75% Approval v. Pre-emptive Alterations

This blog is supplementary to
"BALCONIES, PATIOS AND DECKS" 

posted under my main "Sunridge Estates on Lansdowne Drive" blog

There are no "decks" on the strata plan of NW2671, each strata lot has a single 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 unlawfully added extra "DECKS" with the legitimate "PATIOS" or balconies designated on the strata plan, and this strategy is at the core of persistent misrepresentation perpetuating unjust enrichment for some and hell on earth for me.

We bought Unit 409 in good faith before others moved in and vandalized our property. For more than 30 years we have been unfairly deprived of trees and landscaping that we bought and paid for, while others have unlawfully interfered with our use and enjoyment and inflicted unspeakable oppression for their own unjust enrichment.

Just look at the sound, maintenance-free, long, closely spaced spindles that went with our equally sound, maintenance-free, long deck boards with an irreplaceable 40-year life expectancy - all maliciously destroyed in retaliation for complaining about this neighbour's unlawful and significantly unfair alterations.

The purpose of 75% owner approval is to get the vote in advance of the action to be decided upon, while there is still a choice to be reasonably made, not after the act is done and it is perceived to be too late or costly to change. 

If owners had been given a chance to vote in advance it is highly unlikely that 75 % would approve cutting down trees that the landscape architect planted between the windows of the buildings for privacy and safety buffers without regard for the costs, tree protection areas, restrictive covenants, or foreseeable nuisance for a deck extension as unfair as 407's. The change in the use and appearance of the property we purchased is significant, detrimental, unfair, and enduring.

This photo is the resultant view between the windows of 508 and 409
after the central tree was cut down to extend 407's patio, destroying privacy between the buildings. Strata told us that putting trellis planters on our patio would solve the problem.

Trellis planters restored privacy, but took away from our outdoor dining space. Crowding our patio furniture off of our own limited common property did not solve the problem.

We made requests repeatedly for every remedy we could think of for decades and all were ignored while our strata fees were spent for the unjust enrichment of others who outrageously deprive us of privacy, peace, enjoyment, and exclusive use of our own strata plan patio.

It didn't have to be such a nuisance, we proposed so many other options, including extending 409's patio into the air space a story above 407's extra decking, or moving 407's extra decking to where it would not be in the way, all to no avail, .

Since the strata pre-emptively cut down another mature tree in mid December 2013
.

The unfairness and perverse disregard of law that we have experienced for over 20 years in this strata is sickening.

Changing the use and appearance of common property does not give permission for exclusive use. If a recreational sundeck is built on common property, with or without approval, it is defined in s.1 of the SPA as a common asset, no matter who paid for it.  

Pursuant to s.134 of the SPA, if an owner of a strata lot breaches a bylaw or rule the strata council may deny access to common assets of the strata corporation, specifically recreational sundecks, for a reasonable amount of time, but not for a lifetime. 

The practice here is the exact opposite. When strata bylaws are breached Sunridge Estates strata councils reward the nuisance with exclusive use of common property forevermore without charge and correspondingly deny access to law abiding owners like us, who did no wrong and have as much unit entitlement as anyone, and a lot more than most.

Pursuant to s.71 and s.76 of the SPA, if 75% of owners vote to approve the change, permission may be granted for temporary exclusive use of common assets or common property, but such permission expires within a year. If it's in the best interests of the strata pursuant to s.4 and s.31 such permission may be renewed or cancelled pursuant to s.32, and accordingly, s.6.9 of the Strata Property Regulation provides for the imposition of reasonable user fees.

The practice here is the exact opposite. Significant changes were made to the common property pre-emptively, without approval, for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the owners of upper units, without permission or user fees, to the detriment of the strata and other owners. 

 
Clark Wilson's March 25, 2009, issue of STRATAgies states:
In BC, the common law of nuisance deals with the use of property of one owner that interferes with a neighbouring owner’s ability to use and enjoy their property. Section 3(1) of the Standard Bylaws in the Strata Property Act imports the law of nuisance into the bylaws of the strata corporation by prohibiting an owner, tenant, occupant, or visitor from using a strata lot or the common property in a way that causes a nuisance or hazard to another person. 

For whatever it's worth, both laws are imported into our Bylaws, which have been ignored for so many years and in so many ways without remedy that it brings both the administration of justice and the reputation of our strata complex into disrepute.

If the landscape architect had been allowed to reinstate the landscaping there would be no need for the impossibly expensive fields of lattice pictured below. 409 has not only sunk after the screening tree was cut down for the extension to unit 407's deck, but our use and enjoyment of our property has been diminished terribly - for years - from loss of privacy as 508 gained a clear view from their windows straight through our whole unit to the loud parties and loss of use of our patio seating taken up by a trellis planter replacing the lost tree - and years of destructive postponements of our requests for a remedial deck extension to restore equity and the original function of our only outdoor area - cultivating poisonous relations and unspeakable emotional trauma that continually festers.


Mr Macleod repeatedly said that owners are ignorant, and taking advantage of that, he managed to influence all kinds of votes in his own self interest; but enough is enough.

The last act he did was pass a paint bylaw, without even one single vote - in favour or at all - which to her credit Lynda Baker did not sign off on as the new president but Georgia Title and Sabrina Yuen did his dirty work and had it filed in the Land Title Office.

Even if the bylaw had been passed legitimately it is still enforceable to the extent that it conflicts with sections 72 and 91 of the Strata Property Act. As such the bylaw is unenforceable in regard to extra decks. It amounts to an indirect increase of about $900 in annual maintenance fees for 3-bedroom units such as Unit 409, an amount which exceeds the unit entitlement formulas for our strata fees by about 20%.  

To top it all off, after sending a letter promising to paint our patio in the summer of 2013, Al MacLLeod had us fined us for violating the painting bylaw before it was even passed at an AGM where we were unlawfully deprived of our right to vote against it. Not much could be more perverse.

We voted for and paid a special levy to cover remediation of strata plan patios at the same time as strata plan balconies. The patios are on 3 bedroom units and the balconies, and all the unfunded extra decks, are on 2 bedroom units - but 3 bedrooms pay up to 30% more than 2 bedrooms.

When I talk about extra decks, I'm not talking about an insignificant strip of patio, I'm talking about BIG extra decks like on units 208, 210, 406, 410, 412, 326, 508, 510, 518, and 520. In a perfect world cost sharing could be to the penny, but when I'm talking about user fees I'm talking about extensions like on unit 407 that more or less doubles the strata plan patio or balcony space for unit entitlements and corresponding strata fees, or anything proven to add extraordinary expense or risk. 

If the proposed paint bylaw was to be enforceable all strata plan patios would need the same paint-free flooring, enclosures, and support as the upper balconies to order to avoid indirectly paying extra strata fees each year due to Al MacLeod mixing up the strata plan's limited common property with big illegally added and unfunded extra decks - just to hide the extra expense from the strata's financial statements, contingency reserve fund, and depreciation report - so Al MacLeod et al can avoid paying user fees.

*************

We don't think that a landscape architect, or any reasonable person, much less 75% of owners, would give advance approval to tear out expensive landscaping to build a big extra deck like this one in such an intrusive location - to destroy curb appeal and be demolished and reconstructed at a cost of over $10,000 to the strata corporation - certainly not if they were given an opportunity to vote beforehand.















We don't think that any reasonable person, much less 75% of owners, would approve of cutting down the trees and tearing out the bushes and greenery on this high profile road frontage, changing the appearance of the common property to add mismatched railings and hoky-looking little steps and gates.

















This is not the work of a landscape architect. The original appearance of this high profile frontage was changed from looking like the "street of dreams" to something more like the Hells Angels compound in Maillardville.

A big expensive fence had to be built to cover up the mismatched railings and the shocking destruction of trees and landscaping from passing traffic. Once the stockade fence was built it was utilized to mask the further shock of the destruction of the green ground cover being totally buried under a field of bark mulch - all conveniently hidden behind a big stark stockade fence.

If the front yards of detached homes were vandalized like this owners would have called the police and sued the criminals for thousands of dollars in lost property values.


We don't know the cost to build and paint this big wooden fence, but we do know it was too much to afford a maintenance budget; and too much to afford what was supposed to include contrasting brown trim and access gates.

Big extra decks - all illegally added
take priority over fair and reasonable management.

It's no wonder the landscape architect quit, and now that all the amateur's have wrecked havoc on a 20 million dollar piece of property it's no wonder that access to any of the records of whatever work that he did do is such a secret and so persistently denied.








Lost curb appeal in this highly intrusive destruction of the landscape design continually devalues the entire complex. We don't understand how this size and location is fair in comparison to 409's small 16" proposed extension hidden in away in a discrete side location, or how it pays to obey the law when we pay 25% more in strata fees and are totally surrounded by illegal extensions, beside 409, in front of 409, behind 409, and this intrusion every time we, or any of our visitors, drive in and out of the complex, all paid for by our strata fees, for the benefit of others and the detriment of ourselves.




Any deck beyond the garage should be removed as a violation of section 71 of the Strata Property Act. There is no need for this. No need at all. Build whatever ramp is required, if any at all, but do not devalue the common property and spoil the curb appeal and landscaping with this intrusive projection.




Unit 508 also destroyed beautiful and valuable landscaping and replaced it with a costly and unsightly extra deck, functioning primarily as storage for an eye sore of clutter and storage tarps, sitting in a direct line of sight from 409's kitchen, dining room, living room, and patio, day after day,  year after year, without visual relief which the strata's landscape architect could so easily have provided - but was not allowed - is an ongoing nuisance. We don't think 75% would vote to approve anything so inconsiderate and irresponsible and detrimental to law abiding neighbours.

Council's refusal to plant a screen of bushes or trees and its addition of more unwelcome construction and expense only adds to the neighbouring view's loss of greenery; creating a further nuisance.














The strata plan balconies were fully and completely renovated while the strata plan patios were left derelict for years, and the special levy money was spent destroying trees and reconstructing extra decks for others. It is a hardship for us to have to repeatedly pay for unfair allocation of funds being improperly misappropriated to council member's self interests. It is unsafe for someone like me to try to paint a tall deck like this one, nor are we insured, equipped, or competent to do so. The corruption in this strata corporation since 2003 has grown to the point that it is now truly systemic. What an incredible mess.

Owners did not approve any of these alterations before they were implemented - and neither did the strata corporation's lawyer. Al MacLeod (518) and Mae Reid (510) and Sherrill Berg (508) ignored everyone and acted in their own self interest to the persistent detriment of others.

Are we the only ones left who notice unfair allocation of funds and decisions favouring the special interests of a minority at the expense of others? After over half of Al MacLeod's neighbours listed units in this complex for sale with other realtors, I was surprised to see a few owners starting to give Mr. Mac some listings in 2009, after what looked like only a 3-year boycott. Of course, I was also surprised that the strata did not sue him for cutting trees and destroying common property.

After hearing "landscaping in the spring" in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, that sales pitch got ridiculous. The question was what landscaping????? spring "of what year"?????? What about the deplorable condition of unit 409's landscaping during all these years? How long would it take to actually reinstate millions of dollars of destroyed landscaping?? As of 2009, it was 4 years and counting, with no hope in sight.

Only time will tell how much cost and how many years it will it take to recover from the staggering destruction of landscaping and wanton conflict of interest spending.

*************

We support alterations to the common property in order to make the best use and appearance - but only when done legally and any detriment to the shared use and enjoyment of the common property by others is remedied so no nuisance is caused, meaning only if the owners who have exclusive use or benefit value the alterations enough to pay corresponding user fees to reasonably cover the extra costs attributable to the existence of said alterations - which have proven to be so very high.


WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY OBEYING THE LAW IS TOO MUCH TO EXPECT.

Requests for a Remedial Patio Extension

I was complaining to the strata corporation about common property inequities and destruction of the landscaping before the new millennium. I have never stopped.

One problem seems to be that claims for replacement for a mature tree can be as high as $20,000. It is cheaper to extend 409's deck to accommodate trellis planters than replace the tree.
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/trees.aspx 

Taking up space on 409's strata plan patio rent-free for over 15 years so that with the added encroachment of the new outswing door our patio is rendered practically useless for nearly 10 years is not acceptable to us.

This post is a summary of extracts from requests I made from 2005 to 2010 for a remedial deck extension or reinstatement of unit 409's proportionate entitlement to shared use of the common property. In contrast to the luxury privilege of taking common property for the exclusive benefit of one unit, Unit 409 is the only unit that needs remedial decking to accommodate trellis planters that replaced a tree on the common property for the benefit of neighbours acting contrary to the law. My husband and I are the only owners subjected to the resultant nuisance and loss.

It is significant that the unfairness to us is unique and not shared by any other owner in the complex. It is also significant that all our corrective requests have been refused for decades, while the strata built extra decks for others with our money and surrounded us with others whose requests have been granted.
Decks - Plans Requested 223 (2)

*************

April 18, 2005
Email c/o Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager

…Please fix our sinking deck. At the same time, please equalize our deck space as previously requested…

March 20, 2006
Email c/o Al MacLeod, copy to Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager - At the time I used "replaced" with the same meaning as "reinstated" because owners had never approved anything but reinstatement of the original landscaping when voting for the special levy. I was unaware of any distinction between these two terms and had never even contemplated the destruction that was yet to come.

…We once again request that both of the deck additions on the building next to our unit be removed and that the trees and plants the landscape architect had surrounded our unit with be replaced...

May 2, 2006
Email c/o Al MacLeod; copy to Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager

…Once again, we request permission to extend our deck to the half way point between the buildings or to have the 8-foot green space between the decks restored to the way it was when we bought our unit…

…We also request, once again, that the strata corporation have the deck from 508 removed and the original greenery restored, or in the alternative, have hedging placed alongside that deck to screen the unsightly material stored on it from our view…

June 10, 2006
Email c/o Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager

…I repeat my request that all deck additions, that are not on the original and legally registered strata plan, be REMOVED and the original shrubs and greenery restored to the way it was when we bought our unit in 1988.

Failing that, I request approval of an extension of 409’s deck to be EQUAL in size to 407’s, so I can put a table on my deck again, the way I could before the project installed the new swing out door.

October 8, 2006
Email c/o Al MacLeod, copy to Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager

…Once again, please note that the deck additions on the building to the east of us both result in major eyesores … please have them removed without further delay. In the alternative please approve without further delay our request for landscaping to block the unsightly view of unit 508's storage deck and for an extension of our deck equal to unit 407's so we have enough space to plant screening foliage and to put our table and chairs back where we had them when we bought our unit in 1989…

November 1, 2006
Deck Survey Response c/o unit 405; copy to Al MacLeod; and Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager

…We lost 30 inches of deck space to the swing out door and 15 inches to a trellis planter being required after the screening tree provided to us by the original landscape architect was cut down to arbitrarily extend 407’s deck … We have submitted proposals for either restoration or equalization to Council for approval for years, to no avail...

November 5, 2006
Email c/o Al MacLeod; copy to Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager

Please … replace the tree that was cut down in order to extend unit 407s deck, or in the alternative, allow an equivalent extension of our deck...

November 20, 2006
Email c/o Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager

… unit 508 is creating an ongoing eyesore with plastic tarps. I request removal of this deck; or planting evergreen foliage to assure us visual protection… (if that would be a mutually acceptable compromise)…

…Unit 407’s (deck) is extended onto the common property by about 65 sq. ft,
which has interfered for years with not just our enjoyment of the common property, but of our strata lot and deck as well. We request removal of this extension and replacement of the tree that provided visual and environmental protection; or in the alternative extend our deck out an equal distance and provide a privacy screen to replace the lost tree (if that would be a mutually acceptable compromise)…

We are willing to pay our share of costs, but not more...

May 12, 2007
Fax c/o Joan MacDougall, Strata Manager, after the direction to council given by owners at the AGM was ignored

…why are discretionary extra decks that have created such a nuisance given priority
… repair our deck to meet or exceed its original quality, correct the swing-out patio door design defect, or extend our deck by the 16 inches requested to compensate for the loss of our outdoor seating area…

June 3, 2007
Fax c/o Bayside Property Services; Attention: Wayne Brisson

…With the warranty in mind, please take action to correct the design defect of the new door by replacing it with a swing-in version. If this is something that council does not intend to address, please let me know how we can proceed with changing the door ourselves pursuant to the warranty. If there is some reason not to allow us to correct this problem please let us know.

Once the design defect in the door is corrected the 16 inch deck extension we requested should compensate for the lost space from transferring the essential grade level landscaping up into planters on our deck, and we will then be able to put our
umbrella back out and use the rest of our deck again.

I would ask that you take note of the fact that we are the only owners that paid the special levy for deck repairs not to have our deck extended after a wait of over 2 years for approval or denial of our request. It seems unreasonable to us to add
significantly more expense to dismantle our deck, rebuild it, and then dismantle
it and rebuild it again in order to add the required extension…

June 5, 2007
Fax to Bayside Property Services, Attention Geri Campbell

…Our deck is no longer fit for the purpose for which it was intended...
…why is it that you are now not allowing us a 16 inch extension to restore the
function of our deck …

July 10, 2007
Fax c/o Adrienne Murray, Strata Corporation’s Lawyer in response to her June 19, 2007 letter

…All we are asking for with respect to our deck is to restore its function. This has not been done. Our deck has been altered, but there is still not enough room for the 30 inch swing out door and 18 inch planter trellis that was required to replace the screening foliage from the tree that was cut down to extend the neighbour’s deck.

July 25, 2007
Fax c/o Ascent Real Estate Management

…Extending the south end of the deck by an amount comparable to the 30 inches of wasted space from the swing-out door did not make our deck functional again. The 16 inches that the trellis and the 18 inches that its planter take up in place of the tree that was cut down to extend 407’s deck leave not enough space to access the extension for seating. This is a problem, not shared by any other unit…

...Between the swing-out replacement door and the trellis tree replacement
our usable seating area has been reduced... (added explanatory note: in width from 72 inches to 43 inches),
such that the original use of our deck is still lost … If the contractor does the work, we will pay for it if we must.
… we will pay to have the defective door replaced with a swing-in design if that is what we must do...

April 28, 2008
Email c/o Ascent Property Management

…Please repair the damage to our unit, including our deck…

July 7, 2008
Email c/o Al MacLeod

…We are now in receipt of a Notice: Re Structural Repairs advising that "They will be dismantling a portion of your deck to proceed with repairs."
Please remove the trellis from the deck of unit 409 and install it on the common
property where it does not infringe on the deck area or air space of 409's limited common property.

We also repeat our previous requests that the deck of unit 409 be extended 16 inches to the east to restore some of the original usable floor area that the strata corporation has deprived us of while providing extra space to other units.

July 7, 2008
Email c/o Al MacLeod

I have been waiting for responses to my various deck proposals for more than 5 years. Please address this issue now, while our deck is still dismantled.

July 10, 2008
Email c/o Al MacLeod

…note the extent of the lost floor space and air space on the attached drawing of our deck. Due to the vine maple being cut down to extend unit 407's deck across the whole of the common property the strata corporation is depriving us of our entitlement that is shown on the strata plan and the original function of our deck has been thereby destroyed.

…After over 5 years of making various deck requests to remedy this problem I have not received one reply that has not been otherwise contradicted.

…Please abide by the bylaws as previously requested and restore the function of our deck and some of the originally purchased use and enjoyment of our property, or at the very least allow us to have the attending construction company do so at our own expense if necessary.

November 5, 2009
Letter c/o strata mailbox

…Please... extend strata lot 25’s deck to the east by 16 inches to restore it to a functional size, or to a size more equitable to the other additions constructed by the strata corporation…

...replace swing-out deck doors with swing-in versions …

***********

We pay our share and get significantly less. In fact, we pay 25% more than those we subsidize with added benefits that are a significant detriment to us and the fundamental principle of shared use and enjoyment of common property in a strata corporation.

We have a strata plan deck. That's all we have. We just wish we could use and enjoy it the way we could when we bought it. Unlike Al MacLeod, we do not have all 3 of:

1. a strata plan balcony
2. an illegally added deck, and
3. an illegally added patio.

In fact, I think Mr MacLeod has the only unit with exclusive use of so many illegally added common assets, not to mention an extra length driveway and his panoramic view, custom made at the expense of the geotechnical stability of the land that we all share.

409 is the only unit to have the original function and value of our property very seriously damaged by so many unfair acts for which the strata corporation is responsible.

Since 1988 I used and enjoyed our patio every day of every spring, summer, and fall for 15 years. I miss it a lot. It was progressively undermined by a long and relentless series of acts by the strata corporation, including:

• allowing unit 407 to clear all of the originally landscaped common property; exposing us to a clear view from the ensuite of unit 409 all the way through right to the ensuite of unit 508
• covering the common property with unit 407's deck extension; increasing the risks of fire and personal injury; subjecting us to added noise and loss of privacy and personal property no longer retrievable from the common property
• requiring screening landscaping from the common property to be moved to a trellis planter on our deck, crowding us into a cramped space
• changing kitchen doors from the original swing-in standard design to a non-standard swing-out style that took away another 30 inches from the usable seating area making it too small to be able to continue using our patio set
• splitting the strata plan decks and balconies to exclude the strata plan decks during the building project
• refusing to extend the water pipes as required by the building envelope specifications so that we can no longer screw our hose onto our water taps to water flowers or wash cars
• needlessly replacing a deck board with a mismatch in the middle of a sound deck floor
• widening the spacing between our spindles by 25% eroding desperately needed privacy
• demolishing our basically sound strata plan deck - and reconstructing it 3 times
• giving away the most valuable original wood, of irreplaceable quality
• planting a dark conifer right up tight to our deck that would grow dangerously large and crowded out patio's light and air space
• attempting to hide the inferiority of the replacement wood with costly high-maintenance paint
• changing the bylaws to make strata plan deck owners responsible for future maintenance that does apply to strata plan balcony and patio owners
• attempting to force us to paint under traumatically unfair, corrupt conditions when we were unqualified, uninsured, and totally oppressed
• attempting to make us pay twice to paint strata plan decks that were already included in the special levy we paid; and
• misappropriating the remainder of the special levy funds to cut down trees and construct illegally added extra decks for the benefit of a privileged minority like Al Mac and Ms Reid reconstruct after all of the strata plan balconies on units like theirs were fully repaired and paid by the special levy
• all in violation of a variety of laws, especially our strata corporation's bylaw number 4.

There are 2 extremes here. 409 is at one end. 518 is at the other end.

We are left deprived, with far less than we bought, paying far more strata fees, and for years subsidizing special privileges for Al MacLeod and a minority of others who took beautifully landscaped common property for their own exclusive use and benefit without paying rent or user fees to cover the extra expenses attributable to extra decks and the loss and reinstatement of landscaping.

Al MacLeod and friends also destroyed mature trees for panoramic views at the expense of the strata which must pay for suddenly sinking buildings, cracking pavement, and bursting underground pipes, and this key minority sabotaged strata plan patios for years to avoid user fees, forcing others to pay for the extraordinary costs of demolition and reconstruction of illegally added extra decks and patios.

Al Mac is the single most responsible party involved in this strata corporation. He is also the only one who came right out and actually said that he has the right to take actions against others. He was on council for most of the years when most of the damage occurred, and when he was not on council he was indirectly instrumental - as the building envelope "committee", the litigation "committee", the landscaping "committee" and the fundamental planner, author and self-professed "experienced professional" , advisor to council and strata managers, a good "talker" and a dangerous actor.

***********

Over the years I have done everything I could do within the rules to restore some privacy between the windows and screen out the view of the storage tarps and clutter on 508's illegally added deck, including adding a trellis planter and decorative glass panels costing thousands, while strata management has been not just obstructive, but oppressive. The bylaws were amended to outlaw my glass panels, remedial landscaping was persistently refused, and artificial greenery outlawed, and after my strata fees were spent for their balconies and illegally added decks the bylaws were changed without a single vote to indirectly add an additional 20% to my strata fees for annual painting of a downgraded strata plan patio that was previously maintenance free for 20 years.

Since the year 2000 I have repeatedly made every imaginable request for remedies - reinstate the tree, share the common property equally, grant 409 approval for a 16" extension - all of which were fundamentally ignored. In reply to my various requests we were simply by-passed and received nothing but unreasonable delay, false promises and bizarre contradictions. It was impossible to rely on anything. It was and still is traumatic. We live with the loss and disrespect every day.

We are tired of it. After 20 years of deprivation we have decided that we want not just equity, but compensation for 20 years of unfair loss. This is the space on the north side of our strata lot that we have selected for 409's extra patio, which should be 16.25 square feet to be be 25% larger than those surrounding us, who own 25% less of the common property and pay 25% less strata fees and have deprived us of shared use and enjoyment of the common property for over 20 years for their own exclusive benefit at our expense, assaulting our view with unsightly tarps and clutter.

We also need the strata to reinstate the original function of Unit 409's strata plan patio which has been destroyed for more than 10 years by the acts of others and move to the outside of our patio the trellis planters that have been trespassing on it rent-free for 20 years in place of the tree that was removed from the common property to extend Unit 407's deck.

This image illustrates 409, who paid so much more and owns so much more and has got so much less than everyone else around for over 20 years, particularly 510, 508, 412, 410, and 518, all of whom paid so much less and own so much less, but take so much more than their share of the common property for their own exclusive use and benefit at the expense of others, and 409 in particular.

Legal opinions were a red herring, nothing more than another delay tactic and distraction employed by Al MacLeod, repeated for years; but, of course, none were obtained, or if obtained, not provided or acted upon. When the strata lawyer wrote an opinion that didn't support the agenda of the extra deck minority it was hidden. In 2007 a direction of the owners at the AGM was ignored by council members acting in a conflict of interest and illegally added decks were reconstructed at our expense to avoid users fees from those enjoying the benefit of getting more than they paid for.

User Fee Calculations

Sunridge Estates is chronically spending a dollar to save a dime because it is underfunded.

From what I have seen over the past 25 years, the primary reason that this strata corporation is underfunded is because of the loss of millions of dollars worth of landscaping and a few people who have been avoiding paying their fair share of approximately another half million in extra expenses attributable to their exclusive use and enjoyment of common property for too many years. The financial consequences are cumulative and over time the impact is staggering, divisive, and increasingly unfair as more and more victims sell.

The Strata Property Act provides formula for calculating strata fees in Division 2 — Contribution to Expenses. 

STRATA PROPERTY SBC CHAP. 43Division 4 – Special Levies and User Fees

Section 99 Calculating Strata Fees
Strata fees and special levies are calculated in accordance with section 99 of the Strata Property Act and the regulations based on the comparative size of the strata lot, divided by total size of all strata lots, multiplied by the common expense. Strata fees to cover common expenses are apportioned according to a greater or lesser share of ownership in the common property (called unit entitlement) based on the size of the strata lot. 

Unit entitlement calculations for shared ownership, use, enjoyment, and maintenance of common property are based on the size of the strata lot, meaning the indoor living space only. This is not proportionate to the expenses attributable to use of the common property and it is unfair for 4 reasons:

1. First, limited common property ranges in the extreme; from a strata lot with one of the highest strata fees and greatest unit entitlement ownership having the least limited common property and attributable expense, at 6.8 square metres and $1200; to strata lots with the very lowest strata fees and the least unit entitlements having the very most limited common property, at 13 square metres, so that those paying 25% less have been getting more than twice as much for over 25 years. In this case it is not the fault of owners, but it is not hard to mitigate the unfairness either.
2. Second, and more significantly, extra decks sit on the common property rent-free for the exclusive use and benefit of those who pay less strata fees and do not think they should  pay for the extra expenses attributable to their added decks. This allows a minority with lower unit entitlements and higher repair cost balconies to double and triple their exclusive use of common property beyond their strata plan balcony at the expense of others who pay more, and get less. The damage to the strata corporation has been devastating and compounds with time.
3. Third, the strata and most units would benefit if reasonable user fees were imposed and 25 years have proven that there is no fair alternative.
4. Last, but not least, extra decks added to the common property illegally at the expense of innocent owners who trust in and rely on law to their detriment distort property values, promote conflicts of interest and profit from corruption, and benefit the least deserving at the expense of others.

The extra expenses attributable to private use of outdoor property that exceeds the limited common property purchased and set out in the original strata plan for the exclusive use of the strata lot could be most fairly and reasonably covered by user fees.

Section 110 User fees
A strata corporation must not impose user fees for the use of common property or common assets by owners, tenants or occupants, or their visitors, other than as set out in the regulations.

STRATA PROPERTY REGULATION
PART 6 – FINANCES

User fees for the use of common property or common assets
6.9 For the purposes of section 110 of the Act, a strata corporation may impose user fees for the use of common property or common assets only if all of the following requirements are met:
  (a) the amount of the fee is reasonable;
  (b) the fee is set out
     (i) in a bylaw, or
     (ii) in a rule and the rule has been ratified under section 125 (6) of the Act.

User Fees
User fees could be calculated on a formula that is similar to section 99 strata fee formulas. Only 2 amendments would be required.

1. The first would be an initial fairness adjustment for space, time, and historical expense
2. After that, the calculation for user fees would be similar to the existing calculation for strata fees, except that instead of being based on the amount of interior living spaces, the user fee formulas would be based on the amount of exclusive use of common property and the extra expenses attributable to exclusive use.

This is not rocket science.
It is a quick and easy matter to hire http://westcoastmeasuring.com/ for the measurements at $0.05/sf or $50 an hour.

Monthly User Fees

1. Apply a formula similar to unit entitlement formula in section 99  (i.e. total exclusive use common property of the units opting in, divided by the amount the strata lot has, multiplied by the extra expense, divided by 12 months (eg. 680 square metres total/10 square metres x $15,000 = $220/12 months=$18/month)
2. Adjust the answers by corresponding unit entitlement offsets (eg. if Unit A owns and already pays 25% more strata fees than what Unit B owns and pays, split the difference for extra expenses attributable to equivalent exclusive use by subtracting 12.5% from A and adding 12.5% to B (eg. reduce A: $220 x .875 = $192.50/12 = $16.04/month; increase B: $220 x 1.125 = $247.50/12months = $20.62/month) 
3. Impose the respective user fees for each unit opting in and demand payment in the prescribed amount to be added to the next month's strata fees

 Implementation Program

•  Survey each owner asking if they:
  
  • opt in for paying users fees to cover the extra costs attributable to exclusive use of common property in a proportionate share to their own exclusive use and benefit, or 
  • opt out and have the strata enclose their patio within the strata plan dimensions of the limited common property, restore the surrounding common property to its original condition, and subtract their limited common property from the exclusive use common property total
• Obtain estimates for the cost of destruction and reinstatement of landscaping to the standard of the original landscape architect's design specifications; the demolition, removal, reconstruction, and maintenance of structural additions, such as patios, enclosures, or skylights; estimated value of property rental, professional fees for lawyers, engineers, surveyors, accountants, or contractors; review the strata records and total the known expenses attributable to the exclusive use and benefit areas from March 1, 1990 to March 1, 2014 or the date for the first payment of user fees, circulate the figures to owners for review and correction; or IN THE ALTERNATIVE  simply use the $500,000 surplus from the building envelope special levy as the estimated total for the extra expenses
• Divide the total expenses by 24 years from 1990 to 2014 (eg. $500,000/24yrs=$20,833)
• Divide the annual average by 68 units (eg. $20,833/68units=$306 per unit)
• Adjust the answers by corresponding unit entitlement offsets, like for the monthly user fees
• Multiply by the number of years of exclusive use and benefit plus the percentage exceeding the strata lot's LCP
• for example Unit 510's extra deck is twice the size of the balcony and Mae Reid has had exclusive use of it for 8 years, so Unit 510 might come to $5,488 calculated as $343 x 8 years + 200%, unless she sells fast enough to avoid paying her fair share of expenses:
• Unit 210 might come to $3,087 calculated as $343 x 3.5 years + 200%
• Unit 407 might come to $6,432 calculated at $268 x 12 years + 200%
• Unit 409 might come to zero, calculated at $268 x 0 years + 0%
• Unit 412 might come to $3,087 calculated as $343 x 3.5 years + 200%
• Unit 508 might come to 8,232 calculated as $343 x 12 years + 200%
• Unit 518 might come to $12,348 calculated as $343 x 12 years + 300%
• and so on... keeping in mind that these examples are approximations only; not measured
• Notify owners of their estimated share based on the size of exclusive use and years of benefit 
• Pass a resolution to make a rule imposing user fees, and get the owners to ratify it
• Add user fees to the monthly strata fees of those that opt in commencing on the  month following the date the user fees are imposed
• Execute agreements to grant approval for exclusive use to those who pay their user fees on time, and count joint owners with offsetting votes or those who abstain as opting out
• If the initial and monthly user fees are not paid within 30 days, treat the strata lot as if the owner opted out, enclose any limited common property patio and remove any patio addition within 90 days, and reinstate the landscaping during the next spring or fall. 

Council needs to pass a motion. 
For example: 

Whereas many units have paid more and received less, while others are paying less and getting more, therefore be it resolved that a schedule of user fees in the attached form be imposed for exclusive use of common property and payment for:

1.  annual rental, 
2.  use and benefits relative to the schedules of unit entitlements, and 
3. as reasonably fair as possible distribution of expenses and contingencies attributable to:

a.  the cost of removal and reinstatement of landscaping to its original condition,

b.  demolition, reconstruction, repairs and maintenance of patio additions, and

c.  professional fees, enclosures, unobstructed panoramic views, skylights, or delay

in amounts calculated pursuant to the following definitions and formulas:

DEFINITIONS

Contribution 
means an amount that reflects a corresponding benefit and expense attributable to exclusive use of common property, multiplied by the number of years the current payor owns the strata lot or benefits from the change in use, whichever is less. Contribution amounts are calculated according to what they are attributable to , as follows: 

extra decks and patio extensions 
include all the money spent by the strata corporation for professional fees, demolition, removal, reconstruction, maintenance, liability and insurance plus unpaid user fees and the estimated cost to reinstate the common property to its original condition and the estimated future maintenance and replacement factors indicated in the depreciation report, divided by 68 units. 

enclosed carports 
include the 2 without drywall and cover all the money spent by the strata corporation for professional fees, demolition, removal, reconstruction, maintenance, plus unpaid user fees and the estimated future maintenance and replacement factors indicated in the depreciation report, divided by 2 units. 

added skylights 
include all the money spent by the strata corporation for professional fees, demolition, removal, reconstruction, maintenance, plus unpaid user fees and the estimated future maintenance and replacement factors indicated in the depreciation report, divided by the number of units in the 300, 400, and 500 series with skylights. 

long driveways 
include all the money spent by the strata corporation for professional fees and snow removal services for strata lot driveways, plus unpaid user fees and the estimated future cost of snow removal, divided by the number of units on Rambler Way. 

unobstructed panoramic views 
include all the money spent by the strata corporation for professional fees, tree removal, and repairs attributable to settlement of the land, plus unpaid user fees and the estimated cost to reinstate the common property to its original condition and the estimated future maintenance and replacement factors indicated in the depreciation report, divided by the number of units with panoramic views

FORMULAS

Patio addition formula:

the dimensions of the strata lot’s exclusive use for extra decks and patio extensions which are in addition to the dimensions on the strata plan for the balcony or patio for the strata lot

divided by the total dimensions of all strata lots’ exclusive use for extra decks and patio extensions which are in addition to the dimensions shown on the strata plan for all balconies and patios

multiplied by the total contribution.

Carport and skylight formula:

the total dollar amount of extra expenses attributable to the garage walls, doors, or skylight not shown on the shop drawings from the developer, paid in a lump sum reimbursement by the person owning the unit at the time of the expenditure, or divided by the years of corresponding product lifespan specified in the deficiency report if the unit is transferred to a new owner.

Driveway formula:

Calculation is similar to unit entitlement formula except with driveway space substituted for habitable space, and the 108-110 driveway used for pickups from Phase One’s mailboxes excluded from the formula. Negative amounts could be applied to specified offsets. 

           View formula:

the total dollars spent since 2004 that are attributable to the removal of mature trees planted by the original landscape architects and sinking buildings, cracked walls, cracked pavement, broken underground pipes, patched pavement, unpaid user fees, and related amounts specified in the deficiency report, divided by 25 units (which is the estimated average number of units objecting to reinstatement of trees planted pursuant to restrictive covenants that run with the land for the benefit of the other 43 units) multiplied by 68 units divided by the number of years the current payor owns the strata lot

Unfair Allocation of Funds

Each strata lot has either a balcony or a patio. All 3-bedroom units have a patio. There are no decks on the strata plan.The word "deck" has been unfairly employed to lump strata plan patios in with exclusive use of shared common property attributable to illegally added extra decks and to create a wrongful division between units with strata plan patios and units with balconies in the maintenance and repair of limited common property.

When the owners voted to approve the special levy for the building envelope project, we were told that reinstating all of the strata plan decks was included in the construction plan, just as all of the strata plan balconies were included. The extra decks were not. I asked prior to the vote to make sure. The special levy never would have passed had it been otherwise.

After the vote, Mr MacLeod saw that the limited common property portion of the construction project, which originally had all of the strata plan patios and balconies fully funded in accordance with unit entitlement, were split up so that the strata plan patios were severed. This delayed and confused the repairs of the strata plan patios in a manner which, mixed up unfunded extra decks with strata plan patios so tat the balconies were repaired but the strata plan patios were not. Not that the strata plan patios were in need of much repair. If Unit 409's patio was any example, all they needed was to be put back the way that they were, replacing railings to match them up whenever needed.

It was obvious to me that all of the strata plan balconies, patios, and decks should have been reinstated in the building envelope construction together as planned, and if the extra decks were not removed user fees would be required in order to cover the added costs from their existence. Unfortunately, Al MacLeod did not want to pay user fees for his extra deck or his extra patio.

Stephen Hamilton, the strata lawyer, recommended to the strata corporation that the extra decks be removed. Unfortunately, he drafted the motion so poorly that even I couldn't approve it in the form he presented.

We don't think that any of this would have happened if a fox didn't sneek into the chicken coop with long-term plans in his own self-interest. In addition to his strata plan balcony, Al MacLeod not only has illegally added extra decks, but he has an illegally added extra patio as well, and so much exclusive use of common property that it was visible from Google Earth's space satellite.

Now the wood that the strata used to replace our original maintenance free patio needs staining to preserve and protect it. Certa-Pro, the painting company, told me in 2013 that it is long-overdue and unfortunately the results can't be guaranteed now since the wood should have been stained as part of the construction. If we accept the strata's move to transfer its responsibility for painting onto us it will effectively amount to a hidden increase of about 20% in Unit 409's annual strata fees over the legislated unit entitlement formulas for strata fees. It is our understanding that if we paint it would amount 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. Please keep in mind that our original patio did not require any maintenance or repair in 18 years and was in near perfect shape when it was demolished and the pricelessly valuable and irreplaceable wood was given away to a scavenger who was so excited that he was almost clicking his heels in glee.

To avoid an unfair result due to the extra expense attributable to painting extra decks we have asked the strata to provide vinyl flooring and glass and metal railings to all of the strata plan patios in order to match the paint-free balconies.

In 2013, the strata sent us a letter stating that it would do the painting in the summer, but it did not follow through as promised, and if the wood needs to be dry for at least 14 straight days and be sanded to remove all the dead “skin” layer(s) the weather that we had in the summer of 2013 was ideal for that. We have been asking why the painting is still not done as promised, but the strata has not answered.

 
Mr. MacLeod acted in every way possible to avoid paying user fees for having the exclusive use and benefit of his unfunded extra decks and patio. He used confusion, misrepresentation, and delay and his purchaser, Mae Reid, who used confusion, misrepresentation, and force. People who could not afford to pay anything extra had to fund luxuries for the exclusive use of people who did not value those luxuries enough to pay for them themselves. We don't know how many lost their homes as a result. Al MacLeod and Mae Reid got what they wanted, but the detriment far exceeded the benefit. The cost to others went far beyond unfair. 

It was horrendous.

People were forced to sell at distress sale prices with the common property littered with derelict decks, bare dirt, viralent weeds, and the strata governance in rampant corruption. The majority of owners lost the use of their strata plan decks for years while the 25% with extra decks enjoyed sunsets and sunrises from their new balconies. Buildings sunk and underground pipes broke throughout the complex as the roots of the trees that were not reinstated decomposed. Sound strata plan decks were demolished and their owners burdened with unfunded painting projects made necessary by the extra decks.

Five years later the strata had still not recovered from the loss, none of which would have happened if all of the strata plan decks were reinstated with the building envelope construction, the same as the balconies were.

*************

I don't think it is an exageration to say that evil is in our presence - having lived here for well over for 20 years, and having witnessed all of the changes, not just in strata managers, since Al MacLeod came in 2003. There is no other credible explanation for the events that have occurred in spite of the strata lawyer's recommendations and the owners' direction to council, and the foreseeable damage to the property value of unit 409 and to myself specifically.