The original landscape design sets out the number of trees and bushes, the type, and the general location. Most of the trees were planted in groves to simulate a natural environment much like an urban forest. The bushes were mostly rhododendrons and variegated dogwood, the ground was covered with plants like St Johns Wart and Cotoneaster. All of which proved to be extremely low maintenance - until the new millennium - when strata corporation management began disregarding owner concerns over funding being diverted from landscaping into other interests - allowing weed control via toxic chemicals to poison the soil, untrimmed bushes to smother and destroy ground cover leaving the ground bare, eroding top soil, and tree roots exposed to the sun, topping trees destructively - leaving plants stressed with root weevils, birch borers and other uncontrolled pests, cutting down trees, tearing out bushes, building extra decks and fences - and retaliating against those who complained - all of which took priority over the strata corporation's duty to maintain the common property and assets for the benefit of all.
The Strata Property Act, the Coquitlam Tree Cutting Permit bylaw, a Restrictive Covenant that runs with the land, and the registered strata bylaws should have stopped or prevented approximately half of the 282 trees that were planted by the original landscape architect from being cut down - if all the laws were not ignored. Approximately 150 trees were cut down in spite of owner protests and the replacement price for each mature tree being an estimated $15,000 with no guarantee of survival and the fact that only about 6 trees were identified by the arborist as high risk.
Section 71 of the Strata Property Act requires a 75% approval vote of the Owners for any significant change in the use or appearance of common property. That is the law. The terms of the contract for the building envelope project specifically protected trees, yet only the two trees in front of unit 409 were protected - following my numerous phone calls and letters. About 150 were eventually cut down. The trees I saved were among them - cut down without authority. The strata records show trees cut without a vote, by council or otherwise, and without the required 75% approval vote of owners for any significant change to the original landscape design, pictured above - in breach of the duty to maintain common assets.
Expensive landscaping that original owners like myself paid for has been destroyed to build extra decks like this one, is an endless eyesore, year after year. This the view from our living room, dining room, kitchen, and deck, which replaces our original view of beautiful and valuable greenery. The detriment to property values from cutting trees has been predictable, substantial, and prolonged. Our loss of enjoyment beyond measure. The ultimate damages revealed by time.
Important trees planted by the landscape architect were cut down needlessly while nuisance trees planted by owners were left standing.
This fir tree planted by owners has been impeding the entrance for years. All of the fir trees came from our former neighbour, without the required vote, none of them were in the designs of the original landscape architects.
Thousands of ground cover plants and shrubs were cut down and torn out as well, leaving us living in an environment with nothing but an unsightly stump, bare dirt, enormous weeds, and pest infested shrub at our front door for years. Trees that were planted in groves and could not stand alone were uprooted and blown to the ground by the wind, while many of the remaining trees are now dying as the water table is dropping and their roots overheat without their protective groves and ground cover.
These areas at the front of the units were originally planted with bushes and greenery. Unfortunately, this is how it has looked in front of unit 409 for over 3 years - after all the greenery was torn out and the money for remedial landscaping was spent to build extra decks. Special levy funds were diverted from repairing the strata plan decks and landscaping for the benefit of all - into removing trees and demolishing and reconstructing extra decks for a very privileged minority - with a corresponding sales history showing what seems to me to be a mass exodus from the lower units.
Without insurance or litigation the cost to the strata corporation for replacing the volume of trees that were cut down is truly prohibitive. It is nevertheless important to the environment, property values, and owners' use and enjoyment of common property that as many as possible of the most significant trees be replaced without delay.
With no information about the geotechnical history or current sinking problems or instructions from council to consider such issues, the strata corporation's landscape architect estimated the cost for landscaping 10-foot areas around buildings without replacing the lost trees to be approximately $150,000. If our experts are not fully informed and properly instructed the value of their service is compromised - sort of like with computers - garbage in, garbage out.
Our lowest elevation at Guildford Way is about 82 feet and our highest elevation at Rambler Way is about 182 feet, 100 feet higher, yet the strata corporation gave a landscape architect instructions to design a plan without reference to this slope, which has a history of sliding.
