Strawberry Park Towns | U/C

[panamaniac]

I have an unnatural hatred for bad numbering systems. It would have only taken 5-10 minutes on a multi-million dollar project to come up with good design, but they couldn't be bothered. All it would take really would be to start counting at the entrance to the site, rather than an arbitrary point in the top left corner. And, more annoyingly, this is the sort of thing that can more or less be expected to never, ever, be fixed, because once they're sold, it's pretty a massive inconvenience to disrupt everybody like that.

I would have also preferred real street names in the development, I'm not sure why they could do that at Victoria Commons, but not here.

In the grand scheme its not a big deal, but a buildup of minor annoyances does stack together. It's more annoying that it would have taken pretty much nothing to do this right, but they couldn't be bothered, even though they're making millions off of this. I guess that's really what bugs me.

I think its easy to say they should have come up with a better system, I think it's harder to say what system would be better. I'm sure in this forum we could come up with a 100 different options with no real evidence as to which is better.  Evaluating which is better is actually really really hard.

As for Victoria Commons, I don't believe they are private roads, as the townhomes there are freehold, AFAIK.

Edit: Apparently I'm wrong about this. The City's GIS data shows them as private roads:



Now there are a few things I'm not understanding here, I have no idea how private roads work, yet are included in the city map, or why other townhouse developments have not done this.

I also don't understand how these townhomes are managing their private roads, or who actually owns these private roads. Unless only the exterior facing townhomes are freehold, I would think some entity must own and maintain the road, and collect fees or dues from the surrounding owners in order to pay for that maintenance.

If the townhouses on private roads are freehold, there there would be a homeowners' association that would be responsible for things like snow-plowing and maintenance of common areas.  That's the sort of arrangement that my development has.

[danbrotherston]

I think its easy to say they should have come up with a better system, I think it's harder to say what system would be better. I'm sure in this forum we could come up with a 100 different options with no real evidence as to which is better.  Evaluating which is better is actually really really hard.

As for Victoria Commons, I don't believe they are private roads, as the townhomes there are freehold, AFAIK.

Edit: Apparently I'm wrong about this. The City's GIS data shows them as private roads:



Now there are a few things I'm not understanding here, I have no idea how private roads work, yet are included in the city map, or why other townhouse developments have not done this.

I also don't understand how these townhomes are managing their private roads, or who actually owns these private roads. Unless only the exterior facing townhomes are freehold, I would think some entity must own and maintain the road, and collect fees or dues from the surrounding owners in order to pay for that maintenance.

If the townhouses on private roads are freehold, there there would be a homeowners' association that would be responsible for things like snow-plowing and maintenance of common areas.  That's the sort of arrangement that my development has.

I wouldn’t call a townhome or house with an HOA freehold either, AFAIK in Ontario a condo corporation is more or less the same thing as an HOA.  Or to put it another way, the condominium act governs condominium corporations which are legislated to manage common property, ergo they are just called condos. But it’s possible there are other forms of common property management in that I am unaware of. I don’t think freehold has a precise definition but I wouldn’t use it to describe any property with additional levels of common property management below that of the city government.  It’s possible that the units facing the road are different from the interior ones, or it is possible that my friend has a different definition of freehold.

[panamaniac]

If the townhouses on private roads are freehold, there there would be a homeowners' association that would be responsible for things like snow-plowing and maintenance of common areas.  That's the sort of arrangement that my development has.

I wouldn’t call a townhome or house with an HOA freehold either, AFAIK in Ontario a condo corporation is more or less the same thing as an HOA.  Or to put it another way, the condominium act governs condominium corporations which are legislated to manage common property, ergo they are just called condos. But it’s possible there are other forms of common property management in that I am unaware of. I don’t think freehold has a precise definition but I wouldn’t use it to describe any property with additional levels of common property management below that of the city government.  It’s possible that the units facing the road are different from the interior ones, or it is possible that my friend has a different definition of freehold.

No, a condominium corp is governed by specific Provincial legislation.  An HOA is governed only by the reciprocal agreement that created it.

