Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Valeri's Big Deal IV

Update - see *Note below re: by-law

HR noted on this post that Valeri had an outstanding mortgage for a “recreational property”.

As reported in the Hamilton Spectator yesterday and today, Valeri told the Ethics Commissioner that he intended to purchase the lot next door to his family home to build a new one, which was to expand across both lots.

The only problem with that explanation is that Valeri purchased the property on April 29 2005 and the by-law that would allow Valeri to span across the two lots, # 05-238* called the Consolidated Lot Regulations was not passed by Hamilton City Council until August 10, 2005.

(*Note: This by-law is an ammendment to various by-laws that were pre-amalgamation municipalities, including Stoney Creek. It is not known at the time of this writing if the Stoney Creek by-law allowed consolidation of lots)

It’s not unusual for a homeowner to build another house on their lot, but those blueprints would have to be submitted to the building department to look over.

The building department officials would have explained, had they been apprised of the desire to build a house on the same lot while living in the old one, that Valeri could build on the same lot providing that a signed agreement was entered into with the City.

That written agreement would state the old one has to be torn down once the new one is finished and a Security deposit has to be given to the City in order to confirm the land/home owners intentions.

So now, there is an opportunity for the Hamilton Spectator to request through an access to information request to see a copy of that agreement with the City of Hamilton including a copy of the security deposit.

So the ‘plot’ thickens…

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The MPAC property assessment has been thrown up as a smokescreen. Those assessments use sales in the same postal code as comparables. The assessments are based on formulas and do not appear to recognize that property on the escarpment side of Ridge Road is much more valuable than property on the other side, for instance.

Anyways, if $500K is Fair Market Value (I think its close) - are there any legal problems for Mr. TV?

It seems likely to me that the elderly gentleman seller just wanted to give Mr. Valeri a $275K farewell gift as a token of appreciation for years of kindness and good neighbourliness.

OTOH, perhaps he did not have the ability or means to properly inform himself as to its value before he made the move to the nursing home.

18/1/06 12:44 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home