GOOGLE EARTH SATELLITE PHOTO - circa 2004 This photo shows the evergreen trees only. It was taken in winter so the birch trees do not show up without their leaves.
http://earth.google.com/ GOOGLE EARTH SATELLITE PHOTO - August 2008. This photo shows bare dirt, virulent weeds and loss of trees. If another 35 trees were removed after the photo in the image below was taken, we may have even less to work with in 2009.
In spite of our complaints, this stump was left at our front entrance for over 3 years - while other stumps were removed elsewhere - repeatedly.
Here it is on September 17, 2008, after it was finally removed.
This area was filled with bushes and greenery since 1988. This is how it has looked for over 3 years - after all the greenery was torn out and the money for remedial landscaping was spent to build extra decks.
Nothing grew here for over 3 years except huge weeds until clover in the lower portion improved the street level view somewhat in the last part of 2008.
The clover (or chickweed) that cropped up in late 2008 looks better than the bare dirt. In fact, I kind of like it.
But the view from our entrance has looked like this for over 3 years.
The required tree cutting permit was not obtained from the City of Coquitlam. In spite of my requests, the law was ignored and the strata corporation did not obtain an arborist report until after these trees were cut down. Approximately half the trees that were cut down were beyond the required area for the scaffolding. These trees were cut down after the scaffolding was gone. http://www.choa.bc.ca/members/pdf/400/400-005%20List%20of%20Strata%20Lawyers.pdf
The trees planted around unit 409 served an important geotechnical purpose. This shim is from the first time our building sunk.
What affect cutting down the trees had on the 20-year warranty in place since 1988 - I do not know - but here is the hole dug at the northeast corner of our building in May 2008 to add another beam to shim up our building after it sunk again when the trees were cut down and not replaced. I want the trees back as soon as possible, before our building sinks for a 3rd time.
This hole was 46x46x66 inches in size and left open for nearly 6 months at the northeast corner of our building from May to November 2008. At the south end of our building these wooden supports were added as reinforcment, but for some reason fall below the level of the cracked concrete under this staircase at the front of our unit. We do not consider the whole of these circumstances to be at all minor and dispute claims to the contary.
The rains and power washing that occurred during that 6-month period of time eroded the earth creating several of these caves in the hole. We don't know what happened under the building where we couldn't see.
Strata Records contain a report from Sayers Engineering Limited dated January 19, 1989, stating that the concrete foundation reinforced with steel fractured under our unit and settled due to a lack of subgrade support, which was thought to be due to the dirt below the foundation not being retained, or fill settling, and/or migration from water flow. We do not know why the hole was left open from May to November 2008, or what, if anything, council did to assess whether there was resultant settlement during the 6 months , and if so, the degree of foreseeable damage due to dirt below the foundation not being retained and/or migration from water flow.
At the AGM on April 1, 2009, Mr. Mac indicated that it is foreseeable that we may sink again. His acknowledgement of the foreseeable consequences of digging such a sizable hole and leaving it open for 6 months concerns us. A lot.
1 pine tree, 6 birch trees, and 1 vine maple were cut down around unit 409. We have waited years and they are still not replaced. The damages are ongoing and profound.
We believe that the slope has destabilized since the destruction of most of the trees and bushes that were planted pursuant to geotechnical covenants
as more places are sinking than ever before
and pavement is being patched all over the complex as pipes break at what we fear to be a truly alarming rate
This bush in front of unit 409 was the most pest infested plant in the complex.
I tried to participate on the landscaping committee and was excluded when I asked that destructive practices be minimized. The roots of all the healthy surrounding bushes were torn out, but the one bush that was plagued with root weevils more than any other for the longest number of years was left at our front entrance. This sickest bush in the complex has grown back all by itself. We believe that most of the other bushes would have also but for the destructive actions of a couple of reckless owners on council.
This birch tree was cut down in 2006 but the stump was not ground down deep enough to stop root suckers from grow back.
Here are the birch root suckers in 2007. By 2008 the root suckers had grown back high enough to reach our living room window. Imagine how it would look now if healthy young trees had been planted in the fall of 2005 to reinstate the landscaping in accordance with the special levy landscaping budget, instead of cutting more down. Check out the slope. Check out the perfect pavement all around our unit. Check out section 71 of the strata law on cutting down our trees. Check out our sinking building. Check out the criminal code on vandalism. And harassment. Check out the compensatory costs. Check out the directors and officers liability insurance.
