kermit's ongoing infill issues

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Jeezus. Get up there with a sawzall and cut it off. Have you been able to get a hold of inspections to have them take a look?

My wife is on the case. This is her world, so I’m leaving it to her. But man I’m pissed off right now.

[Sliver]

Wow, that's very brazen of them. Keep us posted...this is an outrage.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Yet another reason in-fills GMG. Poorly built trash buildings that violate every standard of build set by the established neighbouring houses. Ridiculously large, towering structures that impede on every bungalows back yard privacy and sight lines, craming no less than two families onto what was once one lot, so children can play in a 30sq/ft yard while their parents pay through the nose for the privelage of looking like utter idiots for buying into a developers wet dream of quick easy cash.

We could just change taxation to square footage of lot size in addition to value to ensure that people properly pay for their contribution to sprawl. Infills should be heavily incentivized to increase density in poorly designed car neighbourhoods. This way at least people who want to keep 50 x150 foot lots will pay for the privilege.

[burn_this_city]

If that cantilevered floor hangs over your property line can you cut it down like a tree limb on your side of the fence?

[Weitz]

I mean.. How did it get to the point you are allowing them to build? If my neighbor knocked down and rebuilt I would be watching every day and the instant the foundation was poured it would have been reported...

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Yeah, my wife used to work at the city in subdivision, so she sent a message to the head of building regulations asking WTF. They won’t have to tear it down, but yes, they won’t be able to have side windows and will need to have much more fireproofing installed.

It that’s it. No fines, no requirement to build it properly. They’re also supposed to get an inspection when the foundation is done to ensure it’s at the right height. No way they did that.

Edit: I should mention, it's a contextual DP. They're just ignoring the rules.

This might be one of those situations where maybe you should double-check that your property lines are where you think they are.

That said, how would they even expect to do siding or stucco of any kind on that with the fence there? Any finishing work would be nearly impossible.

What does the building look like on the other side? It would be pretty funny if they put the house off-center, and there was a couple of meters to the other neighbour's fence.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Wormius

This might be one of those situations where maybe you should double-check that your property lines are where you think they are.

http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2009-02-28.htm

http://www.millerthomson.com/en/publ...yours-is-mine/

https://dcllp.com/blog/2016/07/04/th...on-in-alberta/

In Alberta, adverse possession generally requires (among other things) that the person wishing to take the land in question must have openly and exclusively occupied it for at least ten years even though they did not own it. One of the most common ways this occurs is with a misplaced fence – a fence that is not on the correct boundary between two parcels may create an adverse possession and allow the owner of one of the parcels to “expand” up to the fence.

I'd just like to point out that, if the fence had been there for at least 10 years, there exists the possibility of using squatter rights to gain possession of the land up to the fence. I don't know if this is more of a rural thing than urban thing.

So even if a an old survey does show that the fence was not put on or near the border between the houses, don't necessarily give it up. Might be worth it to talk to a lawyer if that ends up being the case.

[Mr.Coffee]

A friend of mine literally just lost a civil suit case of squatter rights of lake front property in Lake Bonavista due to the fence and the 10 year rule. Squatter rights in the city most definitely exists and needs to be dealt with quickly and severely to protect your title and land. This is even after the wife of the guy who essentially stole the land lied in discovery but wasn’t under oath at the time about knowledge as to if the fence was over the property line. Dirtbags.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Squatter rights in the city most definitely exists

For now:

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...ers-rights-law

Last year there was talk about getting rid of adverse possession laws, so whatever is happening with kermitology, he (or his wife) may not want to sit back and just assume that they have a while to act on it.

I also don't understand how they've been essentially given the a-okay to build knowingly without meeting the required setbacks, if that is indeed the case.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Yeah, my wife used to work at the city in subdivision, so she sent a message to the head of building regulations asking WTF. They won’t have to tear it down, but yes, they won’t be able to have side windows and will need to have much more fireproofing installed.

It that’s it. No fines, no requirement to build it properly. They’re also supposed to get an inspection when the foundation is done to ensure it’s at the right height. No way they did that.

Edit: I should mention, it's a contextual DP. They're just ignoring the rules.

That's what the city says. Perhaps contact a lawyer and see what they say.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Wow, that infill enrages me and I have no vested interest. I’d be going at that as hard as possible. Aside from how close it is, that will also decrease your property value because of how close it is.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Wormius

...

That said, how would they even expect to do siding or stucco of any kind on that with the fence there? Any finishing work would be nearly impossible.

What does the building look like on the other side? It would be pretty funny if they put the house off-center, and there was a couple of meters to the other neighbour's fence.

They will almost certainly require access to his yard to finish the exterior of the house. I suggest when they show up with a ladder and ask for access to your backyard you tell them with a straight calm face "step one foot on my property and I will call the police"

[CroFlames]

I can't wait till Kermitology gets home from work today so he can take new pics and update us on that disaster next door neighbor.

[Canehdianman]

I think he should send the pictures to the City on Twitter/social media. I would imagine that would get a fairly quick response.

[Swift]

Should get its own thread. I think it's a large enough issue to not just be a gear grinder. Plus I wanna follow the updates easier.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I can't wait till Kermitology gets home from work today so he can take new pics and update us on that disaster next door neighbor.

I think Kermitology needs to host a Backyard BBQ of 'The Official CP Sawzall-Enthusiasts Committee."

Everyone bring your sawzall and after a few drinks we cant be responsible for what happens next...

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think Kermitology needs to host a Backyard BBQ of 'The Official CP Sawzall-Enthusiasts Committee."

Everyone bring your sawzall and after a few drinks we cant be responsible for what happens next...

I like it, I'm in

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Should get its own thread. I think it's a large enough issue to not just be a gear grinder. Plus I wanna follow the updates easier.

Seconded. Also, once he figures out what the next steps are to rectify this, it will be more easily searchable for anyone else who may run into this in the future.

[Fuzz]

I'm in with my sawzall. I'll bring spare blades if anyone needs some.

[Knut]

Drinking and Sawzall's. What can go wrong.