Monday, November 24, 2008

Landscape Design

STRATA CORPORATION MINUTES

The resolution for the special levy and the minutes of strata meetings confirm that owners did not vote in favour of changing the use or appearance of the common property before the trees around Unit 409 were cut down. Quite the opposite.

Both the building envelope contract's explicit terms and the special levy the special levy budget provided for maximum preservation and reinstatement of the landscaping.

SPECIAL LEVY
The special levy funds to reinstate the landscaping were diverted and spent reconstructing and permanently entrenching illegally added extra decks for a privileged minority, while the landscaping was devastated and left derelict for 5 years.

Original Landscape Design
Over 28o trees - and thousands of bushes
Planted on a 5-acre southern slope













The 1987-1989 Landscape Development Plans show over 280 trees, more than half of which were cut down around 2005/2006 and not replaced as of April 30, 2010.

Building # (Units) Deciduous+Conifers=Total Trees Planted
#1 (109, 111, 208, 210) 17+3=20 trees
# 2 (104, 106, 108, 110) 22+8=30 trees
# 3 (101, 103, 204, 206) 16+7=23 trees
# 4 (201, 203, 402, 404) 17+3=20 trees
# 5 (401, 403, 502, 504) 12+1=13 trees
# 6 (405, 407, 506, 508) 5+0=5 trees
# 7 (409, 411, 510, 512) 13+2=15 trees
# 8 (205, 207, 406, 408) 6+2=8 trees
# 9 (209, 211, 410, 412) 7+3=10 trees
# 10 (213, 215, 314, 316) 10+4=14 trees
# 11 (217, 219, 318, 320) 16+7=23 trees
# 12 (221, 223, 322, 324) 16+4=20 trees
# 13 (225, 227, 326, 328) 14+6=20 trees
# 14 (327, 329, 424, 426) 9+7=16 trees
# 15 (421, 423, 522, 524) 10+3=13 trees
# 16 (417, 419, 518, 520) 8+1=9 trees
# 17 (413, 415, 514, 516) 17+3=20 trees

TOTAL TREES: 217+64=281 TREES.
Most of the deciduous trees were birch and most, if not all, of the conifers were pine.

Many more trees than those listed above were planted; eg. The requisition for the 3 vine maples planted by the landscape architect between buildings 6 and 7 is in the strata records. (All of the fir trees from the firelane, down the steps to Lansdowne, were planted by our original neighbour in Unit 411. They were definitely not in the Landscape Architect's plan.) A few trees were planted by nature.

Landscape Development Plan (for Phase Two only) shows:

Qty., Botanical Name, Common Name, Size & Remarks
  • 57 Acer Circinatum, Vine Maple, 3-3.5M high, min. 3 stems
  • 9 Acer R. Red Sunset, Red Maple, 5 cm Cal.
  • 84 Betula Papyrifera, Paper Birch, 3.5-4M high (ie. 11.5-13 ft), min. 3 stems
  • 30 Pinus Nigra , Austrian Pine, 1.7-2M high
  • 386 Cornus Stolonifera, Red Twig Dogwood, #1 pot @ 1.5M O.C.
  • 200 Euonymus A ‘Compactus’, Dwarf Burning Bush, #1 pot @ 1.2 M O.C.
  • 195 Osmanthus Delavayi, Delavayi Osmanthus , #2 pot @ 1.2 M O.C.
  • 162 Rhododendron ‘Gomer Waterer’, White Rhododendron, #2 pot @ 1.2 M O.C.
  • 235 Ribes s. ‘King Edward VII’, Flowering Current, #1 pot @ 1.5 M O.C.
  • 65 Spiraea xB ‘Gold Flame’, Spiraea, #1 pot @ 1.2 M O.C.
  • 210 Sambucas R. ‘Plumosa Aurea’, Golden Plume Elder, #1 pot @ 1.5 M O.C.
  • 3750 Cotoneaster Dameri, Cottoneaster, 10 cm pot @ 60 cm
  • 5430 Hypericum Calycinum, Rose of Sharon, 10 cm pot @ 45 cm
  • 22 Clematis Armandi, Evergreen Clematis (to be located on site), #1 pot staked
All plant material to meet B.C.N.T.A. standards ... Minimum soil depths to be 40 cm (16 inches)in ground cover areas, 40 cm in shrub areas, and 1 cubic meter per tree root ball

Vines specified in plant list to be located on site by landscape architect ... Crushed limestone walkway not to exceed 10% slope, step as required using 6” x 6” treated timbers. Steps to be grouped. Walkway to be 1.2M wide.