[ijmorlan]

No, a condominium corp is governed by specific Provincial legislation.  An HOA is governed only by the reciprocal agreement that created it.

I get the impression that most arrangements of this general nature in Ontario are condominiums. I hear a lot about problems with HOAs in the US, in situations where I would expect it to be a condominium if it were here.

There are multiple types of condominiums, in addition to “normal” condominiums:

Common Elements - there are no units, just common elements. The condominium is attached to a number of freehold parcels determined when it is registered.

Vacant Land - the units are essentially empty lots.

Leasehold - the land which is divided up by the condominium declaration is leased.

There are also phased condominiums, but it appears that provision is on its way out.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19

Note: not a lawyer, just casual reading. Corrections welcome.

So my main point is, you could have private roads managed by a condominium servicing freehold properties — the private roads would be the common elements of a Common Elements corporation.

[danbrotherston]

I wouldn’t call a townhome or house with an HOA freehold either, AFAIK in Ontario a condo corporation is more or less the same thing as an HOA.  Or to put it another way, the condominium act governs condominium corporations which are legislated to manage common property, ergo they are just called condos. But it’s possible there are other forms of common property management in that I am unaware of. I don’t think freehold has a precise definition but I wouldn’t use it to describe any property with additional levels of common property management below that of the city government.  It’s possible that the units facing the road are different from the interior ones, or it is possible that my friend has a different definition of freehold.

No, a condominium corp is governed by specific Provincial legislation.  An HOA is governed only by the reciprocal agreement that created it.

But by what legislated power?  An HOA which is not enforced under legislation couldn't be mandated that the residents become members and pay dues or fees.

Basically, AFAIK condos work because the condo act says that this building is subdivided into owner owned portions and common elements, and a condo corporation exists to manage the common elements of which all owners in the property are members of the corporation.

Is there another piece of legislation that provides a similar setup?

Because otherwise, freehold property is just property, and I can buy it, with no other strings attached, an "optional" HOA is pretty likely to fail.

Edit: Thanks ijmorlan: It does sound like a common elements corporation. I should have remembered such things from doing the training. That concept is weird to me, because I don't understand what the difference is between a "freehold" (if that term applies) property bonded to a "common elements condominium corporation" and a unit in a tranditional condo corporation. I mean, there might be legal differences, but so long as membership and dues are enforced in law, then the effect should be the same....although possibly the management could differ.

Curious--worth reading further.

Edit 2: This reference has less legalese https://www.condoauthorityontario.ca/en-...ium-types/ But yes, I really do not understand if there are any meaningful differences between a standard condo and a common elements condo from that site.

It describes different legal situations which arrive at the same implications on your lets call them "freedoms and responsibilities", although the common elements corporation sounds more..limited...in that common elements cannot exist within the physical parcels of land that the townhomes sit on (i.e., the roofs cannot be common elements as they are in some condos), but I don't understand how that would be different than defining the units of a standard condominium as literally the property parcel boundaries.

[jamincan]

Could a restrictive covenant be used to implement a HOA? My understanding is that all restrictive covenants in Ontario have an expiry date, whether explicit or implicit, but maybe they just set one up with an expiry date that's far in the future.

[ijmorlan]

No, a condominium corp is governed by specific Provincial legislation.  An HOA is governed only by the reciprocal agreement that created it.

But by what legislated power?  An HOA which is not enforced under legislation couldn't be mandated that the residents become members and pay dues or fees.

I believe the HOA would be registered on title of the affected properties. Effectively it would be an encumbrance on the title. So instead of owning the property subject only to the usual payment of property taxes, ownership is also subject to participating in the HOA. Conceptually related to an easement, where maybe ownership is additionally subject to letting Waterloo North Hydro access their wires or whatever.

It’s a subtle distinction from a condominium. I think the basic idea of condominium legislation is to standardize HOAs. This is not unlike a lot of legislation. For example, a lot of consumer protection legislation basically says that instead of being able to make whatever contract you want, certain provisions are a certain way regardless of what the parties agree. We give up the right to make arbitrary contracts in return for the ability to be able to buy stuff without reading all the fine print. It’s often a good trade-off, although too few people understand it as such.