This is how it looked in the summer of 2008 when the birch was cut down again
The hydro kiosk which was left filthy black after substantial completion of the building envelope project was spray painted 3 years later by amateurs who sprayed paint on our hardi plank as well - while loads of matching cladding bought for the project with special levy funds remains in storage
See the rocks. What a surprise. Who's idea was this? Who voted for it? I know I didn't.
Did you?
Section 71 of the Strata Property Act, Restrictive Covenants, the building envelope contract, and our bylaw prohibitions against spoiling enjoyment and property were all ignored in the wanton destruction of the original landscaping.
SECTION 71 THE STRATA PROPERTY ACT (in effect since July 1, 2000)
Subject to the Regulations, the strata corporation must not make a significant change in the use or appearance of common property or land that is a common asset unless the change is approved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting,
or there are reasonable grounds to believe that immediate change is necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage.
The landscape architect told me that council had not advised him of any geotechnical issues with this site. I told council. Repeatedly. So it's no wonder I was excluded from the landscaping committee. It's no wonder my attempts pursuant to the Srata Property Act to obtain a copy of the drawings for the landscaping reinstatement plans were so repeatedly refused. Its no wonder we're sinking if structural considerations of soil, including slope stability and seismic loading, were so willfully ignored.
WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO NOW? Mr. Mac says ignorant owners are assaulting him and vandalizing the area around his unit and that he has the right to act against others. We believe the whole complex has been vandalized and that the costs are much too high for any innocent mistake.
These rocks have no roots at all. I shudder to think of the long term consequences. I worry about the cost. I worry about inaccessible strata records.
We think that when the trees surrounding the building were cut down and not replaced, the roots started decomposing, and the land starting destablizing. We think this must be recognized or the costs will continue to mount even higher. The threshhold of our new door is scarred. The new door is difficult to open and close. Adding more underpinning fixed it for only a couple of months. What are we supposed to do now?
When I put the cat's toy flat on the floor with my camera beside it and shone the laser beam light across the room the red dot in the center of this photo showed how much our floor has sunk
WE NEED OUR TREES BACK. Not just a few pretend replacements, but trees that reinstate the enjoyment, safety, and value of our property.
In 2008 more supporting beams had to be added underneath the northeast corner of Unit 409 to shore up the building and try to stop it from sinking - but it didn't stop - it is still sinking.
WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO NOW?
After being comparatively stable for more than 15 years our building started sinking rapidly after the trees were cut down - and adding more underpinning did little if anything to stop it.
Pipes have been breaking all over the complex as the roots have decomposed and the land appears to have destabilized
We think the only thing that will stabilize the land again over the long term - is the same thing as before - large trees.
THE SIGHT OF THIS BREAKS MY HEART Our shattered lives and soul crushing view polluted with roof tops, heat, grime, noise, and expense
The trees in these 3 pots can never restore the view from the windows of unit 409 - nor can they effectively replace twice as many birch and pine that grew more than twice as large as the species in the pots ever will - we do not see how they could ever look as attractive as silver birch and evergreen pine - particularly in winter - they cannot possibly do much, if anything, to remedy the harm to us and restore our enjoyment of our strata lot and the surrounding common property. We object to them being planted as substitution for, or in obstruction of, true replacement trees.
Most of the trees around our unit were cut down illegally, and accordingly, we have asked for replacment trees similiar in numbers and species as the originals with respect to appearance and size so as to remedy the harm to us as much as possible. There is no evidence that council presented any of these issues to the landscape architect for consideration, anymore than the geotechnical issues, which he advised a meeting of owners that he was neither informed of, nor asked to consider. He quit, the same as the various strata management companies quit, and half the owners quit. This pattern over a short number of years is noticable, to say the least.
Property Disclosure Statement - Strata Title Properties: What is the monthly maintenance fee per month? Does this include: Gardening?
It seems like the honest answer in this complex must be, "Maybe. It depends on who you are and where you live."