Areas designated with ground cover planting, not exceeding 8% slope, may be planted with lawn upon approval of landscape architect. Minimum soil depth in lawn areas to be 15 cm (6 inches).

Landscape Development Plan (Stamped Received May 14, 1987)
Landscape Concept Plan (Stamped Received Jan 20, 1989)

Labels:

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Restrictive Covenants

Restrictive covenants Z123808 and Z123809, both run with the land and are registered in the Land Title Office against the title of each unit. Extracts are posted below.

The first Agreement with the District of Coquitlam was made on June 25, 1986. In this covenant (Z123808), the district:
  • was forever discharged from all claims in respect to loss or damage to any structure built, except where damage is caused by the negligence of the District;

  • agreed that the covenants run with the Lands.


The second Agreement with the District of Coquitlam was made on July 2, 1986 (Z123809).

It makes the following provisions:

  1. The district requested that all future owners of the lands be made aware of the design control requirements of the district in connection with construction.

  2. The grantor agreed to enter into a Restrictive Covenant, which runs with the lands and includes the following covenants:
    1. No structure shall be constructed except upon plans approved by the District.

    2. Prior to the commencement of construction, application shall be made to the District for approval of preliminary plans, which shall include:

      1. an accurate site plan showing the contours of the site and the proposed siting of all structures;

      2. elevation drawings of all structures proposed to be constructed;

      3. a preliminary landscaping plan;

      4. a perspective drawing showing all buildings or structures proposed to be constructed.
  3. Upon any application being approved and prior to commencement of construction the application for the necessary permits shall be made to the District, and shall include:

    1. a detailed and fully dimensioned site plan showing existing contours and/or spot elevations;

    2. detailed landscaping plans, including specifications of all plant materials, surface treatments and screening, and including an itemized written statement signed and sealed by a registered Landscape Architect as to the estimated true costs of the proposed landscaping works;

    3. working drawings and specifications of all structures to be constructed, including elevation drawings.
  4. The District may reject any application that does not contain all required information.

  5. Securities in an amount equal to the estimate of the total cost of landscaping works were to be held by the District to guarantee performance of such landscaping works.

  6. The covenants run with the Lands under Section 215 of the Land Title Act, RSBC, 1979, Chapter 219.

  7. If any provision is unenforceable, that provision is severable from the Agreement, and the remaining provisions continue in full force and effect.

  8. The Agreement extends to the benefit of and is binding upon the District and the owners of Sunridge Estates.

Labels:

Tree Cutting Bylaw No. 2169

At the time when our trees were cut down the Coquitlam Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw 2169 was in effect. Coquitlam has since replaced that Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw with a 2007 Tree Management Bylaw and a 2008 Tree Management Amendment Bylaw, which are available for viewing at the links belows:
http://e-civic.coquitlam.ca/cybercedms/getdoc.asp?doc=587610
http://e-civic.coquitlam.ca/cybercedms/getdoc.asp?doc=640480

The text that follows here is the Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw that was in effect at the time of the tree topping, soil compaction, root crushing, removal of ground cover, and other acts taken so as to cause the destruction of trees. It is the same bylaw that was in effect in February 2006 when our trees were cut down without a permit or authorization of any kind. I added the bold emphasis.


CITY OF COQUITLAM BYLAW NO. 2169, 1990

A Bylaw to provide for the application, approval, suspension or denial of Tree Cutting Permits in designated areas in the City of Coquitlam pursuant to Section 978 of the Municipal Act.

The Council of the City of Coquitlam, having observed the relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, enacts the following:

I. TITLE
This Bylaw may be cited as the "City of Coquitlam Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw No. 2169, 1990".

2. DEFINITIONS
In this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:

"Approved landscape or forestry plan" means any landscape or forestry plan approved by the City of Coquitlam pursuant to an application for a Tree Cutting Permit.

"Barrier" shall mean any physical barrier including a fence, frame or guard or any conspicuous identification including survey tape or any other device placed on, around or near a tree for the purpose of protecting it from injury or harm.

"Council" means the Council of the City of Coquitlam.

"Cutting" shall mean the cutting down or cutting so as to cause the destruction of any tree.

"Manager Development Services" means the Manager of Development Services for the City of Coquitlam and any successor in title to that position.

"Owner" shall mean the registered owner or owners of an estate in fee simple in respect of which a permit is applied for, or a person authorized by the owner or owners in writing.

