‘Are you kidding?': Encroachment on Hamilton parkland spurs outraged reaction

Hamilton Spectator

28-05-2025

Count Dianne Millar among the dozens of infuriated residents calling on the city to tear down a poolside 'fancy garage'
built on taxpayer-owned parkland
.
The indignant Dundas resident wrote to city leaders after reading a
Spectator story
about a plea to council from Joe Tarasca, who spent $400,000 during the pandemic to build a new driveway and poolside oasis — on what turned out to be city land on the Stoney Creek Mountain.
The city has told Tarasca to tear down the development and resurrect the former green space — but the apologetic homeowner has asked council to let him buy the strip of land for $150,000, instead.
City officials say allowing the unauthorized build to stand would set a dangerous precedent —
Millar joined dozens of commenting readers on The Spectator's website in urging council to turn down the plea — but also shared her own building experiences in a detailed email to the mayor and some council members.
The Dundas resident estimated her family spent more than $150,000 just to get the site plan, building and environmental approvals required to build on their own land five years ago.
'We followed all the rules and it cost us greatly. If we had been able to skip the site plan/building permit approval process and been fined $150,000, we would have jumped for it!' she wrote, pointedly adding, 'And remember, we owned the land.'
Overhead shot of property with encroaching building and fence, as submitted to the city.
There's no guarantee council will consider Tarasca's proposal — although some councillors suggested at a committee meeting last week they would consider bringing a motion to look at alternatives to demolition to Wednesday's council meeting.
The Kingsview Drive homeowner told councillors in a delegation last week that he thought he was building on his own land and was unable to confirm the boundaries with the city during a pandemic lockdown, only learning of his mistake later when belatedly seeking a building permit.
He did not agree to an on-site tour with The Spectator to explain why he should be allowed to keep the development, but indicated in a short city hall interview he is open to options other than a sale, like a long-term lease.
Millar was skeptical about the homeowner's explanation about being unable to reach city officials — '
not available during COVID? Are you kidding?' — and
urged the city to either 'rip out' the development or set a purchase price high enough to ensure 'significant deterrence' to anyone else eyeing municipal parkland.
In an anecdotal website survey, the majority — although not all — of Spec readers seem to feel the same way.
Some commenters suggested the city could leave the building, but raise revenue via a long-term lease while still retaining ownership of the land. A few empathized with the landowner over the bureaucratic hurdles involved in building in Hamilton.
An aerial photo identifying the city-owned parcel of parkland where the neighbourhood constructed a building and patio.
Many others, however, repeated a central point made in a city staff report on the encroachment: that allowing the landowner to buy forgiveness sets a dangerous precedent.
'Allowing (the poolside build) to remain on city-owned parkland would create a precedent that future litigants could cite to justify carving up other public spaces,' wrote Christine Fandrich to The Spec via email. 'Imagine your favourite Hamilton park reduced, one encroachment at a time, because previous councils failed to defend the public trust.'
The optics would also look bad given the plight of homeless residents in the city, others suggested.
'Maybe all those supporting encampments should band together, build a few sheds and when the orders to remove come, just offer money to go away,' suggested Breanne Knowles in a letter now posted to the
council agenda
. 'What's good for one is good for all, right?'
Tarasca was out of town and unavailable Tuesday for comment, according to staff at his business.
But he told councillors he wanted to do the right thing to 'resolve' the encroachment without needlessly tearing down property improvements, which he argued 'beautified' the area.
Tarasca said he thought the land was his based on a property stake he found and emphatically stated he would not have built there had he realized it belonged to the city.
'No, of course not,' he said in response to the question when asked by a councillor. 'I'm not stealing anything from the city.'