Since 2004 it has been plain to see that there has been virtually no landscaping or gardening around unit 409 for over 5 years. Before that it was minimal. After the first 10 years it was significantly less than elsewhere in the complex - as budgets were systematically designed by management not to provide proper maintainance of the landscaping throughout the complex - with allocation of funds deliberately intended to focus on targeting the higher profile and more privileged areas, while correspondingly neglecting the areas surrounding our unit, if not others as well. Budgets allocated enough funds for management's requirements, but did not keep pace with the landscaping as it matured and required more pruning and pest control. We think that the scope of damage arising fom these budgets must have been entirely foreseeable by management and that they failed in their fiduciary duty to warn council when presenting them for approval.
SLOPE PROTECTION
The land, buildings, and fixtures on this slope have a history of slippng and sinking. Our building sunk about 6 inches in 1988. Retaining walls in Phase 2 are cement, but in Phase 1 they are wood. It is not enough without the trees.
Since the trees were cut down our building has sunk, been reinforced, and sunk again. Other owners have been complaining that new decks are sinking, walls have been cracking, pipes have been breaking, and the wooden retaining walls had to be replaced - none of which was in the budget as far as I can tell.
The budget to reinstate the landscaping was spent reconstructing illegally built extra decks in inappropriate sizes and locations - for the exclusive benefit of a privileged few and the detriment of many - most probably in perpetuity. The costs mount as attempts are made with fences and paint to make the destruction of the landscaping and blemishes on the common property less starkly noticable
In 2003, a landscaping committee was formed, which I promptly joined. I asked that we obtain quotes, avoid destructive practices, hire qualified professionals to advise us (i.e. an arborist for preservation and a landscape architect for reinstatement.) I asked that we vote on decisions, record minutes, and submit written reports. My voice fell on deaf ears.
In fact, it was worse than that. The chair told me that quotes were received, but he didn't like them and threw them away, that Mr. PS's nephew was qualified, that we did not need votes, minutes, and reports, and that my ability to think clearly was in question. After that, he snubbed me, and I was excluded such that to the best of my knowledge, that was the end of the landscaping committee. Although I have never resigned, the committee never met again, in spite of my requests for a meeting. References in the minutes to the landscaping committee are misrepresentations. Basically, there was no committee - there were no meetings, no votes, no minutes, and no resultant reports to owners.
I estimate that approximately $50,000 of strata funds were spent to cut down and grind the stumps of approximately half of the trees on the landscape design, however, the published financial statements do not tell us the cost or where the money came from. Strata trees were not pruned, pests were not controlled, and with more than half the trees cut down trees planted in groves trees were left standing in isolation and fell to the ground uprooted by the wind.
My request for tree replacement was met at a meeting of council with an estimated price to replace a single mature tree of $15,000. Decisions were made on this issue by council and recorded in history - but not in the minutes - not to file a police report, not to investigate the funding and misconduct of the responsible parties, not to make an insurance claim on behalf of the owners to recover from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars worth of damages, and not to replace the trees.
Multiplying a $15,000 replacement cost by 150 trees = $2,250,000 (2 million, 250 thousand dollars) in damages. At the Annual General Meeting on December 15, 2005, our liability insurance coverage for Directors, Officers & Property Managers was increased to 2 million dollars. Council did not report the loss or make any claim for compensation.
The November 17, 2008, Province newspaper reporting on a $100,000 investment loss from the contingency fund says in part:
"Owners of two BC condo complexes have lost substantial amounts from their reserve funds after making risky investments... In the Okanagan case, the owners lost nearly $100,000... Tony Gioventu of the Condominium Homeowners Association warns that condo owners hurt by bad investments can sue their strata council or they may have to absorb the loss... Gioventu said strata councils may try to recoup some of the money by making an insurance claim under the "errors and admissions (sic) insurance of the strata corporations."
Our strata corporation lost over 2 million dollars in landscaping after reckless destruction of trees, plants, and soil - and it was just swept under the rug. I don't understand why we should absorb such an enormous loss. It is not just the immediate costs, but future damages as well. Buildings are already sinking for the second time. The full extent of such loss may not be known for years to come.
