nancymackay
02-17-2005, 07:48 AM
Dear List,
Below is an article from the Hamilton Spectator which list some of the problems which I am having. Presently after this article the City would like us to hand over property and pay $ 5000.00 to the city, which I am in agreement with so that I can get a building permit. The problem is it is all on a promise. If the city has to expropriate from the neighbour then they want me to wait until this has been done for me to get a building permit. If I hand over my road allowance for free and my to give the neighbour and the neighbour does not accept then I get my money back and not the property. Therefore any suggestions that you may have would be great.
Thanks
Nancy
Jan. 15, 12:51 EDT
Property dispute leads to barricade
Owners angry with neighbours, city block street in Winona North
Dave Kewley
The Hamilton Spectator
A street in the Winona North neighbourhood has been barricaded by a couple who say the land is theirs and they've lost all patience with city hall.
"This is our property, and all deals are off the table. We're going to close the property and just let it sit 10 or 15 years, when our children will deal with this mess created by the (former) City of Stoney Creek," says George MacKay, who erected a fence and a masonry barrier around the property that effectively cuts off a cul-de-sac at the end of Shadowdale Drive.
MacKay and his wife, Nancy, bought the property known as Block 125 last March with the hope they would soon be able to build their dream home on the 22-by-364-metre property that runs easterly between older homes along the lake on Winona Park Drive and a newer subdivision on the south.
The irony is that they lived in a house right across the street then and went ahead and sold it.
But the path to a simple building permit was strewn with obstacles, including a 0.3-metre reserve at the front of the property on land owned by the city and a petition from neighbours who opposed the application because they believed the land was dedicated by the developer to remain as green space.
When it came time to move out of their home to make way for the purchaser in early September, the MacKays were no closer to having a building permit and found themselves homeless.
They were forced to move in with Nancy's parents, who live on Highway 20 near Smithville.
After five months of living out of suitcases and driving their two children back into Stoney Creek every day to attend school, and with gas bills approaching $1,200 a week, Nancy asked city planning staff to withdraw their application for a building permit, saying the family can't take it any longer.
"We can no longer continue to carry this. My family can no longer endure this emotional duress and financial burden," she wrote, adding that she and her husband were suffering from anxiety and the children were depressed.
Ward 11 Councillor Dave Mitchell says it's a shame because he thought the deal was almost done, but he adds the family shouldn't have had "to go through all this grief.
"I don't blame the MacKays. They just got pushed too far," Mitchell said.
"And it's all due to mistakes in the past in Stoney Creek and confusion today between city departments."
Neighbour Lennie Giangregorio says he feels the city is holding the MacKays hostage by asking them to give property to a neighbour because of a mistake that is the city's responsibility.
Ray Lee, senior project manager in the city's development and real estate division says the problems began in the late '80s when Stoney Creek developed a secondary plan for the Winona North Neighbourhood that anticipated the privately owned Winona Park Road would eventually be joined to the yet-unnamed Shadowdale Drive.
"Block 125 was meant to be additional building lots that were to be added to the small lots on the south side of Winona Park Road," says Lee.
Almost at the same time, an application to build on a lot blocking the proposed junction was approved by Stoney Creek's building department, because a judge's order years earlier had closed the private road.
Then, in the 1990s the city wanted a cul-de-sac built at the end of Shadowdale, but the developer and the engineering department failed to register easements on the lots for the road allowance, leaving a road encroachment on the front of Block 125 and the lot of neighbours John and Jodie Larmond.
Lee says that, although Stoney Creek released the developer from responsibility for the new subdivision in 2002, when the MacKays bought the block, they assumed all previous agreements, and that meant acquiring the land for the cul-de-sac and paying for an amended neighbourhood plan.
Bruce Singbush of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing confirms that this is a common occurrence in the process of moving land forward for development.
Unfortunately, in the beginning the Larmonds were unwilling to negotiate.
The MacKays say the city pushed them to arrange the land acquisition, a deal they felt was the city's responsibility, and they grew weary of increasing demands from the Larmonds.
"We bent over backwards for them, offering whatever they wanted," Nancy says.
Neighbour Guy Brucculeri says right from the beginning the dispute was never about preserving green space.
"Larmond just wanted extra land to build a garage for his boat," he says.
Lee insists a deal was imminent yesterday before it all went off the tracks.
Mitchell says the straw that broke the camel's back was an erroneous demand of the MacKays for $7,000 by the building department for parkland.
"Here's another example that bigger isn't better," says Mitchell in reference to amalgamation. "An example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
"Now what's next? Expropriation? Nobody wants that."
dkewley@thespec.com 905-526-3474
WHAT THE MacKAYS PAID
Building permit $13,264.47
Plan amendment $1,650.00
Reference survey $1,200.00
Legal fees $13,000.00
Surveys $5,000.00
WHAT THE LARMONDS WANTED
* 103.4 square metres of land with 3.6 metres of frontage on Shadowdale;
* Removal of existing chain link fence;
* Wooden fence around new land;
* Grading, top soil and sod;
* New reference plan for exchange of land;
* Removal of dead trees and stumps;
Estimated value $10,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME | NEWS | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ENTERTAINMENT | LIFE | FEATURE REPORTS | SPECIAL SECTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Notice: Contents copyright 1996-2004, The Hamilton Spectator. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from http://www.thespec.com/ is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of The Hamilton Spectator. For information send email to helliott@thespec.com. Other comments or questions can be sent to jaussem@thespec.com
Below is an article from the Hamilton Spectator which list some of the problems which I am having. Presently after this article the City would like us to hand over property and pay $ 5000.00 to the city, which I am in agreement with so that I can get a building permit. The problem is it is all on a promise. If the city has to expropriate from the neighbour then they want me to wait until this has been done for me to get a building permit. If I hand over my road allowance for free and my to give the neighbour and the neighbour does not accept then I get my money back and not the property. Therefore any suggestions that you may have would be great.
Thanks
Nancy
Jan. 15, 12:51 EDT
Property dispute leads to barricade
Owners angry with neighbours, city block street in Winona North
Dave Kewley
The Hamilton Spectator
A street in the Winona North neighbourhood has been barricaded by a couple who say the land is theirs and they've lost all patience with city hall.
"This is our property, and all deals are off the table. We're going to close the property and just let it sit 10 or 15 years, when our children will deal with this mess created by the (former) City of Stoney Creek," says George MacKay, who erected a fence and a masonry barrier around the property that effectively cuts off a cul-de-sac at the end of Shadowdale Drive.
MacKay and his wife, Nancy, bought the property known as Block 125 last March with the hope they would soon be able to build their dream home on the 22-by-364-metre property that runs easterly between older homes along the lake on Winona Park Drive and a newer subdivision on the south.
The irony is that they lived in a house right across the street then and went ahead and sold it.
But the path to a simple building permit was strewn with obstacles, including a 0.3-metre reserve at the front of the property on land owned by the city and a petition from neighbours who opposed the application because they believed the land was dedicated by the developer to remain as green space.
When it came time to move out of their home to make way for the purchaser in early September, the MacKays were no closer to having a building permit and found themselves homeless.
They were forced to move in with Nancy's parents, who live on Highway 20 near Smithville.
After five months of living out of suitcases and driving their two children back into Stoney Creek every day to attend school, and with gas bills approaching $1,200 a week, Nancy asked city planning staff to withdraw their application for a building permit, saying the family can't take it any longer.
"We can no longer continue to carry this. My family can no longer endure this emotional duress and financial burden," she wrote, adding that she and her husband were suffering from anxiety and the children were depressed.
Ward 11 Councillor Dave Mitchell says it's a shame because he thought the deal was almost done, but he adds the family shouldn't have had "to go through all this grief.
"I don't blame the MacKays. They just got pushed too far," Mitchell said.
"And it's all due to mistakes in the past in Stoney Creek and confusion today between city departments."
Neighbour Lennie Giangregorio says he feels the city is holding the MacKays hostage by asking them to give property to a neighbour because of a mistake that is the city's responsibility.
Ray Lee, senior project manager in the city's development and real estate division says the problems began in the late '80s when Stoney Creek developed a secondary plan for the Winona North Neighbourhood that anticipated the privately owned Winona Park Road would eventually be joined to the yet-unnamed Shadowdale Drive.
"Block 125 was meant to be additional building lots that were to be added to the small lots on the south side of Winona Park Road," says Lee.
Almost at the same time, an application to build on a lot blocking the proposed junction was approved by Stoney Creek's building department, because a judge's order years earlier had closed the private road.
Then, in the 1990s the city wanted a cul-de-sac built at the end of Shadowdale, but the developer and the engineering department failed to register easements on the lots for the road allowance, leaving a road encroachment on the front of Block 125 and the lot of neighbours John and Jodie Larmond.
Lee says that, although Stoney Creek released the developer from responsibility for the new subdivision in 2002, when the MacKays bought the block, they assumed all previous agreements, and that meant acquiring the land for the cul-de-sac and paying for an amended neighbourhood plan.
Bruce Singbush of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing confirms that this is a common occurrence in the process of moving land forward for development.
Unfortunately, in the beginning the Larmonds were unwilling to negotiate.
The MacKays say the city pushed them to arrange the land acquisition, a deal they felt was the city's responsibility, and they grew weary of increasing demands from the Larmonds.
"We bent over backwards for them, offering whatever they wanted," Nancy says.
Neighbour Guy Brucculeri says right from the beginning the dispute was never about preserving green space.
"Larmond just wanted extra land to build a garage for his boat," he says.
Lee insists a deal was imminent yesterday before it all went off the tracks.
Mitchell says the straw that broke the camel's back was an erroneous demand of the MacKays for $7,000 by the building department for parkland.
"Here's another example that bigger isn't better," says Mitchell in reference to amalgamation. "An example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
"Now what's next? Expropriation? Nobody wants that."
dkewley@thespec.com 905-526-3474
WHAT THE MacKAYS PAID
Building permit $13,264.47
Plan amendment $1,650.00
Reference survey $1,200.00
Legal fees $13,000.00
Surveys $5,000.00
WHAT THE LARMONDS WANTED
* 103.4 square metres of land with 3.6 metres of frontage on Shadowdale;
* Removal of existing chain link fence;
* Wooden fence around new land;
* Grading, top soil and sod;
* New reference plan for exchange of land;
* Removal of dead trees and stumps;
Estimated value $10,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME | NEWS | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ENTERTAINMENT | LIFE | FEATURE REPORTS | SPECIAL SECTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Notice: Contents copyright 1996-2004, The Hamilton Spectator. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from http://www.thespec.com/ is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of The Hamilton Spectator. For information send email to helliott@thespec.com. Other comments or questions can be sent to jaussem@thespec.com
