2nd bidder

[Pfm1011]

This isn't zoning, This is provincially significant wetlands..  never change that ..and as per camping..that ain't happening either. You may be right about the neighbour kicking in some cash for the extra frontage and the neighbour wont be a dick as he never bid on it.

[waltersland]

Oh the tedium.
Here's more valuable info - for free.
 I read both the zoning bylaw and the new OP. It is the existing zoning that governs (and that was confirmed by the County Planner). That a building permit is currently available is beyond doubt.
Official Plans guide applications for rezoning, and if you are proposing something that falls within existing zoning, without needing a variance, the OP is not applicable, as it is not triggered.
OP's, and utimately zoning bylaws, have to conform to Provincial policy, but the precise limits of the zoning have to be determined in the field, they cannot use not some vague limit on a crude map. No environmental scientist will declare dry rock alvar as wetland. (It has to be wet, or with hydrophilic soils.)
Besides, there is almost a half acre of this lot outside of the evaluated wetland limit as it stands.
(Now the Province is becoming interested in those alvars though.....)

[Dave2]

One of the crazy things about this business is one minute you are dealing with pigeons and (still dealing) with loggers and on the next one someone starts worrying about turkeys.  If Walterlands is the person I believe he maybe is, as a betting person I would be very careful about betting against him.    

This one I stood out like most this year as I digest some interesting events of last year so honestly I don't know the specifics and any comment I would make would show my honest ignorance.  We all make mistakes (yes I have too) but it is on the ones that no one else believes you can pull off you can win big. The problem is when you lose; the music you face from the boss. (Not all of us are smart like this guy   and can say "Don't hit me dear I am wearing glasses")  

He could be an extremely experienced (and consequently dangerous) tax sale buyer even though on this board he shows as a newbie.  Not absolutely sure but I believe I had occasion to met him in the flesh at my Marmora and Lake wild time a year ago.   If so he had very good advice on a rather unique situation.  

Waltersland if you met me a year ago PM me and we can update. (I misplaced your number)  Be happy to return the kind advice of a year ago.  Or alternatively compare notes about how best to resolve the problems associated with the other side of the coin. 

[Pfm1011]

Sorry Im betting on conservation authoritys , provincial government and the county


Please be sure to post if you  get the building permits

[Dave2]

Sorry Im betting on conservation authoritys , provincial government and the county

Please be sure to post if you  get the building permits

Unfortunately in the vast majority of cases you are right (as you normally are) .  It takes a real pro to achieve otherwise. 

[Moe]

Does this means OTS made a mistake and prevented many people bidding on this land??? I am confused now

[Pfm1011]

Does this means OTS made a mistake and prevented many people bidding on this land??? I am confused now

OTS only reports what the town tells them to report . As per the town,  they said you cant build under this zoning (EH R2 ) and they said to call to see if it can be rezoned. You will have alot of p*ssed of people if the town ignores both local and provincial wetlands and their own sales material and  simply issues a permit.  The previous owner ( if still alive ) or his family  can also come after them as they have severly devalued the property by saying its non buildable. The family is probably out over 100K

Can you build ? This is the question..  Kevin says he can build and the rest of us and city staff are idiots.  
 
This could be a good study of zoning rules etc and, at a minimum, food for the forum.

what it looks like to me is that:

 under town zoning the land has a local environmental hazard label so under the town zoning he is screwed by

28.1 USES PERMITTED
No person shall within any Environmental Hazard Zone use any lot for any purpose except for one or more of
the following uses:
-parks, conservation areas, picnic areas, historic sites
-existing agricultural uses
-boat launching and docking and housing
-pumphouse
-forestry
28.2 STRUCTURES PERMITTED
No person shall within any Environmental Hazard Zone erect, alter or use any building or structure for any
purpose except for one or more of the following:
-non-habitable buildings or structures designed for the purposes of flood and/or erosion control
-boat house

No person shall within any Environmental Hazard Zone use any land or erect, alter or use any building or
structure, except in accordance with the following provisions:
Provisions Flood Control Buildings Boat House
minimum building setback from any lot line 10 m (32.8 ft) 10 m (32.8 ft)


6.1.5 Sewage Disposal Systems
A sewage disposal system is permitted in any zone except the Environmental Hazard (EH) Zones..

The section of the lot that is not EH probably is too small for house and septic

One possible help is

28.4 MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO ZONE BOUNDARY
Notwithstanding the boundaries designated for the EH-Environmental Hazard Zone shown on Schedule ?A? to
this By-law, minor changes may be made to these boundaries without a formal amendment to this By-law.
Such minor boundary changes must be approved in writing by the Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority and
the Chief Building Official of the Corporation.

