lines and land use within the city.
Contents
The core issue is that Joe Tarasca constructed these additions next to his East Mountain home during the pandemic, encroaching onto a strip of city-owned land near the Red Hill Valley Trail. This land is considered environmentally significant and is designated public park space. The situation has already resulted in fines for the homeowner and has ignited a debate over whether the city should enforce demolition or consider selling the disputed land.
The Illegal Construction and Its Consequences
Joe Tarasca spent more than $400,000 building a glass-enclosed, three-season building, a patio, and a new driveway. He claims he believed he owned the land based on a property stake and his maintenance of the area since 2014. He also cited COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, stating city hall was closed and he couldn’t get confirmation or a survey before starting construction.
He admitted to councillors that he did not seek a building permit until 2023, three years after starting the project and the same year a complaint triggered a city investigation. The structure is officially described by the city as a “detached three-season building,” while his ward councillor called it a “fancy garage.”
The first consequence was a conviction in provincial offences court for a building code violation, resulting in over $5,600 in fines. However, the larger financial impact comes from the city’s demand to tear down the structures and restore the land.
Ground-level view of poolside building, patio, and driveway constructed on Hamilton city parkland near Red Hill Valley.
City Staff vs. Homeowner: Demolition or Sale?
City officials are clear: the illegal structure must be removed, and the city-owned land, which abuts the forested Red Hill Valley, must be restored as green space. They emphasize that building without permits on municipal land is a significant violation.
Mr. Tarasca is seeking an alternative. He has made a $150,000 offer to purchase the approximately 120-by-20-foot strip of property. He argues the land is not “sensitive parkland” and isn’t used by the public, suggesting the sale would be a “win-win” for the city, providing revenue for land he believes the city might not have even known it owned.
City staff, including environmental services head Cynthia Graham, strongly oppose the sale. Their report warned that allowing a resident to build first and seek to buy the land later would establish a “dangerous precedent.” Encroachment on municipal land is already a challenge for the city, and this significant case could complicate future enforcement. Staff also noted that historical photos show a fence established the property line on the city side as recently as 2015, which was removed before Tarasca’s construction.
Furthermore, the city property serves practical purposes, sitting atop a storm sewer and providing an access point for municipal service vehicles to the valley. Staff argue there is “no defendable… reason to accept a sale here.”
Council Weighs the Options
The magnitude of this encroachment, particularly the cost involved, has elevated the decision to City Council. While staff have the legal power and current intention to proceed with demolition if the homeowner doesn’t comply, council could intervene.
The debate among councillors reflects the tension between financial gain and upholding bylaws and land use principles.
Councillor Mike Spadafora expressed openness to the sale, questioning the city’s specific park plans for the small parcel and suggesting $150,000 would benefit taxpayers. “I don’t care about what’s built there,” he stated.
In contrast, Councillor Maureen Wilson highlighted the land’s status as part of the city’s parkland system and echoed concerns about the “precedent risks” associated with selling land after illegal construction. She sought more information on these risks before considering a sale.
The concept of “adverse possession,” or “squatter’s rights,” was also raised by councillors, given the homeowner’s use of the land since 2020 without city intervention until the 2023 complaint. However, the city’s lawyer reportedly indicated courts would almost certainly side with the municipality in such a case.
Overhead view showing property lines and the encroaching poolside building, patio, and driveway on Hamilton city land.
Seeking a Resolution
Mr. Tarasca declined a request to tour the property for an explanation of why he should keep the land but indicated in an interview that he is open to other solutions, such as a long-term lease. “I’m willing to do whatever it takes to get it resolved,” he said.
The ward councillor, Brad Clark, intends to bring a motion before council to explore alternatives to demolition. He believes finding a solution that ensures the homeowner pays taxes on the property could be a “win-win for the city.”
The ultimate decision rests with Hamilton City Council, which must weigh the staff’s strong recommendation for demolition and the precedent concerns against the homeowner’s offer and potential alternative solutions. The outcome will likely influence how the city addresses future encroachment cases.
The city is also expecting a broader report later this spring on the risks and challenges of enforcing encroachment policies, which may provide further context for this significant case.
