I am sorry that I can't be more charming, but this is sickening oppression.
Unit 407 is not only taking all of the common property between our patios, but is ALSO encroaching on 409's patio in substitution for the tree removed from the common property.
If, like others, Unit 407 was taking only half of the common property between our patios
It has taken a team of scofflaws persistently eschewing every conceivable remedial proposal for 30 years while conflating and misrepresenting factual data to get me this irritated. So I hope that the reader will not to be blinded to the law by my unmasked outrage.
The February 8, 2017 edition of the Burnaby - Tri-Cities Real Estate Weekly says,
When it comes to must-haves in buying or renting a home, a recent survey of BC residents says that, after the price, there is one other thing more important than bedrooms, size or location - and that's private outdoor space.
Here is just one of my many remedial proposals:
Unjust enrichment from taking common property for the exclusive use and benefit of a minority is big business, and removing trees for extra decks and panoramic views is making 2-bedrooms sell for more than 3 bedrooms.
Permission for exclusive use of the common property, temporary, or at all, is nowhere in 30 years of minutes, but the strata nevertheless installed a permanent fence with no gate, unlawfully blocking off the common property and decking between 409 and 407 so that no owner other than 407 has access.
In order to build the original decking adjacent to Unit 407 the owner unlawfully cut down the center tree in a row of 3 vine maples that the Phase One developer's landscape architect planted between Buildings 6 and 7, not just for privacy, but for geotechnical security pursuant to supposedly binding restrictive covenants that run with the land. Since then trellis planters continually occupy 409's patio in place of the tree to mitigate the loss of privacy.
This infringement on limited common property and unit entitlement is uniquely unfair to Unit 409. It is a loss not shared by any other unit, and it requires comparatively little to remedy.
It is important to note that Phase Two had a different developer who relied on concrete retaining walls more than trees, and those owners bought their units without the same trees and privacy as Phase One. Nor did they ever face the same history of sinking as Unit 409, now surrounded by seriously decaying wooden retaining walls that need to be replaced with concrete.
It is also important to note that council is almost always dominated by about 17 out of 68 units whose owners built unauthorized decks on common property adjacent to their units over the years. Acting in conflict, the strata reconstructed them in 2007 without s.71 approval, arbitrarily using surplus special levy funds left over from a building envelope project that was completed in 2005, after bypassing all of my deck requests for decades.
It is fundamental to take note that there are no "decks" on the strata plan of this complex, each strata
lot has a balcony or patio that is designated as limited common property
for the exclusive use of the corresponding owner. Members of the strata
management team persistently and purposefully conflate the word
"deck" with the designated terms for patio and balcony perpetuating misrepresentations and unjust enrichment for some
and hell on earth for me.
I have a problem with that, even if nobody else does. Nuisance alterations surrounding Unit 409 interfere with my use and enjoyment of the common property on an ongoing, continual day to day basis that has escalated to increasingly alarming attacks on me over the years.
In 2016 I circulated a s. 43 petition to mitigate significant unfairness and continual nuisance from alterations to the common property, but not enough owners signed and returned it to me.
I have a problem with that, even if nobody else does. Nuisance alterations surrounding Unit 409 interfere with my use and enjoyment of the common property on an ongoing, continual day to day basis that has escalated to increasingly alarming attacks on me over the years.
In 2016 I circulated a s. 43 petition to mitigate significant unfairness and continual nuisance from alterations to the common property, but not enough owners signed and returned it to me.
To be clear, I am not asking for permission to alter common property, and I am not asking for more than my neighbour. Unlike others, I am asking for reinstatement of shared used and enjoyment in proportion to unit entitlement to remedy continuing contravention of Bylaw 4.
After decades of imposed delay and coercion that became intolerable with the strata's 2005 alteration of patio doors and windows to an outswing style and the 2007 misappropriation of special levy funds to demolish and reconstruct unauthorized decks, members of council conflated their obligation to enforce Bylaw 4, acting to offload the burden with unreasonable demands that I paint inaccessible common property lattice, provide "working drawings," and a building permit (which the city refused to provide without council approval), refusing to move obstructive trellis planter posts that it installed on my patio in a way that I could not move them, accusing ME of "malicious intent" and, contrary to legal advice, making purposeful misrepresentations to owners and false accusations to police, conclusively defeating my mitigation proposals at the 2014 AGM.
I sued, but could not recover from prolonged and repeated trauma well enough to represent myself as required, with or without a lawyer, which I could not afford in any event, particularly when the cost of the most reasonable remedy has always been less than $5,000, and in my condition the alternate of obtaining an order for what would amount to about $100,000 for reinstatement of mature trees with a survival guarantee was remote.
I am no longer employable or in a position to offer or contribute any further mitigation now or in future, I am too old to wait another 30 years for a new tree to grow, and I am standing by my continual request that the strata enforce Bylaw 4.
The strata is responsible for causing and perpetuating this nuisance, and the strata is responsible to remedy it. I have done everything in my power to mitigate the damage, but it is not my responsibility to remedy continuing contravention of the bylaws by others.
All the strata has to do to remedy the problem is build a 17-foot platform pursuant to s. 133 of the SPA in the air space above the common property adjacent to Unit 409's patio so that the trellis planters can be moved off of 409's limited common property back onto the common property where the original tree was and still leave some air space for our umbrella to hang over the railing.
Council eschewed all my remedial requests for decades until it finally proposed a s.71 motion pursuant to Bylaw 8 which was defeated by council misrepresentations at the 2014 AGM. Council did not allow this motion until after surplus special levy funds were diverted to demolish and reconstruct unauthorized decking for the benefit of members of council who bypassed 409's long standing and repeated requests, and now it is holding up its own unreasonable and purposeful delays as a bar against relief from increasing oppression.
So many years of mounting nuisance and prolonged interference with my use and enjoyment on a continuous and ongoing day to day basis is sickening, to say the least.
The prevailing policy promotes profit from one's own wrongs at the expense of the law abiding. Every day since 407 cut down the tree 407 has enjoyed a benefit and 409 has suffered a corresponding loss. Members of the strata management team acted to my detriment in conflict for the unjust enrichment of a minority, contrary to the best interests of the strata.
Namely, then strata president, Al Macleod, who took about 3 times his share for over 10 years without paying user fees, knowing as a realtor that the common property has twice the value of the buildings; calling me "vile and despicable" and cutting down trees in retaliation against complaints, so as to advertise and sell panoramic views,
and his fellow realtor, and Coquitlam City Councillor, Mae Reid, taking over twice her share, acting unlawfully, in conflict, deceiving voters about a city work order, calling me "bitch" and accusing me of "stalking" for making complaints to council
and strata councillor, Sherrill Berg, taking over twice her share for unsightly storage of tarps, acting unlawfully, in conflict, diverting special levy funds, and telling voters that extra decking for 409 would be "outrageous"
causing decades of offensive views as seen from Unit 409
deceiving voters at the 2014 AGM, telling them contrary to
Adrienne Murray's 2013 legal advice to council, that she "definitely owns" the
deck adjacent to |Unit 412
which the strata built with money from me
and not a penny from her
with her noisy visitors parking all over the place
and then strata councilor and secretary, Marnie Hennan, excavating the slope to take over twice her share and deceiving police into attacking me by telling them that the deck adjacent to Unit 408 is her own "limited common property"
Georgia Title further retaliated in 2013, perversely claiming that the vine maple she removed was "too big" even though you can prune a maple tree right down to a bonsai...
claiming it was an unsuitable species, when it is the exact same species as she put in front of Unit 409 in 2010,
and BOTH KNEW how devastating the losses would be to me.