So you may be able to fix the local wetland label but  then comes the "Provincially Significant wetland" designation and the official plan ( both  local official plan and county official plan ( which is over 12 years old) Walter says the official plan has no say as long as you don't rezone, looks like he needs to rezone to remove the EH.

The provincial wetland  under county official Plan forbids building without an environmental impact study, which can be a simple 1k report to a comprehensive 250K epic novel  and you will need complete support from the conservation authority, the township, the county and the province. There is not a simple  yes/no with  Environmental impact studies. If the town wants you to build the study proves its OK, If they don't want you to build ( IE they read you called the staff stupid or you are arrogant , condescending or annoying to them) then the same study means you cant build.

This is where the fact he is known locally may be good or bad, depends on his relationship with the town

The alternate route is for Kevin to have to province and the townships rezone to remove the EH zoning  and have MNR remove provincially significant wetland designation . Then do a official plan amendment.  Of course conservation authorities  known for simply giving up conservation land without a fight..( good luck)

An additional problem may  be that under the R2 he requires 114.8 ft of frontage ( I presume there is no sewers or city water) He has a hundred. As this lot combined with the lot beside under the planning act and he has bought only half of the LT Pin , Did  he lose the existing lot rights when the lots combined  ( could be over 38 years ago) ? They are still separate by assessment but not by land titles.  Again it is the towns call, They can treat it anyway they feel. If Anyone knows the answer please let us know (with references if possible)
At a minimum you probably need a variance which will trigger the officlal plans. If he spent 10k and  bought both lots he would have 225  ft and this point would be null.

Can he build ? , Only time will tell. I doubt it but I have been wrong before.   If he manages a permit without jumping thru insane hoops  he has done very very well on the buy and has friends in the town.  ( deals are becoming very rare )   If not, will he lose money? Probably not as he should be able to sell to the neighbour and still make a few dollars or at least break even as long as he doesnt spend a pile on a rezoning attempt.
 

[Dave2]

Does this means OTS made a mistake and prevented many people bidding on this land??? I am confused now

I believe OTS tries as much as possible to avoid mistakes (bad for business) and they are contientious. (see your comment about email) The problem is that these situations are tricky and even some of us cannot agree even with all information available.  I know the owner of OTS regularly monitors this board but as yet have not been able to figure out what name he is operating under or if he posts.

Overall all the problem is getting worse not better.  In my own home hunting ground of Trent Hills they just did a consolidated rezoning and none of us locals including real estate agents knows what it will mean.  They have effectively downzoned hundreds of properties with a new zoning category of what I will call "environmentally protected lite".  

Bottom line is when you finally get property in a tax sale get it rezoned.  In effect use it or lose (the use of) it  I have several properties that have the rezoning completed (I do it in winter) and more underway after local elections and I believe under the new zoning bylaws I might no longer get it.  

The other problem it can pose is that the buildable area of your property can be greatly reduced possibly to a size it is no longer workable once you allow for setbacks and well and septic needs. I have one 4 acre rural parcel that started out as 2/3 buildable and 1/3 not buildable.  After 5 iterations which include delineating the environmentally protected areas with a GPS on the survey I will have now about 15% buildable. As a result I am very careful about buying tax sale property under an acre plus in area which causes real problems with waterfront property.    

[Dave2]

This could be a good study of zoning rules etc and, at a minimum, food for the forum.
 

Sometimes I feel like an idiot with PFM's eloquent discourses on zoning and just about everything else, and wonder as to why I like all the young bulls on the forum would ever doubt him.  

Then I realize as we come into to fall we are entering the traditional season for the (mating) rut for creatures like moose and deer when youngsters like myself get frisky and we have to be put into our place by the senior bulls on the forum.  

In any herd they can only be a couple of top alpha males and after a superb discourse like that, suitably chastened I will return to the bachelor herd.  My only problem is he like the other top bulls in this forum cover their tracks so well I will never know when I am competing against them.  Guess I will have to stick to the scraps and know my place as a slum lot lord in the down and out areas east of Toronto.

Nicely said and done as always.  

[Moe]

This thread is becoming very interesting and informative as well. PFM's zoning explanation cleared my doubts and I applaud him!. Dave, I agree on "an acre thumb rule for buildables" and thanks for the hints/experience. 
I am hoping to learn something new if Walter manages to beat the system?...
(I would appreciate if Frank  could share his valuable opinion?)

[Frank]

OK, so I'm back.

What are you guys talking about....

Netpred, you are right, the maps are often wrong...seen it many times, and it sometimes requires surveys and onsite meetings with conservation and planning officials to get it cleared. 

If Walter says it is high and dry, and he knows where the survey bars are...and he is satisfied, then as long as the planners say he can build...he should - quickly - in case they change their mind. 

