Ontario Tax Sale Property Forum
Tax Sale Forum => General => Topic started by: HorseCrazy on June 27, 2008, 12:38:33 AM
-
Hi Guys: Seems the low bid has come through on the Dysart et al property, 2nd highest. It was the old Donald plant that closed down. I went up to see the property and all of the town has built up around this potentially environmentally unsafe land. I don't get it, but my husband wants to go through with the deal. I want to know why the highest bidder backed out and left me to be the bad one if I tell my husband no. I have talked to the locals and they all seem sane and healthy and there is even a new house right beside the 3 acre property. Any of you guys know why the highest bidder backed out and what you may of heard. Don't yell at me for letting the bid go on it, I can still back out and not let it go through. Tell me why I should say no. Thanks .... Crazy
-
Is it this one??
Roll No. 46 24 010 000 09300 0000, PIN 39171-0213(LT) Part Lot 6,
Concession 2, Geographic Township of Dysart, In the Municipality of
Dysart et al, County of Haliburton (No. 19), Being the Lands in
Instrument No. 170191. File 05-01
Minimum Tender Amount: $32,410.82
What exactly did the donald plant make??
If there is a potential envirnmental issue under NO CIRCUMSTANCES proceed under your personal name , register the land under a corporation
-
VERY IMPORTANT READ THIS !!! THEN RUN TO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT DO NOT CLOSE ON THIS LAND UNTIL THEY GIVE YOU THE REPORT. YOU MUST USE A CORPORATION IF YOU ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO PROCEED
'RUN RUN RUN AWAY' THINK.."LOVE CANAL"
Minutes of a Public Meeting held by the Dysart Public Meeting Committee in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Office in Haliburton on Monday June 4th, 2007, commencing at 7:00 p.m ( You have to love Google)
Zoning Amendment Lands of 882025 Ontario Inc. Part Lot 6, Concession 2 Geographic Township of Dysart
The purpose of the proposed zoning by-law amendment is to change the zone on the subject lands fromthe RU1 zone (Rural Type 1 zone) to the CH-x zone (the Highway Commercial Exception x zone). The proposed by-law will permit the construction of self-service storage units. No human habitation or open storage of goods and materials will be permitted. Notice of the proposed zoning by-law amendment, including the date and time of the meeting, was circulated to all persons and agencies required by regulation, on May 8th, 2007. An advertisement was placed in the local newspaper. The Committee reviewed the Planning Report, dated May 24th, 2007 and discussed the proposal. The Secretary briefly outlined the proposal and the notification process. She advised the Committee that the office had received one written response prior to the meeting and two written responses at the beginning of the meeting. Each of the written responses is in opposition to the project. The Chairman then asked Mr. O'Connor, who is president of 882025 Ontario Inc., if he would like to explain the proposal further. Mr. O'Connor noted that when he bought the property he understood that it could be used for industrial purposes. He planned to set up his window manufacturing business; however, the market has since weakened. He has tried to sell the property two or three times, but he has been unsuccessful because of the environmental issues on the property. The land has been "dormant" since he purchased it. He noted that the existing building, which was once a chemical factory, needs work. With respect to the environmental issues he noted that he has been advised by the Ministry of the Environment not to grow vegetables. He is of the opinion that the proposed use is a good use of the property. Propertyowners on Koshlong Lake need storage units. The use is neat, clean and not intrusive. He will not excavate the property. He will simply put down gravel and pour a concrete pad for each storage unit. The Chairman noted that there are several residences in the immediate neighbourhood and asked Mr. O'Connor what exterior lighting was proposed; how traffic would be controlled; and what hours of operation are proposed. Mr. O'Connor answered that he hasn't fully considered these questions. He may install a video camera and motion sensor lights. The Chairman then asked if there was anyone in attendance who wanted to comment on the file. Ms. Stephanie Joachim noted that there is a safety issue with the existing building. It has been vandalized in the past. Mrs. Liz Nicholson expressed concern that this would set a precedent for other commercial uses along Koshlong Lake Road. She is concerned about the impact to the existing residential neighbourhood. She noted that most residents of the community of Donald oppose the project. Mr. Robert Leu agreed with Mrs. Nicholson. Ms. Joachim asked Mr. O'Connor what the proposed buildings will look like and how he plans to secure the compound. Mr. O'Connor answered that the storage units will be new buildings. They will be a discrete colour. He agreed that bright orange, which is normally associated with this type of building, is not preferable. He will enclose the compound with a locked fence. Ms. Joachim noted that this will devalue the surrounding residential properties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
