Another Trent Hills Garage Sale - Santa comes Early

[Dave2]

For those people who are afraid of the White stuff here is the Municipal Reference before it hits the regular posting locations. http://www.trenthills.ca/en/services/bid_opportunities.asp 

As a kind favour to the hard working board members I have even arranged to get rid of the moose flies for Numbers 1 - 5.  A couple of them are by highway 25 so they maybe worth a quick look (locals need the tourist dollars at this time of year)

Probably the one everyone will look at is number 6 (which looks like a nice 2 acre waterfront lot on PFM's favourite lake; Rice Lake) .  While not having that SOB open space zoning of recent Otonabee South Monaghan properties as a caution I will warn you you will still have to persuade the (I believe it is 92) deeded right of way holders including yours truly, to give up our legal rights so you can build your waterfront palace.   

[netpred]

I believe that these lots (at least the waterfront) are in the same "illegal" subdivision where several properties were listed for tax sale earlier in the year. I did drive out then to have a look. The roards are really rough and don't appear to be assumed by the municipality. Also, as I recall there may not be any building permits available. I would do my due dilligence, including contacting the Lower Trent Conservation Authority, before bidding on lots in this subdivision.

[Dave2]

Netpred:

You are correct there were several of these lots listed in the May tax sale.  This is another White Rock subdivision with a private road which is owned by one of the right of way holders. I haven't checked the deed for this one in a while but if my memory serves me correct I think the deed for this lot may not have been properly drafted.  Thus the road holder could theoretically exclude you from access to your property.  (remember the old toll roads).   

Also building is not permitted until the township takes over the road which has to upgraded to township standards.  This is a common restriction to control the old checkerboard subdivisions. Last I heard the cost for this was estimated close to $100,000 but for this lot I understand the road deed holder who is a significant private interior land holder will not give up the section in front of this lot.  As a result we have a catch 22 and a buyer may have to go to court to try and force access which will be an interesting legal case because this is not a deeded municipal right of way.  If I was a lawyer I would love this one.  A good way to make mucho dollars.  I know all this because I studied it in the spring when I picked up one of the lots around the corner in the spring round. 

Its a long term hold unless I follow the suggestion of one of the board members (in a private post and discussion) who can erect what I will call a midnight bunkie operation that he can erect overnight and is already weathered.  I even suggested he could go into business as this sounds like a service we could all use from time to time.   
 

   

[twinn1]

If you can please fill me in on what the advantages would be of putting in a weathered "midnight bunkie"?

Would it be to claim adverse possession one or two years later and to nullify the ROW?

or

Would it be to prove that the bunkie was a pre existing strucuture and may not have been included in the original survey that might well be 50-70 years old, thereby getting the town to allow you to build as a pre exisiting non conforming structure?\\


or both


Has anybody actually been successful at this, if so, please PM me.  I thought about doing this many years ago, but passed because I did not think it was possible to be sucessfull at it.

[netpred]

If you can please fill me in on what the advantages would be of putting in a weathered "midnight bunkie"?

Would it be to claim adverse possession one or two years later and to nullify the ROW?

or

Would it be to prove that the bunkie was a pre existing strucuture and may not have been included in the original survey that might well be 50-70 years old, thereby getting the town to allow you to build as a pre exisiting non conforming structure?\\


or both


Has anybody actually been successful at this, if so, please PM me.  I thought about doing this many years ago, but passed because I did not think it was possible to be sucessfull at it.

Number two. Establish that there is a building. Use it as is, renovate or perhaps add on.

I haven't done this but I know someone who has. But in that case, the structure was built in a bush, far in from the water and it could not be seen. It was discovered by the municipality 5 years later but they didn't do anything about it except have MPAC raise the assessed value which tripled the taxes.

Basically, it is a strategy of building without regard for any permits. If you get away with it, I guess good for you. You will not, however, get away with this where neighbours can see what's going on. You can bet your bottom dollar that someone will fink and the municipality can order you to remove the offending structure.

