The Alpine Village II condominium board believes city council made a mistake in its decision around a complaint from a condo owner due to flawed information and lack of due diligence.
At its Sept. 9 regular meeting, council heard from condo owner Kathi Hagman, who appealed a decision by city hall to close the file on her complaint about the brightness of a light coming from her condo parking lot. She claimed the light was illuminating her unit in contravention of municipal bylaws.
Council later passed a motion that directed city administration to enforce the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw. City hall then sent an order to comply to the condo board ordering it to remedy the contravention by altering, removing completely, or re-adjusting the light on the side of the exterior building. This would minimize the light from shining onto neighbouring properties.
The condo board took issue with the ruling and made an appearance at city council’s Oct. 15 regular meeting to set the record straight.
Presentation
The board did not dispute the compliance order but thought council’s interpretation of the light bylaw was flawed as it applied to condominiums, since Hagman does not have separate title to the property, explained Dawna Matthews, board vice-president and treasurer.
“We are of the opinion that a more prudent option would have been to return the issue to city administration for further review, rather than make a less than fully informed decision without complete knowledge or understanding of the situation at hand,” she said.
The condo board has attempted make the best decisions possible during the last 10 years, Matthews said. Without exception, the board does its due diligence to ensure it reaches the highest standards of performance and ethical conduct possible.
The board had the light installed since Moose Jaw had the second-highest crime rate in the province in 2018. It wanted to provide as much security and safety to its members as possible.
“All the negative publicity for our condo building could have been avoided if we had been consulted about this situation,” Matthews said. “So many simple things could have been done to avoid this mess.”
Matthews claimed the condo board attempted to meet with Mayor Fraser Tolmie, but their request was denied.
The board does not place blame on anyone in this matter since it believes all condo owners have the right to express their opinions, she continued. The board attempted to take the high road and wanted to provide council with clarity on the procedures, acts, guidelines and bylaws it must follow itself as a corporation.
Board members attempted to work with Hagman on her concern with little success, Matthews claimed. Members were not invited into Hagman’s unit to see how much the parking lot light illuminated her suite; instead, she sent them pictures. After seeing the pictures, the members did suggest she simply close her blinds.
The board has changed the size of the LED bulb and ensured it is not directed at any one unit, but since the bulb doesn’t provide as much illumination, another light will have to be installed, she continued.
The condo board wants city council to write it a letter advising that due to misinterpreting the property ownership and condos bylaw, that what should have been a civil matter was treated as a bylaw infraction of separate properties, she continued. Owners do not pay property taxes to the condo corporation. All 23 units at Alpine Village II share common property tax on their tax bill based on a percentage ownership of that common property.
“We (now) need to go home to our condos, pick up the pieces, try to restore harmony and repair the damaging effects this has caused all 23 unit owners, including Ms. Hagman,” Matthews added.
City council then voted to receive and file the report on this issue.
