Item #3 - Deck Extension:
The minutes claim that:
The Owners wanted to have a tree replaced by their unit that they claim was cut down in order to extend the deck of Unit #407 or, alternatively, be allowed to modify their deck with an equivalent extension. In general, no deck applications are being approved until the Strata Corporation's overall deck issues can be resolved, and a standard specification and bylaw to address decks can be agreed upon by the Ownership by means of a resolution that will require a 3/4 vote of a quorum of Owners at an Annual General Meeting or Special General Meeting.
The 7th misrepresentation in these minutes is the claim that no deck applications are being approved until the Strata Corporation's overall deck issues can be resolved - when we have been making a variety of requests for a remedial deck extension ever since 2001, and with the chair's support at the same meeting Council approved Unit 516's request for an extra deck, without complying with either strata legislation or building codes.
The record shows under Business arising from the Minutes, item #1 Deck Requests: "It was moved, seconded (MathesonlBryson) and carried, with 3 in favour and 1 opposed, to approve the deck request by the Owner of #516, with the provision that this approval is subject to an annual review and, if required by Council, would have to be removed at the Owners expense."
We think the 8th misrepresentation lies in implying that unit 409's request and the strata corporation's deck issues could not have been resolved at that meeting.
All that was required was for council to do their job and pass a resolution to give owners reasonable notice that permission for exclusive use of common property would be not be granted without a 3/4 vote of owners to change the use and appearance of common property from the strata plan and payment of user fees calculated with a similar formula as set out in the strata legislation, and that otherwise permission for exclusive use would be cancelled and any deck addition not in full compliance would be removed from the common property and the tree and landscaping reinstated pursuant to the bylaws.
Item #4 - Compensation. The minutes claim that:
The Owners asked to be compensated for their losses resulting from their reaction to the caulking used in their unit during the window installation. This was an old issue and any compensation was denied.
This item is in regard to damages and personal injury arising from a chemical assault via excessive application inside our home of a sealant intended primarily for exterior use following our request for outside ventilation. We think the claim that it "was an old issue and any compensation was denied" is the 9th misrepresentation made in these minutes. I do not know when "any compensation was denied." Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall seeing such a decision in any previous minutes.
Item #5 - Exterior Taps
The minutes claim that:
A hose bib is required as the exterior tap is more difficult to access since the building envelope repairs. A hose bib was supplied to the Owners, but the Owners want to have their tap adjusted to make it accessible as they aren't happy with the hose bib extension. It was the understanding of Dave Fookes of Morrison Hershfield that this issue had been concluded. The extension of the exterior water taps was done as a time and materials billing and was extra to the contract. To remove the rock work in order to accommodate this request would cost the Strata Corporation a fair amount of money, and the Council previously had indicated that they were satisfied that the hose bib extension resolved this issue. Subject Closed.
The 10th misrepresentation in these minutes is claiming that the hose bib extension of the exterior water taps was done. It was not done, at least not on unit 409.
The 11th misrepresentation is the claim that it was a time and materials billing extra to the contract. Extension of the exterior water taps was specified in the drawings and included when the owners approved the contract and the special levy to pay for it. Depriving selected units of these extensions was unreasonable, unusual, and punitive.
The 12th misrepresentation is that the subject was closed. We think a resolution to close the subject would be out of order and contradict the strata corporation's duty to repair and maintain the common property. We have not been able to screw our hose onto our tap for over 3 years, half the adapter went missing after council tested it, and our request for a replacement has been ignored, for years. This is not a satisfactory solution.
Although we are not construction contractors, we think the claim that, "To remove the rock work in order to accommodate this request would cost the Strata Corporation a fair amount of money" may be the 13th misrepresentation in this series.
Our taps are no longer fit for the purpose for which they are intended. We don't know what "a fair" amount of money is supposed to be, but the strata corporation's 2-year warranty insurance was supposed to cover defective design, labour, and materials. We thought that the strata's directors and officers liability insurance was supposed to provide some sort of protection, especially if the taps were deliberately vandalized.
Item #6 - Hardy Board Damage
The 14th misrepresenatation in the minutes is that: "The Owners claim that the hardy board is "gouged up" around their window." It is plain to see that the hardy board is gouged up, not in our opinion, but in plain fact.
The 15th misrepresentation is the statement that: "If this is a deficiency, Heatherbrae will be addressing this during their site visits." This is, by definition, a deficiency. Heatherbrae has, in fact, not addressed this.
The 16th misrepresentation is: "Some of the deficiencies in the past by these Owners were not deemed deficiencies by the engineer, and will therefore not be addressed or investigated further."
You don't have to be an engineer to see some of these deficiencies when pictures of them are posted on the world wide web. Therefore I have addressed them in my blog on the building envelope project and am content to allow the facts to speak for themselves as to credibility and further investigation.
The 17th misrepresentation is: "7. Compensation for Tree Removal: The Owners are asking to be compensated for the trees that were removed around their unit." What we were really asking for was that the trees not be cut down, that they be replaced after they were cut down, and that the damages be recognized and remedied, through insurance or other means.
The 18th misrepresentation is: "Tree removal was done in conjunction with the City of Coquitlam's arborist"
Tree removal around our unit and elsewhere in the complex was done after the City of Coquitlam prohibited it and before the City of Coquitlam's arborist was involved.
The 19th misrepresentation is that "Tree removal was done in conjunction with ... an arborist hired by the Strata Corporation to remove dead trees or trees that were too close to the building."
Trees removed around our unit were not dead. One of them had been just been pruned to remove a small branch that was broken during the building envelope project. Trees were removed around our unit that were not too close the building either. They were still standing when the building envelope repair scaffolding was removed. According to the minutes the decision of the strata corporation to hire an arborist was not made until about a year after the trees that were too close to buildings had been removed, when those that were spared suddenly started dying.
The 20th misrepresentation is that "the Owners were advised to volunteer with the Owner of 223 to work with the landscape architect, and eventually the landscape contractor."
I had already volunteered to serve on the landscaping committee and the chair prevented me from doing so by withholding and destroying reports, emailing insults, and failing to call or report on meetings. I was ordered not to contact the landscape architect, the Owner of 223 refused my requests to meet, prevented me from obtaining a copy of the landscape drawings, and emailed derogatory and defamatory comments behind my back.
The 21st misrepresentation is: "Overall, landscaping is being worked on"
Pictures prove that landscaping around unit 409 has not been worked on for over 4 years, and annual budgets, as well as the condition of the complex overall, further refute these claims.
The 22nd misrepresentation is that "as the landscaping is on common property, no compensation would be warranted."
We believe that the destructive removal of trees from the common property, which would cost thousands, and possibly millions of dollars to replace, was done in conjunction with the chair of this meeting, who paid for unauthorized tree removal around our unit with funds from the strata corporation's trust account, when there was no meeting, no vote, and no minutes to authorize either removal or payment. We further believe that "no compensation would be warranted" by the strata's insurance only if the strata corporation failed to sue the parties responsible for the damage.
The minutes go on and on - paragraph by paragraph - but it is too exhausting for me to continue defending against them.
Suffice it to say that a trend of misrepresentations continuing for years has escalated into false and malicious accusations of assault, and complaints of vandalism, which we have no way of knowing whether they are true or not. We feel villifyied to the point of cultivating what feels like discriminatory little hate groups - where new people I introduce myself to promptly ask if I broke a gate that I did not even know was broken.
http://www.elimina.com/insights/