Council nevertheless voted to spend the special levy funds that were budgeted for remedial landscaping to build extra decks for a certain minority. These funds were spent after the owners directed council at the AGM to remove the extra decks of owners unwilling to pay to added costs from their existence.
Extra Decks built illegally on common property
Tree cut down - trellis planter placed on our deck
Pine trees - removed from meridian - stumps ground Mr. Mac get a panoramic view!
Only about 6 trees were marked as significant risk. Geotechnical issues ignored:
Restrictive covenants that run with the land
Coquitlam tree cutting permit protection bylaws
Sinking land and buildings
Council did not get a site visit by city arborist until April 2006
Long after the trees around Unit 409 were cut down
Section 71 of the Strata Property Act ignored
Mature trees removed - without need
Invading our home with this soul crushing view
Leaving noise, grime, and
Creating further harm to my lungs from worsened air pollution
Loss of use and enjoyment of deck:
Remedial proposals ignored since 2001
Twice demolished and reconstructed without requested extensio
Special levy funds diverted from landscape reinstatement to extra decks
User fees not paid for exclusive use and benefit - owners to expect a "Special Privilege" document - drafted by the strata corporation lawyer - specific to these "improvements"
WHAT IS WRONG HERE?
2008 After the surrounding trees were cut down and not replaced the new door started scraping the threshold and jamming so bad that it could barely open as our building sank, once again.
The ground has been sinking as well - not just the buildings Our retaining wall had to be rebuilt
More supporting beams had to be added underneath our building
This large deep hole was left open at the northeast corner of unit 409 from May 2008 to November 2008. We do not know why.
There was no investigation that we know of to determine the degree of erosion that may have travelled beneath our building while this hole was left open for such an extended period of time. We worry about the long-terem consequences of the caves that developed.
After 20 years of minutes - with little or no mention of cracking walls - cracks suddenly began to be mentioned in nearly every issue of the minutes - alleging that "settling cracks are owner responsibility." The only owners who I can see that are responsible for these "settling cracks" are Mr. Mac and Mr. PS.
Allowing responsibility to be transferred onto innocent victims - rather than remaining with those whose actions are the most likely cause of the cracking - doesn't make sense to me - I doubt that buildings would start "settling" 20 years after being built - if half the trees were not cut down and not replaced while the landscaping budget was spent on reconstructing illegally built extra decks for the privileged few.
Cracking walls and sinking land and buildings after half the trees were cut down are not all. After surrounding trees were cut down at least 3 pine trees that had grown in groves for nearly 20 years were left standing alone and quickly blew down in the wind.
I am told that one birch tree can absorb 10 bathtubs of water - and when more than half of a grove are cut down the water table may drop as a result. In any event, I think that there have been at least a dozen dying trees have been cut down since the groves were destroyed - I don't know how many more are doomed, but the death rate of these trees is primarily due to the wrongful acts of people, not nature.
More trees had to be cut down in 2008 because they were dying of abuse and neglect.
My warnings about loss of ground cover, lack of pest control, and a reasonable landscaping budget were disputed and rejected.
When trees suddenly started dying council ridiculed concerns by suggesting autopsies in the Minutes.
Falling Rains - Rushing Drains (volume must be turned up for this video, click triangle pointer to play) This is what is sounds like - after removal of about 150 trees - when rainfall runs off (with soil) into the ditches, instead of soaking into the earth to replenish water tables that appear to have dropped after the land was scalped.
When I attended a meeting of council on December 4, 2008, it sounded like the estimated cost to connect a pipe to the sewer might be about $25,000 - presumably because trees that no longer exist can no longer absorb the rainwater and the land is destabilizing.
Sometimes fun - Sometimes not so much - Disclaimer and Conditions of Use - I am not a lawyer. My blogs have been prepared by and are maintained solely by me, Dianne Bond, to share with other strata owners, advisors and decision makers. The information provided by me is true to the best of my knowledge and specific to my personal experiences since 1988. The content should not be assumed to reflect the views of the strata corporation. Others may have different perceptions of the facts and issues. My posts are intended as a starting point, and the reader is invited to investigate further. I hope my blogs shine a light on social issues involving unconstitutional strata governance, public interest, and the administration of justice. Comments are welcome: dianne.bond@yahoo.ca
