Violations of Restrictive Covenants

Building Settlement after Trees Cut and Decking Added
unlawfully at Sunridge Estates - 1215 Lansdowne Drive, Coquitlam, BC 

In 1985 municipalities received power to deal with geotechnical concerns. The purpose of restrictive covenants is to give notice respecting stability of land, warning of danger and safeguards required; and to RELIEVE THE CITY of liability for damage.

Covenants Z123808 and Z123809 - Registered on Title in the Land Title Office

The first Agreement (Z123808) was made with the District of Coquitlam on June 25, 1986, and registered on every land title in this strata complex. In this Covenant the District:

1. made all future owners aware of the setback requirements from the crest of the ravine slope.
2. requested that filling be controlled within 25 metres of the crest of the slope. A minimum setback of 6 metres is required from the rear of the property
3. was forever discharged from all claims in respect to loss or damage to any structure built except where damage is caused by the negligence of the District. 
4. agreed that the covenants run with the Lands.

The second Agreement with the District of Coquitlam (Z123809) was made on July 2, 1986. In it:

1) The District made all future owners aware of the design control requirements of the District in connection with construction.
2) The Grantor (Genstar and First National) agreed to enter into a Restrictive Covenant, which runs with the Lands and includes the following covenants:

a) No structure shall be constructed except with a building permit and plans approved by the District.
b) Prior to the commencement of construction, application shall be made to the District for approval of preliminary plans, which shall include:

i) An accurate site plan showing the contours of the site and the proposed siting of all structures;
ii) Elevation drawings of all structures proposed to be constructed;
iii) A preliminary landscaping plan;
iv) A perspective drawing showing all buildings or structures proposed to be constructed.

3) Upon any application being approved and prior to commencement of construction the application for the necessary permits shall be made to the District, and shall include:

a) A detailed and fully dimensioned site plan showing existing contours and/or spot elevations.
b) Detailed landscaping plans, including specifications of all plant materials, surface treatments and screening, and including an itemized written statement signed and sealed by a registered Landscape Architect as to the estimated true costs of the proposed landscaping works;
c) Working drawings and specifications of all structures to be constructed, including elevation drawings.

4) The District may reject any application that does not contain all required information.
5) Securities in an amount equal to the estimate of the total cost of landscaping works were to be held by the District to guarantee performance of such landscaping works.
6) The covenants run with the Lands under Section 215 of the Land Title Act, RSBC, 1979, Chapter 219.
7) If any provision is unenforceable, that provision is severable from the Agreement, and the remaining provisions continue in full force and effect.
8) The Agreement extends to the benefit of and is binding upon the District and the owners of Sunridge Estates.

********

The northeast corner of Building 7 sunk about 6 inches in 1988, about $30,000 of concrete was poured under the corner with a 20-year warranty.

We had no more geotechnical issues after the concrete reinforcement until 2003 when we complained of structural issues after major water damage, such that our doors had to be cut in order to close, and did not stay latched afterward, our walls cracked, and our floors sunk, particularly where the substrate is defective. The strata corporation refused make an insurance claim or finish repairing the water damage on the grounds that the structural damage was caused by building settlement.

First one tree next to us was removed without a vote to build extra decking unlawfully. Then more landscaping was destroyed.to built more decks, not in the best interests of the strata corporation or our geotechnical security.  

Ground cover was also destroyed, leaving birch roots exposed to the sun. Three trees across from us were hacked in half and left to die over a period of several years. Then in 2005 trees that were closer to the building than 8 feet were cut down to accommodate the scaffolding for building envelope repairs. One of the trees in front of our unit was cut down, even though it was more than 8 feet away. Another tree was pruned to accommodate the scaffolding and remained standing until after the scaffolding was taken down and Al MacLeod cut it down while we were away on vacation in 2006, telling me verbally and in email he had a right to take action against me for criticizing his conduct.

If building permits had been obtained and a registered Landscape Architect had given a written estimate as to the true costs and securities had been paid in an amount equal to the estimate and held by the District, Sunridge Estates could never have been devastated by lawless rogues the way that it was.

After I told both Al MacLeod and Georgia Title how important trees were to the enjoyment of our home and geotechical security they were preemptively removed, with the most obvious effect being injury to me.

Unlike the half million spent by the Eugenia Place condo to reinstate the tree pictured above  the strata did not reinstate our trees, even though they were planted under a similarly binding agreement with the city, preserved during the building envelope project, and then removed - needlessly, deliberately, and not by accident.

The predominant reason for removing trees was to open views and clear the way to build decks for the benefit of members of council. The city gave geotechnial warning and the strata waived holding the city liable for damages, and the restrictive covenants act to ensure that waiver remains binding,

while trees are removed and the slope is excavated for extra decks that benefit members of council.

 

After the building envelope project a great many trees throughout our complex suddenly appeared to be dying, except unlike the other condo's tree pictured above which replaced one that died from lack of water, our trees were not replaced. It looked like they were vandalized throughout the complex - while Mr. MacLeod advertised panoramic views - and pavement and underground pipes suddenly started breaking and minutes reported buildings cracking as trees were removed without the required votes of owners and their roots decomposed.
A worker repairing the sewer that broke in the area below told me that the problem was either sinking or defective installation.

When I questioned Council about it the minutes called it a "good job, joked about doing "autopsies," and more trees were removed. Sometime in July 2006, around the time the city councillor Mae Reid moved in above me, a city arborist visited Sunridge Estates and allowed specified trees to be cut without a permit. Even though they were in a tree protection area because of the slope and the arborist was not an engineer, he deemed that cement retaining walls make the trees unnecessary, but the retaining walls around unit 409 are WOOD, not cement.

I saw a report with three marked as hazardous, but over a 2-year period hundreds of trees were cut down contrary to bylaws, restrictive covenants, and s71 of the Strata Property Act. The loss was devastating, and the cost was crushing.

The price tag for the replacement tree pictured above was over half a million dollars for one 7.1 metre tree. At a conservative estimate of $15,000 per tree, plus inflation, it would cost millions of dollars to reinstate the mature trees that were destroyed, removed, and never replaced. Significant changes were made to the use and appearance of common property contrary to the strata plan, and special levy funds from the building envelope project that was completed in October 2005 were unlawfully diverted to destruction of landscaping and construction of extra decking. The identity of the member(s) of the strata management team, if any, who proposed to divert most of the special levy money left over from the building envelope project into cutting down trees and reconstructing rotting decks was obscured, but Mr. MacLeod told a meeting that The Homeowner Protection Office authorized $150,000 for landscaping and deck repairs. Despite my repeated requests for records, I never saw any such authorization. Adding decking and eliminating most of the trees and landscaping at the strata's expense was not approved by 75% of owners, but council did not make a claim under the strata's insurance policy for damage and loss from vandalism and unlawful depletion of trust funds.

At this point we don't need a written estimate from a registered landscape architect to know that it would be a crushing cost of millions of dollars to reinstate hundreds of mature trees destroyed so scofflaws could profit from their own wrongs. All that we are now requesting is reinstatement of the trees around Unit 409 that were vandalized by Al MacLeod and Georgia Title, who both acted deliberately, knowingly hurting Unit 409, so we can once again enjoy privacy and park-like views from Unit 409's windows, instead of daily nuisance and grief. We also want the structural damage to our unit repaired without further delay, whether it is caused by building settlement or not.