Quest to build a garage in Richmond Hill..

[Dutch01]

I have a very small section of my garage that is below what they call the flood plain line (294.8 meters above sea level). If you draw a line where my garage is very small thin triangle starting at the rear east corner and going up about 10 feet is 294.7 meters above the sea level. So that is .1 meters difference so I needed an engineers letters stating we would not effect the flood plain. I got it and they issued the permit.

Are you sure about the 294.7m elevation? If so that would mean the entire city of Toronto (at elevation 76m) would be a flood plain yet we build all over it. That seems strange to me.

[grimsbylander]

atta boy.

 

"sue, sue, sue"

 

after all, it's the 'merican way.

Really? His opinion is as valid as anyone's.

[Terry]

flood plain is not based on above sea level but rather on elevation above local waterways and flood path, I would think he gave the elevation above sea levels in order to show the difference in elevation as it pertains to the flood pain area

[JoePa]

atta boy.

 

"sue, sue, sue"

 

after all, it's the 'merican way.

 

What's wrong with suing - sometimes its the only way to get justice - especially when your dealing with a bunch of idiots who are using their position to screw you -

[Sinker]

 

What's wrong with suing - sometimes its the only way to get justice - especially when your dealing with a bunch of idiots who are using their position to screw you -

I thought you would just pull out your gun and shoot em LOL

[Dara]

Hi Lape0019,

 

They want my land because it's close to a major intersection in Richmond Hill, they won't admit that. They say it's because it's hazardous land and want to control the flood plain.

 

If they were truly concerned about flood plains and hazardous lands, they would have insisted on land conveyance of the property 1 block away from me that got the variance

in the meeting I went to in May.

 

Why didn't they want this other guys land you ask, because he is on a residential street and his property is surrounded by other privately owned lands, there is no financial benefit for the town to own this property.

 

I'm going to the meeting in August either way. I hear nothing from the planning department since May until I email the committee of adjustments Representative saying put me on the list for August and I'm seriously considering a law suit.

 

Then I get an email from the planning department within the hour! RIDICULOUS!

 

 

 

 

Try and have paper from the neighbor showing his approval and then they will have to justify disapproval for reasons other than flood plain

[Dutch01]

flood plain is not based on above sea level but rather on elevation above local waterways and flood path, I would think he gave the elevation above sea levels in order to show the difference in elevation as it pertains to the flood pain area

Thanks, guess I learned something new today.

[RangerGuy]

Toronto Conservation gave me that number 294.8 (m.a.s.l).

 

Funny thing is I'm not allowed to change the grade , yet I still need to pay for a grading permit!

[Old Ironmaker]

What's wrong with suing - sometimes its the only way to get justice - especially when your dealing with a bunch of idiots who are using their position to screw you -

What are his losses? You have to have lost something to recover in a law suit. He won't have a garage, is that a loss of the pursuit of happiness? The courts here are a bit different than down there Joe, the pursuit of happiness isn't in our constitution, here it is the guarantee of Government interference in our day to day living. You said something about taxed on taking a dump, we have it. $100.00 permit to change a toilet here and of the $180.00 I pay to pump out a 2000 gallon holding tank 90 bucks is taxes to dump it. I think you pay to sit on the throne too, water and sewer taxes.

[JoePa]

It happened about a year ago - up in the Poconos - the township supervisors were giving some old timer a hard time about something - I don't remember what it was anymore - then at one meeting he pulls out his gun and starts firing - killed one of the supervisors and wounded a couple - the old timer is in jail now - living off the tax payers - now the supervisors are a little more careful who they piss off -

 

As far as the cost of taking a dump - I live in the country - have a well and septic tank - I don't have any water or sewer bill - if I ever wanted to change a toilet I would just do it - don't need a permit - next time I have to go I will appreciate how nice I have it - dump free

 

Some how the government up there has almost full control of your lives - that ain't good - if I lived up there it would be way up north where the government isn't watching everything I do

 

Speaking of toilets - remember this - no matter how you dance and prance - the last few drops go down your pants - JoePa

[SirCranksalot]

The courts here are a bit different than down there Joe, the pursuit of happiness isn't in our constitution,

 

Our const focuses on 'peace, order, and good government" Two out of three ain't bad!!

[John Bacon]

What are his losses? You have to have lost something to recover in a law suit. He won't have a garage, is that a loss of the pursuit of happiness? The courts here are a bit different than down there Joe, the pursuit of happiness isn't in our constitution, here it is the guarantee of Government interference in our day to day living. You said something about taxed on taking a dump, we have it. $100.00 permit to change a toilet here and of the $180.00 I pay to pump out a 2000 gallon holding tank 90 bucks is taxes to dump it. I think you pay to sit on the throne too, water and sewer taxes.

 

Several thousand in non-refundable fees that he has paid so far.

[Pikeslayer]

I will contribute (based on experience) and recommend:

 

1. Ignore everything you've read.

 

2. Engage a reputable & accredited paralegal (there not just for traffic tix ) that specializes in municipal law.

 

3. Be prepared to pay $250-300 for a 90 min initial consult. PL will give you insight & options during the initial consult.

 

& lawyers are for Court should that be an outcome.

Edited July 14, 2016 by pikeslayer

[RangerGuy]

Thank you everybody for your input. To be clear of what I'm out for the lawsuit these rough numbers because I don't have my reciepts on me but...

 

1) TRCA Permit: 500

2) Engineering Letter: 500

3) Survey and grading plan (This was required even if I had one, they said they'd want a new one) 3000

4) Minor Variance Application : 4000

 

Not Paid yet but I have to

1) TRCA Additional Charge: 500 (because the town contacted them with questions even though I already have TRCA Permit)

2) Building Permit: 500 (roughly)

3) Grading Permit: 500 (roughtly, and I can't change the grade!)

 

So 8,000 to date and I haven't broken ground.... gone!

 

Also, after the suggestions to contact the news, I contacted CityTV again and they called me and took my story for research..hopefully they will cover it. Global News also wants me to send my info and they will let me know.

 

 

Again thank you all for the support! 24 more signatures till I have 100! WOOT!

 

Hope I can get 100 before the August 11th meeting!

Edited July 15, 2016 by RangerGuy

[BillM]

I really hope you stick it to the City of Richmond Hill!

[Terry]

so do you have something in writing that they want the land before you get the permit

[Big Cliff]

well, if I could sign again I would!

[Old Ironmaker]

Several thousand in non-refundable fees that he has paid so far.

The key words going in John is "non-refundable". Unless it was proved that all the authorities knew going in he would never get to build that garage and he could prove it he won't get it back. Like my cousin buying property on the Niagara Greenbelt and a disputed portion on the Bruce Peninsula then spending thousands on drawings for a building and applying for a permit. Duh. They could have taken his money but tried to persuade him not to pay the fee but he insisted, no permit has ever been issued for a building on that stretch of land at that time some years back. He has been in and out of court for 16 years, appealed the OMB etc. He has a problem that man one of which is having too much money.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Old Ironmaker

[Dusky]

Signed and forwarded to others who lives in York region. Good luck.

[John Bacon]

The key words going in John is "non-refundable". Unless it was proved that all the authorities knew going in he would never get to build that garage and he could prove it he won't get it back. Like my cousin buying property on the Niagara Greenbelt and a disputed portion on the Bruce Peninsula then spending thousands on drawings for a building and applying for a permit. Duh. They could have taken his money but tried to persuade him not to pay the fee but he insisted, no permit has ever been issued for a building on that stretch of land at that time some years back. He has been in and out of court for 16 years, appealed the OMB etc. He has a problem that man one of which is having too much money.

 

But he IS allowed to build the garage. But the city has requested that he gift them part of his land in exchange for issuing the permit.

 

This is a completely different case than the example that you provided. In the example that you provided; it appears that the land is considered environmentally sensitive and no should not be developed. In that case you are out the fees and you still don’t get to build.

 

In this case the result of the environmental assessment is that there is no reason to reject a permit. However, the city has requested that he gift part of his land in exchange for issuing the permit. Perhaps there is a valid reason for tying the gift of land with the permit. I cannot think of a valid reason; but one may exist.

 

If the city does indeed have a valid reason for tying the gift of land to the issuance of a permit; then the OP will be back to square one with having to choose between keeping his land, or building a garage.

 

If the city is not able to establish a valid connection between issuing a permit and gifting the land, then he may have the option of getting the fees back; or being able to build the garage and keep his land.

 

If it turns out that the city was simply using as an opportunity to extort the land; then there should be criminal charges against those involved.

Edited July 15, 2016 by JohnBacon

[SirCranksalot]

Bear in mind that the city has no obligation to approve a minor variance. The onus is on the applicant to make the case for approval. If they approved all applications the committee could be replaced by a rubber stamp.

[Big Cliff]

The City of Richmond Hill isn't much better than the City of Kawartha Mistakes! They do everything they can to kill development because of the "Old Boys Club"! If it aint in their pockets, it shouldn't happen.

[Old Ironmaker]

But he IS allowed to build the garage. But the city has requested that he gift them part of his land in exchange for issuing the permit.

 

This is a completely different case than the example that you provided. In the example that you provided; it appears that the land is considered environmentally sensitive and no should not be developed. In that case you are out the fees and you still don’t get to build.

 

In this case the result of the environmental assessment is that there is no reason to reject a permit. However, the city has requested that he gift part of his land in exchange for issuing the permit. Perhaps there is a valid reason for tying the gift of land with the permit. I cannot think of a valid reason; but one may exist.

 

If the city does indeed have a valid reason for tying the gift of land to the issuance of a permit; then the OP will be back to square one with having to choose between keeping his land, or building a garage.

 

If the city is not able to establish a valid connection between issuing a permit and gifting the land, then he may have the option of getting the fees back; or being able to build the garage and keep his land.

 

If it turns out that the city was simply using as an opportunity to extort the land; then there should be criminal charges against those involved.

I didn't give a good example. My point is how can one sue for "non refundable fees" and win.

 

And I think this is criminal extortion.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Old Ironmaker

[John Bacon]

Bear in mind that the city has no obligation to approve a minor variance. The onus is on the applicant to make the case for approval. If they approved all applications the committee could be replaced by a rubber stamp.

 

But it seem that they have approved this one. Now they want some free land in exchange for doing so. Perhaps there is a valid logical reason for tying the free land to the issuance of the permit; but, if there isn't then this would seem to be extortion.

 

 

 

I didn't give a good example. My point is how can one sue for "non refundable fees" and win.

 

And I think this is criminal extortion.

 

The lawsuit doesn't have to be to recover the fees; it could be to allow him to build without having to give them half of his land. Or, if there are extenuating circumstances; they the court could order the fees to be returned.

 

I do agree that under normal cirmcustances the fees would not be refunded if your application was rejected. But, that is not what seems to be happening here.

[RangerGuy]

Hi All,

 

Town will not give you anything in writing, other than the Staff Letter. The Committee of Adjustment representative advises that you speak with each department before applying for the minor variance, to confirm they don't see any issues with your plans.

 

You speak to planning they say things like: "We want to make sure it fits the neighborhood" or "Is this structure going to block a neighbors view of something", I find this very reasonable.

 

Now because of my situation they said: "We can't advise you because you need approval from "TRCA". It's this point that they should have told me about their own rules on flood plan and the official plan.

 

I got approval via a permit, and revisited planning department. They said: "Well, great you got approval, We don't see any reason that you should not apply for your variance" .... NOT ....

"Your applying for a minor variance, because you have flood plain on your property , we will most likely ask you to convey land to us and will need the MNR, Parks, Planning, TRCA and your surveyor to stake out the hazard land".

 

You see they want me to bring my surveyor back on my dime! To stake out the land they want and to stake my garage... NOT HAPPENING! My surveyor staked my land last year, I do not by law have to pay a surveyor to stake my garage for me. They even said we want all these departments on your property at the same time to watch you stake your garage.. THAT'S RIDICULOUS!

 

The planning departments staff letter to the committee of adjustments (which explains their general opinions of the planned development) states they see no issue with my garage and that it fits with the neighborhood, but they will

not approve permit without land conveyance..

 

I know a variance is not guaranteed, the vote could go any direction. This is not my issue and knew that going in. My issue is the town with held information or omitted information when I went to them for guidance and now is extorting my land.

 

Also, they are not seeking land conveyance consistently. Several properties of lesser value have had to get TRCA flood plain approval with in this area, these have not had to gift land because they do not have as high monetary value.

 

Again thank you everybody for the support!!!

Edited July 17, 2016 by RangerGuy