"Permit" shall mean a Tree Cutting Permit issued in the form of Appendix I. City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 2 Convenience Consolidation – October 2002

"Professional Engineer" shall mean a professional geotechnical engineer or geoscientist registered as a member in good standing with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia.

"Qualified Tree Specialist" shall mean a Registered Professional Forester, Certified Landscape Architect or Certified Arborist.

"Slope" means a stretch of rising or falling ground or a portion of land surface marked by an ascent or descent.

"Tree" shall mean any woody plant which is 5 metres (16.4 ft) or more in height, including any which have been reduced in height to less than 5 metres (16.4 ft) as a result of topping, having one or more self supporting trunks and including the roots, branches, trunk, crown or any part of the tree.

3. APPLICABILITY

(a) All shaded lands shown on the maps attached as Schedules ‘A' and ‘B' may be subject to flooding, erosion, land slip, or avalanches; or constitute non-riparian forested lands with an area of 0.5 hectares or greater, and are hereby designated as a Tree Cutting Permit Area.

Additionally,
(i) Any slope of 20 degrees or greater, where the slope has a vertical height of 3 metres or greater, and
(ii) Any forested areas extending for a horizontal distance of 15 metres measured perpendicular to and beyond the slope boundary in (i) are hereby designated as a Tree Cutting Permit Area.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to cut or permit to be cut trees within a designated Tree Cutting Permit Area without first having applied for and having obtained a Permit except as otherwise provided in this Bylaw.

4. PERMITS

(a) (i) For Tree Cutting Permits on lands with slopes of 20 degrees or greater, the City of Coquitlam may require an applicant for a Permit to provide, at the applicant's expense, a report certified by a Professional Engineer, that the proposed cutting of trees will not create a danger from flooding or erosion.
(ii) For Tree Cutting Permits on other forested lands as described in 3a(ii) above as well as for Tree Cutting Permits on non-riparian forested lands with an area of 0.5 hectares or greater as described in 3a above; the City of Coquitlam may require an applicant for a Permit to provide, at the applicant's expense, a report certified by a Qualified Tree Specialist, to City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 3 Convenience Consolidation – October 2002 assess the condition of the trees to be removed, make recommendations for tree removal and where possible, pruning or retention.

(b) The City of Coquitlam may require an applicant for a Permit to provide, at the applicant's expense, a report certified by a qualified person, that the proposed cutting of trees will not create a danger from flooding or erosion.

(c) On receipt of a completed application for a Tree Cutting Permit for a parcel lying in whole or in part within a Tree Cutting Permit Area the Council may:
(i) issue the Permit including such terms and conditions as are deemed appropriate; or
(ii) refuse to issue the Permit and the Municipal Clerk shall provide written notice of the reasons for refusal within 15 days of the date of refusal, and
(iii) for parcels of 1 ha (2.47 acres) or more in area, at its discretion hold a public meeting prior to making a decision on the issuance of the Permit.

5. POWERS AND DUTIES

(a) The Manager Development Services or his delegate, may enter any lands at any reasonable time for the purposes of administering and enforcing this Bylaw.

(b) The Manager Development Services or his delegate may suspend work carried out under any Tree Cutting Permit if the tree cutting is not being undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Permit.

6. APPLICATION

(a) Applications shall be submitted in the prescribed form to the Manager Development Services by the owner of the lands.

(b) Applications shall be accompanied by a written description of the proposed tree cutting and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall include the following information:

(i) purpose and scale of the proposed tree cutting, and the methods to be used;

(ii) a site plan illustrating all pertinent topographic and hydraulic features, buildings, structures, tree cover and treed area(s) to be cut;

(iii) the methods proposed to control the erosion of the soil from any slopes of the land or any adjacent land;

(iv) the proposed methods of access to the site during the cutting;

(v) barrier methods proposed to protect trees which will remain standing, including prevention of compaction of their root area;

(vi) if the tree cutting is for logging purposes, the methods proposed to restore the site to a suitable condition, including appropriate reforestation and costs of these works;

(vii) satisfactory evidence that the person or firm responsible for the tree cutting is covered by adequate liability insurance;

(viii) such further and other information as the Council may require.

7. FEES

(a) Except as otherwise provided in the Bylaw, applications for a Permit shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee as follows:

Total Fee
(i) for the cutting of 1 to 3 trees per calendar years No Charge
(ii) site of less than 1 ha $100.00
(iii) site of 1 ha or more $250.00

8. SECURITY DEPOSIT

(a) Prior to the issuance of a Permit, a security deposit and a duly executed Security and Permission to enter form as set out in Appendix II, shall be required from the applicant to ensure the tree cutting is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Permit.