[Dave2]

Would it be to prove that the bunkie was a pre existing strucuture and may not have been included in the original survey that might well be 50-70 years old, thereby getting the town to allow you to build as a pre exisiting non conforming structure?\\

In theory the best value maybe to try and claim a preexisting structure in a remote location that is not easily noticeable and for some reason has prohibition against putting in a structure.  The problem today is the heavy handed approach taken by many conservation authorities.  I am aware of cases locally where even legally buildable sites that were established some time ago have had downzoning attempted. 

There is a high risk here because you can really make the local authorities mad at you.  Like netpred already noted the possibly best chances for success are in a more remote site without any neighbours.  Around here it is instant suicide.  I mean the conservation authorities have apparently taken to making frequent airphotos to confirm someone has not modified a shoreline.   

[Pfm1011]

Would it be to claim adverse possession one or two years later and to nullify the ROW?

In order to claim adverse possession you would have to fence the area off for 12 years and not let dave2 or any of the other 80 or so ROW holders set foot on the land.  

Im guessing this piece is worth a total of zero

[bobs]

I too am one of the ROW holders and I must agree, this property is not worth bidding on.  As far as getting away with any illegal matters on this property there are way too many eyes.

If you want a property to launch your boat at with high high liability expense go ahead. but there is a boat launch around the corner that you can use for a lot cheaper.

Also, I figure you might have a serious problem even getting to the property. 

I am not just saying this because I own property around the corner.  It doesn't matter to me who owns this lot.  I will use it in my total legal right just as I always have.  Whoever buys this lot will run into problems and probably regret it.

[Dave2]

Would it be to claim adverse possession one or two years later and to nullify the ROW?

In order to claim adverse possession you would have to fence the area off for 12 years and not let dave2 or any of the other 80 or so ROW holders set foot on the land.  

Im guessing this piece is worth a total of zero

To put bluntly I had a year's advance notice on this one because as a person with an interest in the land (via the deeded ROW) I was notified a long time ago.  We have done our research and decided not to buy it for a long list of reasons. Some of these relate to the original subdivision
agreement The research was done for both purchase and defensive reasons.  I decided to go defensive.  I don't have the war chest to overcome the legal challenges.

A lot of the challenges are interconnected.   This land is in a flood plain and the neighbouring  property owner tried to put up a cottage but was turned down.  The limits they have set mean that the water would be at road level in Hastings which is well above the dam height. ( go figure) If you don't have an existing structure you are SOL.

[waltersland]

Just responding to the banter. Is no one familiar with the road access act? It doesn't matter who owns the land a road is on, if there is/was/intended to be a road to a property, it is protected, and access to the property it serves cannot be blocked. You dont need a deed to it.
By the way all, adverse possession takes 10 years.
Why do I reveal all this info? After bidding for 30 years, and having collected nearly 100 properties, I am winding down.

[Dave2]

One of the things I like about this board is the information you pick up that you didn't know about.  This road access act has some interesting implications and makes interesting reading:
I like the poem from a Lawyers Website:

"Here lies the body of Sammy Jay,
Who died defending his right of way.
He was right as he went along,
But he's just as dead as if he was wrong."

Some of the court cases are interesting:

Justice Juriansz pointed out that the Act gives persons who use an access road only the right to enter or leave their property in a motor vehicle, not permission to repair or maintain the road. Such activity would constitute trespass. Nor does the Act place any obligation on a landowner to maintain an access road on his property for the benefit of his neighbours.

"It follows," concluded Justice Juriansz, "that an access road could, through deterioration over time, cease to be a road. At this point, it is worth noting that the Act provides no assurance to those who use and depend on an access road that it will continue to be available to them in the future. To the contrary, s. 3 allows the landowner to bring an application to close the road.

Thus if a tree falls over the private road it is illegal for you to remove it??? I don't understand the court's logic here. You cannot force the owner to repair it. LOL  

The real issue here in this caseis not just access rights but the Municipality's refusal to allow building permits on private roads in general.  (this ignores flood plain issues and the problems with the conservation authority on this particular property).  There are some interesting issues locally about Municipalities (not this one) removing roads from public access to save tax money (ie not maintaining or snow plowing them) that are headed to the courts.  (Some landowners with undeveloped property are really upset.)

What further complicates this is the private road is not constructed on a road allowance.  