It describes different legal situations which arrive at the same implications on your lets call them "freedoms and responsibilities", although the common elements corporation sounds more..limited...in that common elements cannot exist within the physical parcels of land that the townhomes  sit on (i.e., the roofs cannot be common elements as they are in some condos), but I don't understand how that would be different than defining the units of a standard condominium as literally the property parcel boundaries.

In a standard condo, the pieces of property which participate in the condo are fundamentally part of the condo. The condo has significant jurisdiction over how those properties can be used, and is typically responsible for maintenance of many aspects of the buildings. Additionally, even if it is something like a townhouse complex where the units aren’t stacked on top of each other, the boundaries of the units aren’t real property boundaries; they are defined in the declaration. If you look on a map that shows property boundaries, the whole condo will just be one big parcel with multiple ownership records (one for each unit).

By contrast, if I understand correctly, in a common elements corporation it has jurisdiction only over the common elements. The individual properties are actual parcels and can be seen separately on a map.

I apologize in advance if I’ve made any legal mistakes. But nobody is relying on this, right? Talk to a lawyer if it actually matters. I’m reasonably confident that I’m accurate up to the level of detail discussed.

[panamaniac]

You have accurately described how "my" HOA is set up.  Everything is spelt out in the Reciprocal Agreement and that Agreement is an instrument registered against the title of each freehold dwelling in the development.  In practice, it is similar to the "common elements condominium" describe by another poster, except that there is no condominum corporation.

Back to Strawberry Fields, has there been an indication of how it is to be structured?  Are the townhouses freehold or will the whole development be a condominium corporation?

[danbrotherston]

You have accurately described how "my" HOA is set up.  Everything is spelt out in the Reciprocal Agreement and that Agreement is an instrument registered against the title of each freehold dwelling in the development.  In practice, it is similar to the "common elements condominium" describe by another poster, except that there is no condominum corporation.

Back to Strawberry Fields, has there been an indication of how it is to be structured?  Are the townhouses freehold or will the whole development be a condominium corporation?

So what does the agreement do. If there is no corporation, how is the common element managed?  Who makes decisions and how?

[panamaniac]

You have accurately described how "my" HOA is set up.  Everything is spelt out in the Reciprocal Agreement and that Agreement is an instrument registered against the title of each freehold dwelling in the development.  In practice, it is similar to the "common elements condominium" describe by another poster, except that there is no condominum corporation.

Back to Strawberry Fields, has there been an indication of how it is to be structured?  Are the townhouses freehold or will the whole development be a condominium corporation?

So what does the agreement do. If there is no corporation, how is the common element managed?  Who makes decisions and how?

It is all provided for in the "Reciprocal Agreement", which is registered in perpetuity against the title of each property (i.e. in buying a property, you are bound by its terms).  Like a condominium corp, we have a board, annual meeting, property manager etc, etc..  The Agreement sets out the powers of the board, defines the common elements, shared elements, and common expenses, etc, etc.  It is actually a very complex (unique?) Agreement as it includes not only my development of freehold SFHs and townhouses, but also the neighbouring condominium corporation of stacked towns, and two old apartment buildings that are rented out but which are registered as a condo.

[danbrotherston]

Some light is shed on the naming of private streets, obviously it can be done, but it requires a motion at council, too pass bylaws, as well as the costs being borne by the applicant.....

So perhaps it is a cost thing.

   

   

[Coke6pk]

I'll pay for an ad in the Record if I can get a street named after me! LOL

Coke

[tomh009]

Coke Court?

[panamaniac]

What was the issue with naming private streets? I think I missed something.

[ijmorlan]

What was the issue with naming private streets?  I think I missed something.

Most townhouse developments with private roads don’t name their roads — the houses are just unit numbers on a single address on a city street. I mentioned that I would prefer the internal roads be named, and discussion ensued as to whether the procedures around street naming allow giving proper names to internal private roads.

It seems the answer is yes, but it may be expensive or more work than most developers are willing to do.