******************
My 2018 recollection
of ongoing irregularities arising out of the AGM
for the 2006 Fiscal Year End held on February 13, 2007
for the 2006 Fiscal Year End held on February 13, 2007
This recollection
may be best read in context with the minutes of the above-mentioned AGM and
first council meeting following it. To the best of my knowledge most of the material
facts are undisputed, and most of the loss to 409 mounts continuously on a
daily basis.
Sherrill Berg,
occupying the office of strata secretary, issued minutes for the AGM stating that:
It was moved, seconded
(#409/#404) and carried, with 18 in favour, 16 opposed and 1 abstention, that the
Owners direct Council to present an argument (at a General Meeting) that
requires that non-compliant and non-original, or parts thereof, decks be
covered entirely by the current Owner in accordance with the current bylaws
and Municipal Code requirements. The Owners will be
responsible for all legal engineering and permit costs otherwise the
decks will be removed by the Owners.
I am 409, and that is not the
motion I made. Those are not my words, I did not vote on that motion, nobody acted on that motion, the underlined insertions defeat my purpose, and in large part the bylaws as well. What I effectively said in the motion I made was that:
The owner who benefits from decking that is not on the
strata plan must entirely cover the extra expenses attributable to that
particular decking otherwise Council must remove it.
Despite generating
a slew of tortured arguments that were beyond belief, the motion I made was
consistent with the strata bylaws, special levy, Coquitlam work order, and SPA,
and I had no reason to amend it as shown in the minutes, or even at all.
Had the AGM been properly scheduled as required
by a motion carried on November 30, the strata lawyer would have been in
attendance to verify the validity of my motion and prevent Tony Gioventu from
acting unlawfully, wrecking havoc on the lives of others, and mine in particular.
As it is, I don’t
know who injected into the minutes the perversions, cost
restrictions, and ambiguities that I have underlined, including using a capital letter in Owner and
Owners without defining or distinguishing the difference in terms between an
owner of a strata lot and The Owners Strata Plan NW 2671, but I think that on a
balance of probabilities it was Joan Macdougall, strata manager; Sherrill Berg,
strata secretary; or Tony Gioventu, acting unlawfully as the chair.
As a non-owner Tony Gioventu chaired our AGM unlawfully, and I said so. When the CRT provided copies of our bylaws and I searched for the word "chair" my computer did not find it for some reason, and I mistakenly apologized to Tony Gioventu if my previously posted recollection gave anyone an understanding that he chaired the meeting unlawfully due to being a non-owner. In my opinion what was actually unlawful was his declaration that my AGM motion required a bylaw change, when it did not; followed by council diverting special levy funds based on his misrepresentation of my motion, the work order, the SPA, and the owners' direction to council.
I emailed him a retraction of my apology as soon as I had a chance to sift through all the historical bylaw amendments to confirm that he did in fact chair the AGM unlawfully. He said he didn't know what I was talking about, and I said, "I don't believe you." Bylaw 28 in our initial SPA bylaws and all replacements and amendments reads as follows:.
As one who likes to abstain from participating, directly or indirectly, in unlawful activity, I abstained from the vote to appoint a non-owner chair, but again, that is not what the minutes say.
The motion I made that was carried at the AGM on February 13, 2007 was deceptively altered and covertly slipped into AGM minutes amidst a distracting page and a half of argument – clearly confirming that council did in fact “present an argument” just as the minutes state - only it was not my motion to do so, it was done right then and there at the AGM. The argument that council presented was extensive and debated everything from legal opinions, to work order fines, to user fees, to insurance - none of which changed my mind. The vote of the majority was all that was needed to carry the motion that I made.
The law and the meeting were corrupted right from the beginning, so were the minutes, and my written complaint and vote against their approval at the next AGM made no difference.
Uppermost in my memory is Tony Gioventu using his
voice of authority as the executive director of the Condominium Homeowners
Association to characterize my motion as an imposition of user fees that could
not be voted on as it would require notice for a bylaw change. I said no,
it’s an individual choice.
I also think that the user fee bylaw that Mr. Gioventu said was required for my motion would be unenforceable, as at that time.council had not granted anyone permission for exclusive use. In fact, the strata management team has been careful not to do so, ever, at any time, before or since, as those taking common property for their own unjust enrichment do not allow "short term" or "user fees" in the minutes, no matter how many times I ask for compliance with the SPA. I didn’t say it, but in my opinion Mr. Gioventu was acting in conflict with the best interests of the strata, incompetently practicing law without a license while conducting meetings in conflict, unlawfully. I should have said so, right then and there.
The words that I underlined in the published AGM motion are consistent with decades of exhausting mischief and delay supporting the interests of Sherrill Berg and others like her, and most importantly, such artifice was contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation, and to my interests in particular.
I also think that the user fee bylaw that Mr. Gioventu said was required for my motion would be unenforceable, as at that time.council had not granted anyone permission for exclusive use. In fact, the strata management team has been careful not to do so, ever, at any time, before or since, as those taking common property for their own unjust enrichment do not allow "short term" or "user fees" in the minutes, no matter how many times I ask for compliance with the SPA. I didn’t say it, but in my opinion Mr. Gioventu was acting in conflict with the best interests of the strata, incompetently practicing law without a license while conducting meetings in conflict, unlawfully. I should have said so, right then and there.
The words that I underlined in the published AGM motion are consistent with decades of exhausting mischief and delay supporting the interests of Sherrill Berg and others like her, and most importantly, such artifice was contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation, and to my interests in particular.
Unfortunately, this was another one of those defective AGMs, with participation by units that do not exist, where motions could be sabotaged with rhetoric and chicanery or deemed carried unanimously with not even one single vote cast in favour, by a chair acting unlawfully.
Tampering with minutes is a strata industry standard, ranging from declaring lawful that which is unlawful (most frequently late AGM dates, retroactive strata fees, or bogus bylaws) to reversed voting, which deems motions to be carried by abstention, without a single vote cast either in favour or against (the most serious being bogus bylaws, elections, and approval of minutes) to deceptively conflating patios and decks to avoid user fees in an ongoing abomination of artifice.
You can never trust Sunridge Estates minutes. I arrived late for the AGM on April 3, 2018, but was in attendance long enough to know that the meeting was, once again, chaired by a non-owner, this time the strata manager, but you would never know it from the minutes which say:
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING MINUTES
THE OWNERS, STRATA PLAN NW2671
SUNRIDGE ESTATES
April 3, 2018
REGISTRATION
Unit # 104, 209, 210, 211, 221, 223, 225, 227, 314, 316, 320, 322, 326, 327, 328, 329, 402, 404, 408, 409, 412, 421, 426, 502, 504, 508, 510, 512, 514, 516, 518, 520
At the end of the registration it was determined that (28) owners were present in person and (3) by proxy for a total of (31) owners. Quorum was noted and meeting was called to order. One owner registered late in person making total owners present 32.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm by Georgia Title, Strata Council President
PROOF OF NOTICE
Notices were prepared and delivered to all owners according to the provisions set out in the Strata Act of British Columbia and Strata NW2671 Bylaws.
As far as democratic elections go, Sunridge Estates voters were, as usual, deprived of the owner lists prescribed in law, foreseeably impeding nominations, and this practice is an industry standard in strata management. It effectively induced a vote on a management supported slate of candidates and total strangers to me, which in this strata is more commonly effected by acclamation - with no vote at all. What is secret is not the ballot, it is information about the candidates.
***********
Tom Minniss, who seconded my AGM motion, and I were
both dumbfounded when 3 weeks later council disregarded our funding direction
and used surplus special levy funds to build unauthorized decks. Such a preemptive
strike was a shock in every way. It was obvious that the decision to ignore the direction of the owners and misappropriate the surplus special levy funds had been made in secret behind closed doors before the new council even had its first meeting. The construction contract was all ready to go, and it was signed on March
7, 2007, at the first council meeting after the AGM, based on a motion that deceptively misrepresented a city work order and the SPA.
This is what the minutes
say:
City of Coquitlam Work Order: Balconies/patios must comply with the City of Coquitlam's Bylaws and a Work Order has been issued by the City. The decks with drops on any part over 2' must have a permit and have a railing installed as per the Building Code requirements. It would be a serious liability for the Strata Corporation if these decks are left un-repaired. The money to fund these repairs would be taken from the Special Levy Fund; Terris Construction has provided an estimated cost of approximately $125,000.00 plus GST, which includes a contingency amount for any unknown or unexpected repairs.
It was moved,
seconded (Berg/Reid) and carried unanimously to have all the decks repaired and
brought to code to comply with the City of Coquitlam's Work Order. This is legislated under Section 83, 84 and
85 of the Strata Property Act.
Make no mistake, repair of authorized decks was no more required to comply with the work order than removal was; either choice was equally acceptable. The city work order was actually 100% compatible with my motion to direct council, and absolutely nothing in the Strata Property Act gave Council the right to misappropriate special levy funds.
Responsibility for creating a “serious liability” belongs to the strata management team; they are the ones who employ time as a weapon, prolonging years of delay in reinstating strata plan patios and landscaping, inducing owners to tolerate intolerable misconduct and unfairness in order to curb ever increasing loss and expense.
It is important to note that Tony Gioventu was hired to act as the chair of that council meeting also, and that he totally prohibited me from speaking, contrary to the best interests of the strata, the understood purpose of the special levy, the terms of the work order, and the direction of the owners.
In consideration of so many contradictions in fact, law, and funding, I was still shocked to see how well Mr. Gioventu worked with the team of ladies who were enjoying unfair personal benefits from unauthorized decks; it actually reminded me of watching synchronized swimmers. Tony turned a blind eye to material facts and acted contrary to law and common sense; Joan churned up deceptive or irrelevant rhetoric to cloud the matter; Wayne seemed to be a power monger with his own agenda to flip a quick profit; while Sherrill, Mae, and Geri acted in conflict for their own unjust enrichment contrary to the best interests of the strata.
This team made a preemptive strike, contrary to legal advice, strata bylaws, city work orders, s. 71 of the Act, the special levy for the building envelope, direction of owners, and best interests of the strata. Sherrill’s resolution was moved, seconded, and passed without debate or objection so quickly that it boggled my mind. Obviously, acting contrary to the direction of the owners as well as the purpose of the special levy, council could not, and did not, obtain the consent of the Owners.
Contrary to the minutes, the motion of Councilors Sherrill Berg and Mae Reid was to their own advantage, it was not to comply with the City of Coquitlam's Work Order or legislated under Section 83, 84 and 85 of the Strata Property Act.
Rather than recuse themselves as required by law, Sherrill and Mae made their motion when the bylaws subjected them to personally pay expenses attributable to alterations, and unauthorized changes or decks with offensive views that violate the bylaws were subject to removal and reinstatement of the original common property.
Furthermore, changes that the strata makes to common property as shown on the strata plan are subject to s.71 and ¾ approval if they are significant enough to amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or to change the proportional interest that an owner lawfully purchased with due diligence. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what the law gave me to expect, in pretty plain language.
Although volunteers can make innocent mistakes,
that was not the case here. Here we had meetings of a strata managed by a
professional property manager, chaired by the executive director of the
Condominium Homeowners Association, with a motion made unlawfully by a
paralegal, and seconded by another paralegal who is city politician with many
years experience, both acting in prohibitted conflict of interest and contrary to a previous resolution made by a paralegal acting
within the law, which was tampered with by the chair and in the minutes both.
Of course none of that mattered to the “might makes right” team of Tony, Joan, Mae, Sherrill, Geri, and Wayne. Of those who didn’t profit directly, Jim and Trevor did not attend this first council meeting, and Gord could not stand alone against a crowd.
Paradoxically, the same members of the strata management team who cited a city work order proceeded without applicable permits, licenses or approvals and failed to submit detailed plans and description of the intended alterations, the result being depleting the surplus special levy fund even further with building code violations that required REPEATED demolition and reconstruction in order to add specified structural footings, after Council supposedly had “all the deck repaired and brought up to code.”
Rather than have the standard of work and
materials be not less than that of the existing structures as required by
strata bylaws Sherrill and the others unfairly downgraded the existing
structure and design of strata plan patios, but they added upgrades, fences, and gates to
unauthorized decking for the ladies own mutual benefit.
Sherrill and the others further violated the bylaw requiring them to obtain all work and materials necessary for the alteration at the sole expense of the Owner who enjoyed the benefit, which was not surprisingly Sherrill, Mae, and Geri, along with a minority of others. Instead, what Sherrill did, at my expense, was receive a benefit from the time that she acted to divert the surplus special levy funds for so long as she has remained an Owner. At this point in time, that is more than 10 years, or about $10,000 compounding and counting, since she had the strata spend my surplus special levy funds to build and improve on a large deck for her own exclusive benefit to replace one that she admitted was rotten. Adding salt to the wound council continually bypassed and ignored all of my long repeated, ongoing requests for remedial decking in compliance with the bylaws and fair treatment.
With respect to the claims and demands arising out of these alterations, Sherrill Berg, Mae Reid, and Geri Campbell acted in further violation of the bylaws and refused to indemnify me for attributable losses, enforce Bylaw 4, or respond to my remedial requests in accordance with s.133. The ladies also failed to indemnify the 3-bedroom units for new significantly unfair high maintenance painting expenses that their down-graded alterations created and offloaded contrary to Bylaw 8. Most notably, members of the team placed uniquely unreasonable demands on 409 to paint the impossible, namely common property that they completely blocked off for 407’s exclusive benefit, purposefully causing 10 years of destructive unrepaired property damage to 409 and sickening stress, with unlawful demands and uniquely unfair treatment that never stops.
Acting on council does not divest anyone of their bylaw responsibilities as an owner. Yet council never charged Sherrill Berg, Mae Reid, or Geri Campbell, and none of them ever paid, for the magnitude of costs or expenses incurred, even though the bylaws say they must be charged to the Owner who altered common property. In fact, everything in the bylaws makes an Owner who has altered common property or benefited from the alteration responsible to pay any costs incurred or to restore the common property to its condition prior to the alteration.
I relied on the bylaws and expected them to be enforced. The problem in Sunridge Estates so far is that when it comes to bylaw or statutory violations attributable to added decking, conflicts of interest persistently prevails over law.
Nobody likes me to say it, but there is nothing common about common sense in Sunridge Estates; at least not when it comes to the damage and downgrades to Unit 409's patio and landscaping, or the persistent unfairness and nuisance that I have been subjected to in seeking reasonable remedies for unlawful conduct.
Bottom line: Sherrill unlawfully spent my surplus special levy funds for her own benefit, while council persistently eschewed my continuous complaint and request for remedy of ongoing violation of Bylaw 4 and the SPA's restrictions of denying access to common property and granting permission for exclusive use.
********************
I think this is unfair. I know that it makes me feel sick.
Council unconscionably delayed for decades my modest requests for space to accommodate remedial trellis planters to mitigate sickening nuisance and unfairness until finally defeating, by misrepresentation, a s.71 motion at the AGM in 2014.
In considering the best interests of the strata corporation, it is important to consider who gained benefit and who suffered loss, the minority or the majority.
It is essential to distinguish between changes to common property as shown on the strata plan and restoring common property back to its original state, and it just as vital to distinguish between conflict of interest and good faith in the whole of the circumstances of unjust enrichment and deprivation.
Terms that are conflated must be recognized as such, like referring to unlawful destruction of common property as “owner improvements”, using the term “decks” to mix patios that are designated as limited common property in with unauthorized construction for the unjust enrichment of a minority, and labeling legitimate concerns “harassment” in permanent records.
Sunridge Estates is governed unlawfully on so many levels, with council continually acting in conflict contrary to the best interests of the strata, effectively sectioning off repairs of patios from balconies extremely unfairly, purposefully conflating patios with decks, unfairly imposing years of dangerous and destructive delay for patio repairs and landscaping reinstatement; fraudulently diverting special levy funds for personal gain, purposefully hiring specialists who act unlawfully, deceiving owners with persistent misrepresentations, unconscionably causing foreseeable damage to people and property.
In an attempt to offload the strata’s legal
responsibilities in ever mounting contradiction and confusion council even went
so far as to file bylaws claiming that costs attributable to alterations will be
added to and become part of the Strata Fees of that Owner for the month next
following the date on which the cost was incurred.
To the best of my knowledge that has, of course, never happened. Nobody on council is entitled to enforce the bylaw for good reason. It is invalid - just like so many other bogus bylaws filed under the embarrassing name of this complex. Those responsible know it, or ought to know it, since they enjoy the advantage of working with a professional property manager with lots of legal advice and have direct access to the Strata Property Act and, presumably, the ability to read and understand English well enough to control a multi-million dollar property and the lives of others.
To be more specific, adding such a charge to strata fees is in direct contradiction to prescribed unit entitlement formulas governing strata fees that are mandated by the Strata Property Act. Despite being accepted as an industry standard, all that invalid bylaws do is coerce the ignorant, shirk responsibility, churn up legal fees for lawyers and add-on fees for agents, create unreasonable nuisance for owners and courts, and add further stigma to the reputation of corrupt stratas, Sunridge Estates in particular.
Whether or not you believe anything I say, the law and physical realities continue speaking.
Unlawful governance is becoming normalized. Particularly ongoing conduct that is uniquely unfair to Unit 409.
The mounting loss of proportionate use and benefit of property is continuous and an increasing nuisance contrary to Bylaw 4. The impacts on my personal health and welfare in proximity to prolonged and repeated interference with ordinary peace and enjoyment are alarming.
******************
This was a depiction of my extremely modest 2005 proposal for a 16-inch cantilever extension with landscaping as it would be viewed from the road.
This is a depiction of my current 3-foot remedial proposal, which is more in keeping with mitigating the unfairness and nuisance that violates our Bylaw 4 and my proportional rights under the Strata Property Act to access and share in the use and enjoyment of common property.
This is a depiction of my current 3-foot remedial proposal, which is more in keeping with mitigating the unfairness and nuisance that violates our Bylaw 4 and my proportional rights under the Strata Property Act to access and share in the use and enjoyment of common property.
It pains me to be exposed to unsightly tarps and intrusive views from my living area, and to be surrounded by big wooden decks where it was originally beautiful trees and park-like greenery.
So to make the common property attractive again the area surrounding the platform and supporting posts could be planted with evergreen vines that climb up from the bottom and hang down from over the railing, with something like a sky pencil tree adjacent to each post and shrubs or wildflowers like perennial Snapdragons and Shasta Daisies in between.
Like previous owners of Unit 407, my new neighbour, who purchased Unit 407 on March 23, 2016, indicates that she is not prepared to pay user fees for exclusive use of the common property. However, unlike those before her, she said that she did not wish to perpetuate ongoing nuisance or interfere with our right to use and enjoy the common property in accordance with the proportionate unit entitlements on the strata plan. She changed her mind though, after talking to the strata agent.
In my experience, the continual nature of the problem rests primarily with members of the strata management team who persistently misrepresent material facts without apology and offload their duty to comply with the Strata Property Act, enforce strata bylaws, and act reasonably. Associated conflicts of interest and deceptions arising out of unjust enrichment are becoming increasingly alarming.
For decades I have made a variety of remedial proposals, ranging from 16 inches to 8 feet, all to no avail.
Bottom line: Sherrill unlawfully spent my surplus special levy funds for her own benefit, while council persistently eschewed my continuous complaints about ongoing violation of Bylaw 4 and the SPA's restrictions of denying access to common property and granting permission for exclusive use.
Council unconscionably delayed for decades my modest requests for space to accommodate remedial trellis planters to mitigate sickening nuisance and unfairness until finally defeating, by misrepresentation, a s.71 motion at the AGM in 2014.
Contrary to the erroneous claim made to the 2014 AGM by former strata president Lynda Baker that the deck adjacent to her strata unit is owned by her and her subsequent assertions that the deck adjacent to Unit 408 is limited common property, the COMMON PROPERTY RECORD registered in the Land Title Office confirms that each strata lot includes one (not 2) patio or balcony as shown on the registered STRATA PLAN designation of limited common property for the purchaser's exclusive use as defined in the Strata Property Act.
Strata plan "patios" and "balconies" are designated terms, and mixing the terminology with "decks" can be deceptively misleading. There are NO DECKS on the strata plan or Common Property Record, but those acting in conflict deceptively mix the terminology persistently and CONTINUALLY to confuse material facts concerning ownership and responsibility for maintenance.
The shared common property that we purchased with Unit 409 was comprised of fully landscaped grounds with top quality specifications set out in binding restrictive covenants that run with the land.
This is a photograph of the original design of the common property as purchased
before the landscaping was altered without approval of the owners who paid for it. There were trees between the windows of every building that I saw in Phase One.
Significant changes in the use and appearance of common property contrary to s. 71 of the Strata Property Act, including construction of wooden decking and destruction of sound mature trees were made without notice, permits, votes, or 75% owner approval.
Members of the strata council had the access to common property blocked off, and park-like views, security, unit entitlement benefits, and shared enjoyment destroyed along with hundreds of trees and thousands of bushes and plants, creating decades of sickening oppression and crushing expense.
When I complained about loss of privacy when a tree was cut down without notice by a neighbour building extra decking on common property between units 407 and 409, I was advised by strata management that trellis planters could provide a suitable privacy screen and were a reasonable substitute for the tree removed from the common property. My requests that the tree and equitable benefit be reinstated were continually frustrated, and instead of complying with the law and enforcing the bylaws strata councils continually offloaded onto me the nuisance, damage, and costs that the strata is responsible to remedy.
The strata bolted trellis posts to the bottom of our patio in a way that was impossible for us to remove and replaced the original space saving inswing door with an outswing door took so much of our limited common property that it destroyed the function of our patio and left us no space for our original patio umbrella set or outdoor dining enjoyment. I can't remember how much the first trellis planters cost but the ones now existing cost us about $2,000 for planters, lattice, and painting, and hundreds of dollars more for plants, soil, and design advice. All at our expense, without so much as a dime paid to us in reimbursement, rent, or compensation, and instead of any thanks, we have been subjected to horrific abuse.
I do not particularly like this lattice, it is not what I wanted. I wanted square openings spaced to match the original spindles in natural wood, the same as our original patio. This has smaller diamond shape opening, which is what Peter Slack's nephew preferred, and it is painted, which is what Sherrill made necessary. It's all just a bit too much wood and not enough light for my taste.
The permanent nature of the strata's installation of the trellis posts took away another 9 inches from our limited common property and our requests that they be moved to the ends of the existing lattice are unreasonably ignored, as are the years of property loss and injury to our quality of life
We have been rudely abused and deprived of shared use and enjoyment of common property for over 25 years while the strata persistently shirks its responsibility and continuously offloads all the loss and expense onto us. It doesn't seem fair.
When I complained about prolonged and repeated unfair treatment increasing council had the strata lawyer, Adrienne Murray, accuse me of harassment. It was a surreal experience that was devastating, politically, psychologically, and physiologically, and any other ically that I cannot identify.
Members of the strata council are continually taking common property for themselves without paying corresponding user fees and have diverted special levy funds to demolish and reconstruct extra decking and remove trees for the exclusive use and benefit of a minority, most notably themselves; creating panoramic views, uninsured risks, unjust enrichment, scandal, and stigma.
Instead of performing her statutory obligations Councillor Hennan built a new recreational sundeck on the common property adjacent to her own strata lot. She acted in her own interests and falsely claims that it is her own limited common property that others who are paying most of the property taxes on it have no right to use and enjoy and it is actually owned more by me than by her.
Making it worse, Councillor Hennan made persistent self-serving, self-deceptive misrepresentations and admitted in writing that she had NO concern or interest in my requests - when I had to RELY on her to act as a member of council. Instead of stopping ongoing nuisance, Councillor Hennan added to it, sickening me with accusations of harassment for seeking relief, attacking me with lawyers, police, and fraudulent misrepresentations.
Amazingly - after all that - she says that she did nothing to me personally. I don't know if "personally" is supposed to mean that she doesn't really consider me as a person, or if she thinks that the psychopathic artificial super human called Council is magical, and not really herself and the other members.
When I staged a sit down protest on the new recreational sundeck built on the common property adjacent to Unit 408, Councillor Hennan called the RCMP, falsely accusing me of trespassing and fraudulently misrepresenting the deck as limited common property for her own exclusive use. Others on the strata management team supported her, and, acting together, this corrupt power alliance induced the police to ticket me, intimidating me out of using the sundeck or the property it was built on.
Certain members of the management team might find this entertaining - but I DON'T.
After Councillor Hennan called the police and intimidated me out of my right to use and enjoy the common property and exercise my constitutional right to stage a sit down protest against oppression and corrupt governance I reported on her conduct in my online blogs as an alternate form of protest.
I ask that you not use my name or address or pictures of my home in any sort of publications. This is to include, but not be limited to any of your blogs, posts, pictures, pages and letters or flyers that you create. I would like the picture of my deck removed from your blog, and any other references that pertain in any way to me to be removed as well.
I do not expect to add further to my reports on Ms. Hennan if she is no longer on council. I can understand why she may not be proud of the unfairness in her conduct on council, and I really wish
that what I had to report was more flattering. My intention is not to upset those I report on, it is to inform other owners so they can be warned, investigate, and make appropriate decisions. I would much rather delete my blogs and all of their contents than to have to live with the overwhelming
stress associated with the ongoing necessity of their existence.
The strata management teams' repeated attacks on me and
interference with all kinds of rights made me so sick that I could not function
efficiently and effectively enough to proceed with litigation within the
time frames required by the rules of court, leaving me with few if any other effective alternatives.
It's not fair. Not
only do I own and pay more taxes and strata fees for this property than Ms.
Hennan, but excavating the slope and destroying the greenery planted by the developer's landscape
architect to accommodate this sundeck and all the nuisance and peeling paint attributable to it diminishes surrounding
property values, particularly if
a prospective purchaser were to take the trouble to look around the neighbourhood or read the correspondence in the strata records.
Nobody else seems to care. Out of sight, out of mind. Too bad, so sad. And way, way too hard to fight.
The extra deck adjacent to Unit 208 extends well beyond the garage and is the only one in the complex that was built right out to the street. Is there any reason that 75% would approve destroying the strata corporation's landscaping for such an unreasonable intrusion, unsightly loss of curb appeal, and the horrific costs of total demolition and reconstruction repeated MULTIPLE times, or such a detrimental alteration in the appearance of common property and significant change from shared benefit to exclusive use with no user fees ? Well, no. They didn't.
Even scaled back this deck's intrusion into the line of sight of everyone traveling through the complex is likely diminishing our overall property values. It is the only one that I think should be removed and have the original walkway restored, or at least reduce the deck so that it does not extend beyond the garage, which by implication of the minutes was also added or reconstructed for this unit by the strata at my expense.
The minutes refer to a wheelchair, which is a shameful abuse of human rights. These owners are not in a wheelchair, and if they ever needed wheelchair access it is was available through the original carport, and it is still available at much less cost trough the new double garage that houses just a single car and was added without the pedestrian door that the developer built in Phase One garages.
Strata maintenance fee formulas are based on proportionate unit entitlement that includes all the strata plan patios and balconies designated for exclusive use and all the landscaped common property designated as shared. Without user fees, extra decking unfairly undermines the concept of fairness in shared ownership and maintenance formulas.
About 25% of units have extra decks that owners added illegally and this destroyed the equitable balance of the statutory formulas for strata property contrary to AGM directions from the majority ownership to effectively pay user fees.
Instead of complying with and enforcing the bylaws members of council acting in conflict for their own unjust enrichment failed recluse themselves and diverted special levy funds to avoid paying fuser fees.
Please try to understand the inequities.
We have been requesting a remedial patio extension for over 10 years while paying expenses for a privileged minority who enjoy the benefit of illegally added extra decking to our detriment for nearly 25 years. I am now no longer able to hold employment and cannot continue to subsidize those who exploit, abuse, and defame me.
This is unit 409's strata plan deck with the original "as-built" swing-in door. The useable seating space on this deck is now 48 inches narrower than it was originally.
409 is the ONLY deck in the complex to lose 18 inches of its limited common property in addition to the 30-inch loss from changing the swing of the door during the building envelope project.
This 48-inch combination loss deprived us of the only space on 409's deck that could accommodate our patio furniture such that the original function of our deck has been ruined as a result for many years, as has our use and enjoyment. Making matters worse strata plan patios make of wood of irreplaceable maintenance free quality with a 40-year life expectancy were sabotaged.
18 inches was taken from us to accommodate a trellis planter on our deck because Unit 407 illegally cut down a tree that was planted on the common property to screen a direct view between the windows of neighbouring units.
We have been unable to use our patio furniture for nearly 10 YEARS while our strata fees have been diverted and spent to our detriment on the special interests of others.
Unit 407 took not just half of our unit entitlement shares - they took it all - and extended their deck all the way across an 8-foot buffer of common property smack up to Unit 409's deck. They left nothing for us.Worst of all, the tree that screened the view between the windows was cut down to extend their deck and replaced with trellis planters trespassing on our deck for over 20 years. Since the strata replaced the original inswing door with an outswing there isn't even enough space left on it for our patio umbrella.
We were here first. We have paid more in strata fees and have got less for 25 years. We have even been deprived of use and enjoyment of the property that we actually purchased. It isn't fair.
Unit 407's extended deck is twice the size of their strata plan patio and they have had exclusive use of the common property for years, while our property value has been correspondingly reduced. If the strata imposed reasonable user fees for rent and the extra expense attributable to patio additions Unit 407 would probably owe the strata about $6,432 if the fees were calculated at $268 x 12 years + 200% based on the sample formulas for user fees that I posted in http://sunridge-users.blogspot.ca/.
Unit 407's extended deck is twice the size of their strata plan patio and they have had exclusive use of the common property for years, while our property value has been correspondingly reduced. If the strata imposed reasonable user fees for rent and the extra expense attributable to patio additions Unit 407 would probably owe the strata about $6,432 if the fees were calculated at $268 x 12 years + 200% based on the sample formulas for user fees that I posted in http://sunridge-users.blogspot.ca/.
I support honest strata management and shared rights to maximize use and enjoyment of the common property in accordance with not just a moral compass, but the law:
Council denied permission for these hedge trees on August 13, 1995, as not being in keeping with the complex. It is no wonder that Al Macleod ignored laws and requests for 75% votes and user fees; year after year, for more than a decade. Unit 518 provides the most graphic example in the whole complex of shared common property taken unlawfully for the exclusive use of one single owner.
consistent 75% owner approval for significant changes from the intended use or
appearance of common property as shown by the strata planuser fees providing a funding formula to cover, fairly, the benefits
and extra costs arising from granting individuals exclusive use and benefit of the common property for deck additions that are discretionary luxuriesreinstating the trees and professional landscape design to restore our property value, slope stability, strata integrity, and peace of mind
If user fees were imposed for the number of years of exclusive use of common property and adjusted by corresponding unit entitlement offsets Al MacLeod would owe the strata something like $12,348 as of 2013 calculated as $343 x 12 years + 300% for taking triple the amount of his limited common property which is allocated for his strata plan balcony.
Al Macleod took not just his unit entitlement balcony and garage as set out on the strata plan; but exclusive use and benefit of an extra long driveway (that rather than shovel the snow himself like the rest of us always did year after year, he had his driveway cleared at the strata's expense) and so much more - an extra patio, extra deck, customized landscaping, with numerous trees added to screen the north side of his unit for privacy, and even more removed from the south side to provide unobstructed panoramic views, all of it done unlawfully - destroying the landscaping that other owners paid for and that restrictive covenants required the landscape architect to plant to stabilize the slope.
Al MacLeod unlawfully cut down 409's trees and sabotaged our patio, offloading wasteful painting expense onto us, knowing how much it would make me suffer. In contrast, this photo is of his upper patio surrounded by a privacy hedge of trees planted contrary to a specific prohibition by council. But of course Unit 518's hedge trimming expenses are the strata corporation's responsibility - year after year. So what's unfair about that?
.
This is another of his unlawfully added extra decks
Private parking in an extra long driveway - cleared of snow at the strata's expense
and
a hedge planted in violation of the bylaws and council's direction
- expenses for trimming are the strata's responsibility, plus an extra
deck and an extra patio in addition to a strata plan balcony - expenses
for maintenance are the strata's responsibility. Council refuses to impose user fees so others have to pay more than their fair share, and are left with so
much less than their unit entitlement to the common property. Another BONUS to Al MacLeod was the commissions he got from acting for half the buyers in distress sales from owners who cannot afford to bear these added expenses, especially to subsidize crooks.A panoramic view
- unobstructed by treesWhat could we possibly add
- to make this a more perfect picture?
How about recognizing vandalism? How about criminal charges? How about making a liability insurance claim?
How about the responsible parties compensating the rest of the owners for a million-dollar loss from unlawful destruction of hundreds of mature trees that were planted by the landscape architect pursuant to restrictive covenants that run with the land to stabilize the slope?
How about admitting that pavement breaking and walls cracking in "all" the buildings, suddenly, 20 years after construction is not "normal settlement" and neither are underground pipes prematurely breaking all over the complex as the roots of the fallen trees decomposed normal maintenance expenses. It is a staggering cost, one that is ongoing, the full extent of which remains to be seen.
How about suing Al Macleod for the damages he was instrumental in creating?
How about admitting that owners pay strata fees to maintain the common property to at least its original standard? We do not own single detached houses. This is a townhouse complex. We are all in this together.
Landscaping, lawns, exterior water taps, garages, driveways, and extra decks, are all common property. As such they are the strata corporation's to maintain for the benefit of all. Destroying curb appeal and peaceful enjoyment and corrupting the fairness of unit entitlement funding formulas damages property values and quality of life. Whatever those who take more than their share gain, someone else has to pay for.
Unlawfully sectioning off maintenance responsibilities for patios from balconies so that a 25% minority could avoid paying user fees to cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars that it cost the strata to demolish and reconstruct unauthorized decking, and the historical astronomical costs of snow removal from huge exclusive use driveways that certain unit owners would not shovel, devalued and stigmatized our property with a patchwork appearance more like a troubled ghetto than a peaceful community.
Fair and reasonable user fees are not rocket science. 3-bedroom units should not be paying more and getting less because a bunch of 2-bedroom units are taking more than their share without paying for it. For 30 years we have paid strata fees about 30% higher than any 2-bedroom unit based on our unit entitlement to common property that we are denied access to, while we are also deprived of the landscaping that we paid for, as well as a remedial deck extension, and unlike others, we not only shovel our own driveway, but the firelane in front of it also.
The driveways by the Phase One mailboxes are shared by all, but the only driveways I know of that the strata shoveled are along Rambler Way, for the units with extra decks. Because of that, they should pay user fees. Others should not be burdened or oppressed, and the common property should not be compromised with an unlawful patchwork of old and new owner-pay driveways, or any other significant change that is not approved by 75% of owners.
In my opinion it is not just a 25% minority avoiding paying their fair share with user fees for absconding with common property that belongs to and costs everyone else that has wrecked havoc, but keeping maintenance fees artificially low masked the financial crisis that Al Macleod was so instrumental in creating. It was no doubt helpful to his real estate sales commissions, but the burden on others was significantly unfair and continues without end.
It is council's responsibility to enforce bylaws fairly and fine the Slusarczyks for violating Bylaw 4 by causing such a nuisance to us, continually obstructing our use and enjoyment of common property, our exclusive use and benefit of our own limited common property patio, taking our patio ornaments, screaming at us to STOP washing our patio, and accusing us of terrorism among other things.
Although Council never granted anyone permission for exclusive use of the common property, the Slusarczyks refused to let go of it when a member of council asked in 2005, and when they sold in 2016, Bayami refused to let go of it when asked.
Instead of fining Unit 407, Council fined 409 for not painting the common property retaining wall that Unit 407 took possession of when they took both of our shares of the common property all for themselves, and the strata totally blocked off our access, making it not only impossible for us to paint, but preventing us from retrieving anything that falls off our railing.
It is hard to see it here, but the figure in this photo that is sitting on top of the bird bath on our patio somehow fell into the hands of the Slusarczyks, and they kept it. Permanently.
But they kept the figure that we had on top our bird bath. Here is a better photo of it. 
When the Slusarczyk's moved, our figure was left where we could retrieve itbut it was all smashed up.
We have worried for years about the risk of personal injury if anything fell from our railing down 12 feet onto the head of a toddler playing directly underneath, on a deck built so dangerously connected to ours, instead of falling safely onto the buffer of common property shown on the strata plan, where we could retrieve anything that fell instead of losing it to crooks.
Despite the strata lawyer's advice on the importance of insurance for alterations, we were the only ones worried about the insurance or fire risks from the barbeques that the Slusarczyks had directly below us for years. Rightly, or wrongly, it caused me a lot of stress.
It's not just the fire hazard and risk of personal injury. It's not fair.
The extra decking adjacent to Unit 407's patio is a continuing contravention of our strata bylaws. It was added to the common property contrary to the strata manager's specific advice not to cause a nuisance to 409 by renegades who unlawfully cut down an extremely important tree, and we have suffered every day since.
We have lived here for 30 years and were here long before Slusarczyk or Bayami, or any of our other neighbours. How can anyone with any kind of moral compass not consider it unfair to NEVER enforce the applicable bylaws, or even allow us a turn to enjoy our share of property that we legitimately own and had first possession of?
Unit 409's deck is built on top of a retaining wall and is called a patio on the strata plan. The reason we do not have an extension is because instead of acting illegally like renegade outlaws, we keep seeking approval in accordance with our bylaws and unit entitlements.
Instead of enforcing the bylaws, council has been allowing illegally added extra decks and extensions to be demolished and reconstructed all around us while approval of our request are ignored and delayed with perverse excuses like waiting for legal advice, architectural drawings, 75% votes, or utter silence.
Not a single extra deck or deck extension was EVER added with approved by a 75% vote of the owners, but Unit 407's extension was built in specific VIOLATION of council's direction and the strata corporation's nuisance bylaws. Please do something to fulfill council's obligations under our nuisance bylaws.
In 2007 we submitted this drawing for a REMEDIAL 16-inch deck extension halfway along the common property to the east:
To reinstate the function of our deck we think it needs to be extended to the east with evergreen vines planted along the midpoint between the buildings to climb up the lattice to restore safety and privacy and equitably shared use of the common property.
Adrienne Murray, the strata lawyer, wrote to me on June 19, 2007 saying, “it is important to recognize that the Courts, in considering a Strata Corporation's duties, have recognized that it is necessary for the Strata Corporation to act in the best interest of all owners. A Strata Corporation may not prefer the interests of one owner or make decisions that favour a particular owner at the expense of others... no permission to alter decks will be given until all decks are repaired and new bylaws are considered by the owners so that future responsibility for alterations is clearly established... section 27 permits the owners by means of a majority vote at a general meeting to direct or restrict the actions of a Strata Council.”
As limitation periods closed, time became a weapon that the strata management team relied on to profit from their own wrongs with disgusting arrogance. What seemed to prevail was a perverse notion that restricting my ability to sue relieved strata management of any and all obligation to comply with the law.
Ms. Murray appeared to be blissfully unaware that at the 2007 AGM the owners DID direct council to remove any illegally added extra deck that the owner who had exclusive use of did not pay the added expense for its demolition and reconstruction. She did not seem aware that contrary to the direction of the owners, Mae Reid and Sherrill Berg had special levy funds diverted and spent demolishing and reconstructing extra deck, without architectural drawings, user fees, or 75% approval, while Unit 409's outdoor dining area was ruined and continual requests for a modest remedial extension, or any kind of remedy, were bypassed for over 10 years.
Councillors Reid and Berg acted in their own self interest to avoid paying user fees, contrary to the wishes of the owners or the best interests of the strata corporation. They contributed to significant extra expenses for others, amounting to a covert division in maintenance between units with strata plan patios and units with the far more expensive to repair balconies.
The damage was compounded by time and amounted to a hidden 20% increase in strata fees for Unit 409 when the required cleaning and painting of deteriorated wood and large fields of added lattice was estimated to cost $800 and took me some personal injury and several days of hard labour to mitigate.
All of which Ms. Reid dismisses as "pick pick pick" when she never paid a penny in special levies or user fees for taking the common property for her own exclusive benefit for years, contrary to the law.
Councillor members Macleod, Reid, Berg, Baker, Hennan and other members of council acting in conflict are responsible for unlawfully depriving us of use and enjoyment of common property and any kind of remedy for ongoing nuisance, not even so much as a remedial 16 inches for shared use and benefit as tenants in common.
If they paid rent at market rates in proportion to respective unit entitlements and respective exclusive use of common property for the years taken, the strata corporation would have the money needed to repair and maintain common property without special levies and to remedy the nuisance arising out of the extension adjacent to Unit 407's patio, get the trellis planters off of our limited common property, promptly and fully restore the function of our strata plan patio limited common property, and reinstate the trees destroyed around Unit 409.
The strata corporation could afford to act honestly, and fairly, but for the unjust enrichment of those who act in conflict and take more than their share at the expense of others.
We
tried for over 20 years to remedy the nuisance created by a neighbour
cutting down the other vine maple tree that screened the views between
our windows and adjacent units. The tree in the proposal illustrated
below is gone now as well. We asked that the trellis planter that
replaced the first tree be moved off of our limited common property by
way of the 16-inch cantilever depicted below and a narrow strip of
landscaping as a safety buffer.
Mae Reid took common property rent-free for her own exclusive use and benefit, acted in a conflict of interest with evidence of a guilty mind at the expense of others and called me a bitch for complaining at a hearing. Disparaging and vilifying me was an essential component in the process of keeping me off the council, avoiding user fees, and shifting property values so unfairly.
The strata demolished and reconstructed all of the decking and then left it to rot for more than half a decade until it required annual painting before offloading the added expense onto owner who paid strata years for maintenance and repairs never received.
The strata destroyed Unit 409's maintenance free patio made of wood with a 40-year life expectancy and replaced it with downgraded materials and design and huge fields of incredibly high maintenance wooden lattice and decking that required immediate painting which was never provided, leaving the wood to rot and then offloading the $800 estimated annual painting costs onto us, effectively adding a hidden 20% increase to strata fees contrary to the unit entitlement formulas set out in law.
We think all of this is significantly unfair to us. In my opinion, it is corrupt and not in the best interests of the strata corporation to avoid user fees by offloading the extra expenses attributable to rent-free extra decking for those who take so much more than their share and pay so much less than those like Unit 409 who pay so much more and are deprived of the benefit and access to common property that is supposed to be for shared use and enjoyment.
ARE WE WRONG?
DOES ANY OF THIS SEEM FAIR TO ANYBODY?
WHY DOES COUNCIL FAIL TO ENFORCE NUISANCE BYLAWS?
We used to enjoy filling our deck with flowers and plants each year and loved the sight of fresh blossoms from our kitchen, dining room, living room, and deck from April to October.
In violation of the building envelope contract unit 409's taps were not extended as others were to accommodate the new rain screen assembly.
This was a breach of the 2004 building envelope contract term that specifically required:
"existing copper pipe extended to accommodate rain screen assembly"
Council tried to tell us that this orange hose adapter fixed the problem.
I wish it did. But it did not.
The pipe must be extended.
The adapter is a 2-piece assembly.
First a member of council who came and tested it absconded with the half that goes on the hose, and
then the other half that goes on the tap disappeared, and neither of the missing pieces were ever replaced despite repeated requests for year
Making matters worse, the strata added useless decking under our hose, so now it sprays onto our patio making a mess and is more difficult for us to extend and retract our hose. We want the property we purchased, and our beneficial equity in it, restored.
The only reason for council's ongoing failure to remedy this nuisance that makes any sense to me (outside of malice) is a staggering funding shortfall arising out of all of the extra expenses attributable to extra decks and destruction of the trees and landscaping.
User fees for exclusive use of common property are essential to cover added expenses for the destruction of common assets and increased maintenance obligations to avoid significantly unfair allocation of funds.
Our shockingly long history of subsidizing a 25% minority has resulted in a financial crisis, which can be immediate for individuals on fixed incomes or cumulative over time for the strata corporation as a whole.
Deck additions for some don't have to create detriments and added expenses for others.
Making the best use of common property in accordance with our bylaws is important. Extra decks can look nice and be an asset - if reasonable user fees are paid in accordance with the Strata Property Act.
When we bought here 25 years ago we shared common property equitably with our neighbours.
The strata corporation and our neighbours ended any semblance of equity when units 407, 508, and 510 destroyed expensive landscaping and our use and enjoyment of the common property to add illegal extra decks for their own exclusive-use and benefit, all to our detriment, expense, and significant loss.
This is unit 407's extended deck.
After being so unfairly deprived of our own property for so many years we want equity. We want to extend our deck so the trellis planters that replace the tree between the buildings stop tresspassing on our limited common property.
We want an extra patio as well, like those surrounding us, only 25% larger to reflect our proportionate unit entitlement and 25% higher strata fees. There's a space for it on the common property right behind Unit 409, between the extra decks for 508 and 510, but it would be quite a crowd of extra decks, and I am too old and crippled to climb all the way up there anyway.
between 508
Councillor Mae Reid, with her exclusive use and benefit of common property and unobstructed views from Unit 510 is not just a realtor, but a politician. She claims to be a former paralegal also. What a scandal. When she advertises an extra deck for sale her mistake is not innocent.
Should it be a surprise that rather than recluse herself for an obvious conflict of interest she acted with Unit 508 to divert special levy funds to have illegally added extra decks demolished and reconstructed at unfair expense to others, contrary to AGM directions from the owners, to avoid paying user fees or seeing her illegally added extra deck removed and the landscaping reinstated?
If Ms. Reid had imposed user fees as the owners directed and paid a fair share for the common property that she took for her own exclusive benefit at the expense of others she would owe the strata over $5,000 by the time she listed Unit 510 for sale in 2013. Unit 510's extra deck is twice the size of Ms. Reid's strata plan balcony and she had exclusive use of it for 8 years, so Unit 510 might come to $5,488 calculated as $343 x 8 years + 200% of her strata plan limited common property balcony (the extra deck is 13 feet square).
I was not the only one surprised at the role Ms. Reid played. Its not as if she didn't know better.
To top it off, kind of like when Al Macleod cut down the tree in front of our unit and sold her an unobstructed view, it looks like she had a gate for her dog installed on her illegally added extra deck with no vote of approval from anybody else, and no report in the minutes, as usual.
Unit 409's proposed deck extension
in proportion to unit entitlement funding formulas
is FAR less than a FAIR share of common property.
Unit 510's illegally added extra deck is 13 feet square
it is unfunded and basically triples what is allocated on the strata plan and totally undermines unit entitlement funding formulas.
The least one might expect is a little common courtesy instead of being attacked and called a bitch by Councillor Reid and harassed in every possible way.
Mae Reid had
special levy funds diverted from their intended purpose at our expense, thereby avoiding paying any user fees for her extra deck
strata plan patios make of wood of irreplaceable maintenance free quality with a 40-year life expectancy were sabotaged, further clouding the issue of user fees the resultant costs are staggering, as much as 10 times more than maintaining the original property.
An example of costs was presented for deck repair, not for the strata plan decks, but for an extra deck on Unit 510: 3 new posts, 2 deck boards, and new railing top, materials and labour were $400, with advice that it may be necessary to use contingency reserve funds for deck repairs to ensure safety.
The strata plan decks, in Phase One at least, were all built with irreplaceable deck lumber with a 40-year life expectancy. Unit 409's was so high quality it was in single strip lengths and so maintenance free it was in near perfect shape when it was shockingly and needlessly destroyed 20 years after construction and replaced with material of less than half the quality.
The strata never once in over 25 years stained or painted our strata plan patio or did anything at all to preserve and maintain it when it was responsible for doing so. The replacement lumber has only a 15-year life expectancy instead of 40, and it needs annual painting, but the strata corporation never once
in over 5 years stained or painted it or did anything at all to preserve and maintain it when it was responsible for doing so.
Unlike the original patio the replacement cannot stand up to the strata's neglect and the strata unfairly offloaded the damage onto the owners.
painting,failed
In my opinion, deck additions can enhance common property, or devalue it - it depends on 3 things:
First is our bylaws - does the addition create an unreasonable nuisance for anyone else,
Second is user fees - how much rental value does the common property have; who is getting more than their share of benefit and who is getting less; and who is bearing the expense of destruction and reinstatement of landscaping as well as the costs of deck demolition, construction, maintenance,and professional fees and
Third is property values - is curb appeal and the rights to shared use and enjoyment of common property outweighed by the exclusive use and benefit to an individual owner of the particular unit in question.
Here is what's left of Unit 409's strata plan patio in 2014.
It's NOT FAIR!
Since the strata won't move the posts that Heatherbrae installed and would not paint the original open railing style of lattice we not only have not enough space for outdoor dining, we don't even have the space to sit down anymore.
An extra deck has been added to more than 25% of units, and appropriate user fees could probably remedy the economic burden that they have unfairly imposed on the rest of the owners to date. If those 25% were paying their fair share of expenses the strata corporation would have more than enough money to meet the strata corporation's outstanding obligations to enforce the bylaws.
The the strata held back special levy funds and reinstatement of strata plan patios and sent out a survey asking if anyone would like another deck before diverting the funds to pay for them, sabotaging our maintenance free patio in the process and replacing it with something of half the quality.
Now in 2013 the strata has filed an alleged bylaw in the Land Title Office that attempts to transfer its responsibility for painting onto us, which with the strata's huge fields of added lattice
effectively
amounts to a hidden increase of about 20% in our annual strata fees over
the
legislated unit entitlement formulas for strata fees. It is our
understanding that the stratas acts and decisions in this matter amounts to an unfair and unauthorized
division
between units with strata plan patios and units with balconies, contrary
to
sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the Strata Property Regulations and the
prescribed formulas for
sharing operating expenses for limited common property.
Much of the original landscaping was destroyed to build extra decks for the benefit of a minority at the expense of the majority, to the particular detriment of all those who paid nearly 6 million dollars in special levies and had to wait 5 corrupt years with virulent weeds for any kind of landscaping.
The trees and bushes were planted here to help stabilized the slope for the benefit of all and for beauty and privacy for the enjoyment of all and should not have been destroyed for extra decks and unobstructed panoramic views.
I should not have to sue my neighbours to enjoy my home in peaceful, respectful security.