I hold to my earlier comment.  Might be a real money maker for a lawyer.  I don't want to be the person paying the bill.

[waltersland]

I think that the judge didn't think far enough ahead. I the road deteriorates or a tree falls over it, that then becomes an illegal barrier. I can't see repair/removal being trespass. If it did, then the only options are to insist that the owner remove it or take him to court to remove it. Note that the act applies only to non-road allowances. If the municipality owns it, it's another matter.

[Dave2]

I think that the judge didn't think far enough ahead. I the road deteriorates or a tree falls over it, that then becomes an illegal barrier. I can't see repair/removal being trespass. If it did, then the only options are to insist that the owner remove it or take him to court to remove it. Note that the act applies only to non-road allowances. If the municipality owns it, it's another matter.

I am not one to argue with the logic or illogic of judge's decisions.  The problem is that this is the case law as it now stands.  If I remember the commentary on this specific one correctly I think the judges decision ran 30 pages (legal size) single spaced before he rendered a decision.  Sounds like he had a real convincing basis for his decision.   

In this specific property case existing access is not by a road allowance so the act applies but access is the least of your worries.  I am reminded of the old saying "you fight me; you fight my gang because there are a lot of persons that would prefer the status quo and all of which are voters so we know what the municipality will do. 

In cases like this though one of the real concerns I have is with the new Ontario land registry system.  To save money they have not put on the full legal history which is the critical issue in this case like in another recent case I went through.  The key legal documents were and are in his case in local registry office in old paper records.  This is one case where it helps that you are a local.

I am going to be really interested to see what happens.  Love to be at the bid opening this afternoon but I have to go to hogtown on business.  Had some interesting private posts and will be interested to see if anyone is willing to risk the $40,000 and the legal morass that comes with it.  I believe the Chinese had a form of torture like this but I will defer to more knowledgeable members of the board like Jayz.  They called it death of a thousand cuts.

[worldjohn]

Well no one bid on the complicated river front lot.
Dave, congrats on your win.
Is the guy who came in second to you and who also won all the other properties, the person you call "bigfoot"
He beat me out by 9 dollars on the lot I wanted!
Kudos on his brilliant (lucky) bidding.
( I have beaten him by a few hundred dollars before so I dont feel too bad)

[Dave2]

Well no one bid on the complicated river front lot.
Dave, congrats on your win.
Is the guy who came in second to you and who also won all the other properties, the person you call "bigfoot"

Yes to answer your question.  But herein lies an interesting story.  It started out when you phoned the municipality and heard you had to go to the bank again to get a second bank draft; especially as they mentioned that the previous owner had been "disolved".  This was for the only property you figured had any potential value.

It was a nice late fall afternoon for a winter like drive; sunny and cold but the car was warmed by the prescence of the boss in the right front seat.  The roads were deserted. Unlike Tiger Woods you appreciate Scandanavian women for their value as wives not playthings. He doesn't know what he is missing; but will realize that later in life when he gets tired of bar girls.  

A final check at the tax sale site; okay, and you head onto the municipal office you have been in so many times before so they recognize you by name.  Staff are tied up with a local lawyer who left a real estate close paperwork to the last second.  You are patient which they greatly appreciate and they efficiently take care of the paperwork.  We talk about the latest tax sale and how all the Toronto bidders seemed to stay home and disappear.  Just a couple of local regulars.  Even the third regular; a gentleman we will call the "irishman" had not bid which was very rare. After all he is a person paying property taxes in 14 different townships.  

Back home we enjoy a delicious home cooked meal with many vegetables from our garden with a nice bottle of wine and you reflect how it has been a pretty good year.  The boss who is also the co-owner is warning you again that you are buying too much property.  You head downstairs to shut off the computer which has been running a long antivirus routine. You are about to do a tax sale posting when the boss calls.  Telephone.

 Who is it.  I don't know. A voice introduces himself.  A person who has never called you before
It was someone you never expected to get a call from.  "Bigfoot".  

After all when you lose 15 times in a row to someone; including second; half a dozen times, one can get discouraged. Then came the words you never throught you would hear. "Would you like to buy the second place bid."