Reader wants to clarify story about Legacy Lane

This article, by Treena Mielke, on page 8 of last week’s Rimbey review does require some clarification.

  • Tue Mar 28th, 2017 7:00pm
  • News

Reply to “Stop work order leaves Legacy Lane residents in quandary”

This article, by Treena Mielke, on page 8 of last week’s Rimbey review does require some clarification.

Because the town of Rimbey did not enforce the 2009 Development agreement, between itself and Caviler Venture Corporation, none of the common property improvements were completed leaving no sidewalks, no lighting, no landscaping and no paved lane or parking lots for the 3 completed units. As the town claims not to have taken any performance bonds to ensure that this work was done, as per the development agreement, as well as paving of 54th street the development has been left in limbo.

A second developer bought the three unfinished units, and sold them before finishing the common property. He has apparently decided to walk away from this development, likely because he was unable to work with the town as they insist on him doing all of the unfinished common property “Improvements” and paving of 54th street.

This left the Condo Board with no alternative but to take steps to correct the unsafe condition of the common property, as they are responsible to the residents and the liability of the unsafe common property falls to the Condominium Corporation. Concerns about the Fire Hydrants, etc., were all put off by the town as “not their concern as it was private property”. Concerns that there were 2-3 foot drop offs, at the front doors, as the ramps were not installed were finally addressed as Mayor Pankiw suggested. There was no development permit required to do this as the town agreed that it was covered under the 2009 agreement with Caviler. Discussions with the town led the Condo Board to believe that they could proceed to finish the remaining common property for the 6 units under this same agreement. Unfortunately they did not think to get this in writing and now the town has decided to change their position and require a development permit for the retaining wall, necessary to hold the sidewalk up, citing safety concerns. This when the retaining wall was complete, except for the safety rails, leaving a dangerous situation that the Board cannot do anything about due to the Stop Work Order.

Contrary to what Coun. Jaycox stated this is not situation where the homeowners have to get a development permit as they do not own the property that the retaining wall is built on.  This work should have been completed prior to the sale of any units, as per the 2009 Development Agreement.  It would have been inspected and approved by the town engineer and the board feels that this is what has to be done to resolve this issue.

 

Carol Lundgard