June 4th, 2007 Public Meeting Page 5Mrs. Nicholson expressed her concern for privacy. Mr. David Leslie expressed his concern for the visual impact of the buildings and for the loss of privacy. The Chairman then asked Mr. O'Connor how he plans to control after-hours access. Mr. O'Connor answered that he will construct a fence with a time-lock mechanism.Ms. Sherry Pripp noted that the self-service storage building facility at Moore's Falls is regulated and is only open during office hours. She advised that the system seems to work well. Mrs. Nicholson expressed her concern for aesthetics once again. Committee Member Roberts commented that this is an opportunity to improve upon an existing situation. The proposed zoning and site plan process could facilitate the clean-up of the property by ensuring proper fencing (using a discrete fence colour such as green) controlled access and vegetation buffers. The Chairman noted that Council can require the removal of the existing building and aesthetically pleasing exterior finishes on the new buildings. Mr. O'Connor noted that he has not decided if he will remove the existing building. He noted that the existing building may be a heritage building and that there may be Provincial grants to refurbish the building. Mr. Lewis commented that although his house is one of the original company houses, it is not considered a heritage building. There was some discussion about the tax sale process. The Chairman noted that this is not relevant to the discussion of the land use issues. Mr. Nicholson then asked how Mr. O'Connor plans to surface the parking area. Mr. O'Connor noted that this will be addressed in the site plan. Mr. Leu asked what weight Council will give to the neighbour's comments. The Chairman answered that the Committee will make a recommendation to Council and Council will consider all comments. Mr. and Mrs. Norm Parrott noted that if the proper controls are implemented (site plan control, vegetation buffers and discrete fencing), the project should not be intrusive. It was generally agreed that the existing building was a hazard and should be removed. At the conclusion of the Public Meeting, the Committee recommended that Council request a proposal from the applicant to address the concerns of the neighbours. The proposal is to address removal of the existing building, planting the vegetation buffer; exterior lighting; hours of operation; and controlled access by means of an attractive fence.
-
LRO 19
PIN 391710213
ASSESSMENT ROLL NUMBER 462401000009300
REGISTRATION TYPE LT
LAND REGISTRY STATUS ACTIVE
MUNICIPALITY N/A
ADDRESS N/A
AREA 8680 m2
PERIMETER 415 m
DESCRIPTION PT LT 6 CON 2 DYSART AS IN H170191; DYSART ET AL
PARTY TO: 882025 ONTARIO INC
04/30/1990 $53500 T 882025 ONTARIO INC
This guy bought the land in 1990 for 53k , It should be worth 180K at normal 7% , He cant give it away due to the soil. The city couldnt make him clean it as they knew he was a corporation and could fold it at any time. You however are a person and the city can make you clean it as you cant go bankrupt to avoid the cleaning cost. You would be a complete fool to proceed on this deal as there is no upside and a huge downside.
You owe me a bottle of good scotch
In regard to the deposit, get it back as the city is fully aware the property is contaminated and should have advised the bidders. Even if you cant get it back, take this as an expensive lesson.
-
I wish you luck trying to get your deposit back and let the rest of us know what their response it.
Unfortunately if you read the fine print in the sale notice it says
"the municipality makes no representation regarding the title to or any other matters relating to the land to be sold. Responsibility for ascertaining these matters rests with the potential purchasers."
Luckily many municipalities will provide some zoing, assessment information but they have no obligation to do that. In fact, even when doing a title search for an actual purchase some municipalities will reply to a request for zoning with a copy of their By-law and a statement to determine it for yourself.
-
Oh, my Lord!
They owe you, Pfm, more than a bottle of scotch.
-
Avoid this one with a 10 foot pole. What would be the cost of setting up a numbered company? Then the cost of declaring bankruptcy, lawyers fees ect.. I take it that this strategy is for the real pros only.
-
"I wish you luck trying to get your deposit back and let the rest of us know what their response it.
Unfortunately if you read the fine print in the sale notice it says
"the municipality makes no representation regarding the title to or any other matters relating to the land to be sold. Responsibility for ascertaining these matters rests with the potential purchasers."
I think properly handled , you should be able to get the deposit back, I'm sure the city doesn't want to make an issue of this property. If the locals start to really look at the land they may demand the city clean it up . This is something the city would like to go away, out of sight,out of mind and I'm sure they don't want the general public to know that the site may be dirtier then it appears.
I really don't think the city wants the hassle over 10 or 15 k deposit .
I think Frank was an ex civil servant..whats your take?? Go for the deposit based on the fact the town obviously knows the soil is bad and had a fiduciary responsibility to disclose the fact or lick your wounds and walk..
-
I really don't think the city wants the hassle over 10 or 15 k deposit .
I think Frank was an ex civil servant..whats your take?? Go for the deposit based on the fact the town obviously knows the soil is bad and had a fiduciary responsibility to disclose the fact or lick your wounds and walk..
Don't want to lose your deposit....don't bid. The municipality is well within its rights to keep it, and trust me I kept a few during my tenure.
Truly, unless there is an environmental assessment done on the property, the town knows about as much regarding it as you do...and they would be trespassing just like you in order to do it. So ...no...don't expect to get it back. I would never give it to you.
-
Didn't someone say something about 'fiduciary duty'? If they were aware and didn't make prospective buyers aware then perhaps lawyer may help you get your money back. If the municipality was fully aware and we have proof they were then they should have advertised with the environmental concerns, if the municipality is unaware and it is discovered after the fact, then 'they make no representation'.
-
"Didn't someone say something about 'fiduciary duty'? If they were aware and didn't make prospective buyers aware then perhaps lawyer may help you get your money back"
Yes I lawyer would help..help himself, He would turn this into 30k worth of legal fees to get 10 back... If you pull out a lawyer on the city..you are done.
If you cant negotiate it yourself just walk away, take it as a lesson ( for all of us)
So ...no...don't expect to get it back. I would never give it to you
( Note to self , dont do business with frank..he is a ruthless uncaring sob ;D)
-
( Note to self , dont do business with frank..he is a ruthless uncaring sob ;D)
I think we have just discovered who the real meanie is on this site.
You are just too kind. Don't sob me please.
-
Sorry..just a sarcastic joke , no offence intented
-
Sorry..just a sarcastic joke , no offence intented
Actually, none taken either. As a tax collector I had to be a cold hearted sob. But now I am a really nice guy (however, my wife still uses that other word sometimes).
-
Hey, Frank, you are going to convince me you are a nice guy.
-
Thank you for the advice, we are not going forward with the tax sale. Pfm1011 seems you are quite a researcher so you will find a way to find out who I am. Send me an email with crazy tax sale in the subject line and I will send you your bottle of scotch. Thanks again!
-
Thank you for the advice, we are not going forward with the tax sale. Pfm1011 seems you are quite a researcher so you will find a way to find out who I am. Send me an email with crazy tax sale in the subject line and I will send you your bottle of scotch. Thanks again!
Hey CrazyHorse. If I figure it out, can I get a bottle as well, or do I have to knock on Pfm's door to get a drink?
-
You had better knock on Pfm's door cause I already lost enough money. :)
-
[
Hey CrazyHorse. If I figure it out, can I get a bottle as well, or do I have to knock on Pfm's door to get a drink?
Frank: So you don't feel left out how about I offer to spring for a coffee for you and Crazyhorse if we have a group meeting this fall. We would always welcome a warming additive if Pfm has anything left over by then
Dave2
-
"We would always welcome a warming additive if Pfm has anything left over by then"
I can assure you that no bottle would last to the fall in my house....It would be lucky to last two days ;D