(b) The security deposit shall be, at the applicant's option, either an irrevocable letter of credit or the deposit of securities in a form satisfactory to the Manager Development Services.

(c) The amount of the security deposit shall be 100% of the value of the restorative measures required to restore the site to a suitable condition as estimated by a Registered Landscape Architect or Registered Professional Forester.

(d) Should the Permit holder fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the Permit in the opinion of the Manager Development Services, then the City of Coquitlam may retain all or a portion of this security, and its forces or agencies may enter onto the property and perform such work as is necessary to restore the lands to the condition specified in the Permit.

9. EXCEPTIONS

No Permit shall be required for the removal or trimming of dead, diseased or damaged trees, provided that the damage resulted from a non-human cause and provided further that the removal or trimming is accomplished through the use of standard forestry practices and techniques.

9.1 A Permit under this Bylaw is not required:
(i) where the cutting of trees in a Tree Cutting Permit Area has been authorized under a Subdivision Plan that has been approved under the provisions of the City of Coquitlam Subdivision Control Bylaw No. 2038;
(ii) where the cutting of trees in a Tree Cutting Permit Area has been authorized under a Development Permit or Development Variance Permit that has been approved and issued by the Council for the City of Coquitlam under the authority of Part 26 of the Local Government Act;
(iii)where a building permit has been issued for the construction of a single or two family residential building, under City of Coquitlam Building Bylaw No. 2987, and the tree cutting is necessary to accommodate the placement of the building on the land, and to accommodate construction of any off-street parking that is required under City of Coquitlam Zoning Bylaw No. 3000, 1996; or
(iv) where the cutting of trees in a Tree Cutting Permit Area is carried out by the City of Coquitlam, its employees or agents on City-owned parkland and open space, a highway, easement or right-of-way for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, repairing or servicing a road, sanitary or storm sewer, ditch, culvert, water main or other municipal infrastructure.

10. EXPIRATION OF PERMIT

Unless otherwise specified in the Permit, where the holder of a Permit does not substantially complete the tree cutting specified in the Permit within one year after the date it is issued, the Permit lapses.

11. PENALTY

(a) Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with this Bylaw, commits an offence and is punishable in accordance with the provisions of the Offence Act (British Columbia).

(b) Each day that a violation of the provisions of this Bylaw exists shall constitute separate offence.

City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 6 Convenience Consolidation – October 2002
READ A FIRST TIME this 28th day of May, A.D. 1990.
READ A SECOND TIME this 28th day of May, A.D. 1990.
READ A THIRD TIME this 28th day of May, A.D. 1990.
RECONSIDERED, FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED and the Seal of the City
affixed this 11th day of June, A.D. 1990.
__________________________________
MAYOR
__________________________________
CLERK
City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 7 Convenience Consolidation – October 2002

APPENDIX I TO BYLAW NO. 2169, 1990

PERMIT FOR TREE CUTTING WITHIN DESIGNATED TREE CUTTING PERMIT AREAS
TREE CUTTING PERMIT NO. ______

This Tree Cutting Permit is hereby issued by the Council of the City of Coquitlam to:
_____________________________
(name of owner - individual or company - the Permittee)
for tree cutting on ________________
pursuant to the provisions of the City of Coquitlam Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw No. 2169,
1990, subject to:

1. Tree cutting being undertaken strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Permit and any plans and specifications being attached hereto as part of this Permit.

2. The Permittee completing Appendix II under subsections 980(2) and (3) of the Municipal Act depositing the required security and giving permission to the Manager Development Services to enter the subject properties when necessary.

WHEN JOB IS COMPLETED, ENGINEERING 526-3611 IS TO BE ADVISED.
WARNING THIS PERMIT EXPIRES ON

_________________________________
(Date)
_________________________________
MAYOR ENGINEER
_________________________________
CLERK
DATED this __ day of _____________ 19 .
City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 8 Convenience Consolidation – October 2002

APPENDIX II TO BYLAW NO. 2169, 1990
SECURITY AND PERMISSION TO ENTER

WHEREAS the undersigned has deposited with the City of Coquitlam (The "District") cash in the amount of $______ or an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $_______ or other securities in the amount of $______ pursuant to the Tree Cutting Bylaw to ensure site restoration and/or installation of landscaping works on property legally described as:
_________________________________________________
in accordance with the Tree Cutting Permit approved by the City of Coquitlam Council on _________________________________________________

NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH that for good and valuable consideration received the undersigned hereby covenants to and agrees with the District:

1. To complete the said restoration and/or landscaping works within the time specified in the permit.

2. To obtain from any person to whom the undersigned proposes to transfer the said lands or any interest therein prior to the substantial completion of the said restoration and/or landscaping works, a form of permission to enter identical to this document with necessary changes and to deliver to the City the new document duly executed by the person to whom the undersigned proposes to transfer the said lands or any interest therein together with the security described in the preamble hereto.

3. To authorize and to permit and does hereby authorize and permit the City to retain any cash or securities deposited with it by the undersigned or call for and receive any funds secured by the Letter of Credit, as the case may be, in the event that the undersigned fails to perform any of the covenants on his part to be performed hereunder within the times limited for performance by the terms of this document and in such event the City may, at its sole option, enter the said lands and provide and install the said restoration or landscaping works, or retain the said monies for its own use absolutely as liquidated damages and not as penalty. Should the City enter the lands and complete the said works, and should there be insufficient funds on deposit to cover the cost of completion, the undersigned shall remit the shortfall in monies to the City forthwith upon demand. In the event that any Letter of Credit filed with the City will expire prior to the completion date provided for in Clause 1 hereof, the City may, from time to time, call for and receive the funds secured by the said Letter of Credit and retain the same until the undersigned files with the City a renewal of the said Letter of Credit.

City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 9 Convenience Consolidation – October 2002
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal, or being a corporation, has hereunto affixed its corporate seal in the presence of its proper officers first duly authorized in that behalf.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of:
________________________________
Name Signature
________________________________

Address Address
________________________________
Occupation Telephone
(OR in the case of a corporation
The Corporate Seal of
was hereunto affixed in the presence of:
________________________________

TREE CUTTING PERMIT AREAS
BYLAW NO. 3472,2001
SCHEDULES A & B
Maps of Tree Cutting Permit Areas

http://www.coquitlam.ca/NR/rdonlyres/2D5C52F2-E668-43E6-8F8C-6FA39EBF72AD/0/TreeCuttingBylaw.pdf

***********

I am wondering what happened to the security deposit, the restoration of the site to a suitable condition, and the penalties for each day that a violation of the provisions of this Bylaw existed (or still exists).

Labels:

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Laws of the Land

Property Disclosure Statement - Strata Title Properties:
What is the monthly maintenance fee per month?
Does this include: Gardening?

In 2003, a landscaping committee was formed, and I 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 remediation), 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 to the best of my knowledge, that was the end of the landscaping committee.

Mr. Mac had the trees in front of our windows cut down in February 2006, while we were out of town on vacation - while they were in a designated tree cutting permit area - without any kind of vote - without authorization - without need - and despite the strata property legislation and restrictive coventants and all warnings - before Coquitlam, or anyone else, had a chance to stop him. We believe that he acted alone, although he implicated that Mr. PS's nephew was also involved. The trees were mature, viable birch that were specifically preserved during the building envelope project, which were not interfering with pipes or pavement, and with their well established roots there was no evidence that they would ever be likely to do so. Afterward Mr. Mac emailed me saying that he had the right to take actions against his foes. Our view and property value was predicatably damaged, our building sunk as the roots decomposed, and the devastating effect on us was, and is, foreseeable and obvious - if not criminal. http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NEWS04/803080377/1004/NEWS03&template=printart

In addition, I estimate that approximately $50,000 of strata funds was spent to cut down 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 City of Coquitlam says the value of the individual trees on the Riverview grounds is estimated at more than $50 million; however, the age, variety and condition of the collection as a whole make it worth much more. http://www.coquitlam.ca/Residents/About+Coquitlam/Riverview+Hospital+Lands.htm

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














  • No site visit by city arborist until April 2006
  • 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, air pollution and grime
  • Where we saw green leaves in summer and
  • Twinkling lights in winter














Loss of use and enjoyment of deck:



  • Remedial proposals ignored since 2001
  • Twice demolished and reconstructed without requested extension
  • Special levy funds diverted from landscape reinstatement to extra decks
  • User fees not levied for exclusive use and benefit - owners to expect a "Special Privilege" document - drafted by the strata corporation lawyer - specific to these "improvements"
  • Does anyone else see anything 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.

Labels: