Pavement, underground pipes, and sewers have all been breaking since hundreds of trees planted pursuant to restrictive covenants were removed contrary to s. 71 of the Strata Property Act.
Extracts from "What is a Geotechnical Report?"
The geotechnical report is the tool used to communicate the site conditions and design and construction recommendations ... providing specific information on subsurface soil, rock, and water conditions. Interpretation of the site investigation information, by a geotechnical engineer, results in design and construction recommendations that should be presented in a project geotechnical report. The importance of preparing an adequate geotechnical report cannot be overstressed. ... all geotechnical reports should contain certain basic essential information, including:- Summary of all subsurface exploration data, including subsurface soil profile, exploration logs, laboratory or in situ test results, and ground water information;
- Interpretation and analysis of the subsurface data;
- Specific engineering recommendations for design;
- Discussion of conditions for solution of anticipated problems; and
- Recommended geotechnical special provisions. (eg. tree preservation, replacing illegal extra decks with the original common property landscape elements of thousands of stabilizing trees and bushes and ground cover?)
Morrison Hershfield's offer during the Sunridge Estates building envelope project to provide the strata corporation with a geotechnical report for a very reasonable price ($600 if I recollect correctly) was mysteriously declined.
Given the restrictive covenants that run with the land and the alarming history of this slippery slope this was a shock to Unit 409. The decision was not recorded in the minutes.
It just made no sense to pass up a geotechnical report for $600; something was fishy. The only logic to it that I can see is fear that the truth would jeopardize a special interest in a plan to create unobstructed panoramic views and undermine Al Macleod's commissions if the results showed in seller's disclosure statements, and showing the devastating costs would lower property values.
Caveat Emptor
Restrictive Covenants
Predictable Results
Easily Avoidable
Geotechnical Report anyone?
Depreciation Report? What is included? What is OMITTED?
PLEASE reinstate the TREES!
Adrienne Murray, the strata lawyer, wrote to me on June 19, 2007 saying, “I refer to your letter dated March 29. 2007, in which you notified the Strata Council that they must replace trees that were cut down around your unit and that they make various repairs to your unit including repairing the sinking deck, restoring the common property and repairing your fireplace. Your demands for the repairing of your deck, re-planting of trees, restoring common property, and installing siding on the Hydro kiosk are all examples of your continued harassment of the Strata Council... Any correspondence or emails that you send in this regard will not receive a response... ”
Following Ms. Murray's advice the common property was left derelict for years.
Conditions were horrific. Our maintenance free strata plan deck was demolished, replaced with less than half the quality, and then demolished again - and reconstructed with its seating space ruined; buildings, pavement, and underground pipes started breaking all over the complex as trees were destroyed and their roots decomposed, laws were blatantly violated, special levy funds were diverted, and repairs to our unit remained incomplete, leaving us living with sinking floors, cracked walls, warped doors, misaligned latches, depriving us of both use and enjoyment and creating significantly unfair loss in comparative property value, use, and enjoyment for over 10 years.
In my opinion, Adrienne Murray is guilty of professional misconduct. The facts speak for themselves.
My claims against her include that she negligently disregarded material facts and the law of the land and failed in her duty to act in the best interests of all owners. In making decisions that favoured minority interests at the expense of the law and the majority, she set an example that was followed into the future, all at horrific expense. I have repeatedly advised her of my concerns with no response.
Ignoring History
for Themselves
In 2004 the owners of Sunridge Estates voted 75% approval of the building envelope project with terms for preservation of trees and funding to reinstate the landscaping.
The Willis building envelope warranty with Commonwealth Insurance policy which took effect on October 11, 2005, specifically excludes landslide, falling trees, and changes in the level of the underground water table, subsidence of the land around the residential buildings, diminution in the value of property, abnormal loading on floors, damage to real property that is not part of the residential building, and landscaping (hard and soft) including plants, fencing, detached patios, non-residential structures, and roads or driveways.
It looks like they reviewed my blogs when they wrote the warranty and excluded all of the most likely risks, for which the strata was left without insurance.
These trees in front of Unit 409 were cut down after the scaffolding was gone. They were beautiful and healthy and had just been pruned when Al Macleod had them cut down without authority while we were away on vacation and said he had the right to act against others.
Mr. Macleod couldn't wait to sell unobstructed views and had trees cut down without a vote of any kind, without a tree cutting permit, and without approved funding, contrary to restrictive covenants and geotechnical requirements. After he destroyed so much of the landscaping the cost of reinstating it was so prohibitive that shocked owners were paralyzed and coerced to approve whatever they could to end 6 years of rubble. The strata's lawyer, Adrienne Murray, called it "horrific". Ironic, to say the least.
This shim in our garage is from the first time our building sank in 1988.
This is the cracked drywall in our kitchen.
I am not sure if the unauthorized 2006 removal of surrounding trees planted pursuant to restrictive covenants voided Building 7's 20-year geotechnical warranty in place since 1988 - but it stands to reason that it probably did.
Strata Records contain a report from Sayers Engineering Limited dated January 19, 1989, stating that the concrete foundation reinforced with steel fractured under our unit and settled due to a lack of subgrade support, which was thought to be due to the dirt below the foundation not being retained, or fill settling, and/or migration from water flow.
Here is the hole dug at the northeast corner of our building to add another beam to shim up our building after it sunk again in 2008 after the trees were cut down and their roots decomposed. This hole was about 46x46x66 inches in size and inexplicably left open for nearly 6 months at the northeast corner of our building from May to November 2008 - even while the building was power washed.
The rains and power washing that occurred during that 6-month period of time eroded the earth creating several of these caves in the hole. We don't know what happened under the building due to the dirt below the foundation not being retained and migration from water flow. We do know that after that it took several hours over 2 days with electric grinders to shave enough metal off our patio door, voiding its warranty, in order to get it to swing properly without having to put your shoulder to it to get it to open.
We will probably never receive an explanation for why this hole was left open for about 6 months, from May to November 2008, but we know the pattern of destruction all too well.
We have no evidence that council did anything to consider whether there was resultant settlement during or after those 6 months or the degree of foreseeable damage due to dirt below the foundation not being retained and/or migration from water flow. We DO know that nothing we said mattered.
At the AGM on April 1, 2009, Mr. Mac indicated that it is foreseeable that we may sink again. This is unacceptable. Looking forward, we want the trees reinstated to stop the sinking. We are unwilling and unable to absorb the costs of ill gotten panoramic views for others.
Although my requests to access the strata's insurance policies have been persistently denied, it would appear that Owners have property insurance up to a limit of about 17 million dollars.
With the cost to reinstate just one mature tree running as high as $15,000 creating an estimated loss in the millions, even though Form NP-397749 Strata Directors & Officers Liability Insurance specifically excludes claims for damage or destruction of any tangible property, including loss of use, as well as any deliberately fraudulent, dishonest or criminal act, contract violations, professional services, illegal profit or advantage, sickening stress and mental anguish, and certain claims attributable to intentional or accidental release of pollutants, it DOES cover compensatory and punitive damages up to 2 million in relation to tortuous breaches of contract and statutory liabilities, of which there are so many violations that the strata may never again be sound.
Instead of acting to utilize the insurance policy which Owners pay premiums on each year to cover losses that Mr. MacLeod would be legally obligated to pay as a result of a Claim for a D&O WRONGFUL ACT the strata council forfeit Owners' rights under the policy, making us wonder what we are paying for.
To see Form NP-397749 click on this link and scroll down.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/Reviva/RV%20Legal/2012%20InsuranceRenewal.pdf
Mr. MacLeod's public acknowledgement of the foreseeable consequences of his arbitrary destruction of the trees and landscaping and leaving such a sizable hole open for 6 months and during power washing concerns us. I think it should concern everyone... we ALL pay... honest people more so, and the strata should hold those responsible jointly and severally liable, or stop spending our strata fees on officers and directors liability insurance.
The builder of this wooden box by Unit 409's front stairs advised me that it was added for landscape reinforcement and building support. He told me that to serve the stated purpose the wood should go up to the bottom of the staircase. The top of it falls below the level of the cracked concrete under the staircase because for some inexplicable reason some unidentified decision maker refused his request to add the extra row of wood for the support needs of Unit 409. There is no record of this destructive decision in the minutes, as usual.
Now that Al Macleod is off council perhaps council will seize the opportunity to raise this wood support to the recommended level, or explain their reason for leaving us at risk and our front entrance so very unsightly since the landscaping was removed and prohibited.
Prohibited selectively.
While landscaping is destroyed and not reinstated things keep right on sinking.
I stuck my head out the window to take a picture and asked what was wrong.
The repairman said things were sinking and it was dangerous.
Really. What a surprise.
What an expense.
Are we pouring money down the drain?
Can we ever stop our strata fees and special levies from being wasted and flushed away?