Perfect example...I bought a three acre property in the near north a few years ago on a tax sale.  It had 302 feet of frontage.  I asked the town planner if I could split it...prior to the sale...and he was telling people that the minimum was 200 feet, and he would photo-copy a page from the local Official Plan stating just that.  When I was in to see him about it, I noticed that the big book he took out of his drawer had a stamp across the cover of it...'D R A F T'.  A little digging and I discovered that the plan was under appeal, and that it had not been blessed by the Minister...the old plan was still in force, and it only required 150 feet.  Day of the sale, I checked to make sure that it was still not approved...and increase my bid to ensure that I got it.  I was declared the winner at the sale, and trotted right over to the planners office to file a land division application.  After getting speedy approval (since I was right), then surveying and legal work to effect the split, I ended up with two pieces. 

Moral of the story...the Planning officials aren't always right. 

[Dave2]

I am hoping to learn something new if Walter manages to beat the system?...

Moe:   The issue here is that not all bidders have to beat the system but the recognition that some bidders have a better bidding position then others.  They have an option of a partial win that not all bidders will enjoy.  Let me script a scenario.  

The person I met last fall was a very long term player in tax sale properties. (my belief is possibly 30 plus years.)  He also tended to hold properties rather then flip them; in subdivisions and for land holdings he felt had long term value.  He really knew the regs and I believe he must have been or still was in some form of land development or possibly worked as a planner.  

In addition to knowledge it is possible he had an existing property position in the area.  For purposes of my illustration let us assume it was a nice interior buildable lot.   Now lets go back to PFM's work and extract some.  (In this business I always say the devil is in the details).

28.1 USES PERMITTED
No person shall within any Environmental Hazard Zone use any lot for any purpose except for one or more of the following uses:
-parks, conservation areas, picnic areas, historic sites
-existing agricultural uses
-boat launching and docking and housing
-pumphouse
-forestry
28.2 STRUCTURES PERMITTED
No person shall within any Environmental Hazard Zone erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except for one or more of the following:
-non-habitable buildings or structures designed for the purposes of flood and/or erosion control
-boat house

The regulations permit a boat house.  So with his interior lot he now has a boat house.
For $15,000 I can justify that investment.  While not common they have value particularly if you have a cottage lot on an Island or an interior lot. The combination may make something really valuable. "affordable, buildable" waterfront.   I know of at least one member of this board who would be very happy to pick up a couple of boat house lots in the right location(s).
Gee I wonder who that would be .  

[Dave2]

  When I was in to see him about it, I noticed that the big book he took out of his drawer had a stamp across the cover of it...'D R A F T'.    

Moral of the story...the Planning officials aren't always right.  

Moral of the story modified:  Frank is smart enough to buy glasses with mirrors so he can look over the planning officials paperwork from across the desk.  

Now I have to find the same eyeglass or is that spyglass firm.   

[Frank]

I am hoping to learn something new if Walter manages to beat the system?...

Moe:   The issue here is that not all bidders have to beat the system but the recognition that some bidders have a better bidding position then others.  They have an option of a partial win that not all bidders will enjoy.  Let me script a scenario. 

The person I met last fall was a very long term player in tax sale properties. (my belief is possibly 30 plus years.)  He also tended to hold properties rather then flip them; in surveys and for land holdings he felt had long term value.  He really knew the regs and I believe he must have been or still was in some form of land development or possibly worked as a planner. 

In addition to knowledge it is possible he had an existing property position in the area.  For purposes of my illustration let us assume it was a nice interior buildable lot.   Now lets go back to PFM's work and extract some.  (In this business I always say the devil is in the details).

28.1 USES PERMITTED
No person shall within any Environmental Hazard Zone use any lot for any purpose except for one or more of the following uses:
-parks, conservation areas, picnic areas, historic sites
-existing agricultural uses
-boat launching and docking and housing
-pumphouse
-forestry
28.2 STRUCTURES PERMITTED
No person shall within any Environmental Hazard Zone erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except for one or more of the following:
-non-habitable buildings or structures designed for the purposes of flood and/or erosion control
-boat house

The regulations permit a boat house.  So with his interior lot he now has a boat house.
For $15,000 I can justify that investment.  While not common they have value particularly if you have a cottage lot on an Island or an interior lot. The combination may make something really valuable. "affordable, buildable" waterfront.   I know of at least one member of this board who would be very happy to pick up a couple of boat house lots in the right location(s).
Gee I wonder who that would be . 

Dave
You were sharp enough to spot the boat house...and dam I could use one of those too.   Just on a different lake.

[atorrin]

Mostly just a lurker here but.... wow I learned a lot from this thread. You all made me laugh too.... Thanks for the education.