Belvue Apartments Crosslease 93132
Car Park Assignment.During the AGM, it turned out that Trevor Nye (301) also had a lengthy e-mail exchange with BCA and/or the committee, in which he attempted to have the same correction to the car park markings completed. He, too, experienced massive delays and obstructions.
This is currently listed under "General Business". I would like to remind everybody that the persistent delays to correct this problem, which was raised as far back as October 2013, has resulted in a personal financial gain by the owner of apartment 514 (Graham Smith) of approximately $2,500. In my opinion, this amount needs to be refunded by him to the bank account of our crosslease.
At the AGM, there was no justification given for the delays and the AGM decided to proceed with correcting the car park markings. But to the date of this writing (January 2016), it has not happened yet.
the Car Park assignment, which was promised at the 2013 AGM by Graham Smith on behalf of the Owners Committee to be investigated and resolved, has not been replied to or actioned yet. The Committee needs to explain this at the AGM.During the AGM, Graham made the following statements: he did some research, the building was built as a motel, there was no cross lease, the motel owner had lines painted where he wanted them, he did not have to measure them out, we inherited those lines, there was no survey plan, it was nowhere mentioned where and how wide those car parks should be, the ownership of the car parks is contained within each lease, some units have a car park and some don't. So, in Graham's opinion, to rectify the problem, we would have to get the surveyor in, and get agreement from all the owners to pay for the survey and to have the car parks measured out exactly and properly.
[ Comments: it's complete Bulls**t! There IS a proper survey plan, made at the time the building was converted from motel to apartment building. It's on the land registry and a full copy is here. The picture below with my additions in red is from that plan. Of course, Graham's suggestion asking for agreement from all owners to call a surveyor was designed to fail and continue the status quo.]
I responded that the existing building plan on file with the land registry is quite specific, where each car park is located in relation to the columns, with 2 car parks between each pair of columns and the dividing line halfway between the columns.
Graham responded that in the life time of the building, those line markings have been re-painted several times and may not have been correct in the first place. He suggested that the next time we have the lines painted, we should get them corrected. [Comments: of course, Graham knows that the lines are only painted once every 10-15 years, so waiting for the next "regular" pavement marking would give him another decade private use of common parking space.]
I insisted, we should *not wait*, but have the numbers corrected as soon as possible, because most people don't even know that the car park next to the lift is "common area" and should be available to all, while the double-carpark currently marked 514 is indeed for use of 512 and 514. This view was strongly supported by Eric Eason (304) and Suzanne Wood (301).
In the summing-up of the debate, Glenn suggested that I supply a photocopy of the car park plan as registered with land information to him and he will make sure the pavement markings will be changed to coincide with the plan. I've done this on 3.12.14. The owners and tenants of 507-514 will be notified to use their correct parking spot. The "common area" currently in use as car park 507 will be marked with yellow no-parking lines, the yellow word "DELIVERY" in front and a no-parking sign with the addition "maximum 10 minutes loading and unloading only" behind it at the stairwell wall, so it will be available for short-time use to everyone.
This is the solution that should have been implemented straight away when the problem was first reported in October 2013. Here are the instructions for the roadmarking contractor: 
I find it hard to believe that Graham is honest on this matter. In the end, the newly appointed Owners Committee promised to "investigate the car park assignment" and make a proposal on how to proceed. I insisted that the case is clear, as the original ground plan is on record and shows the car parks clearly in relation to the pillars. All that is required is the pavement markings to be changed and the affected users to be notified. Glenn Kwok immediately responded claiming it is not straightforward, but may require the costly services of a "land surveyor". I find this statement ridiculous, with Glenn implicitly admitting his own double standard here: correcting clearly wrong painted numbers on the pavement should require a land survey, but building a wall on common land (as he just supported) should be acceptable without land survey!
In my view, the AGM was just too accomodating when accepting the fox to be in charge of the hen house. You may make up your own mind.
The red apartment numbers I've added to the plan are the official assignments. I own apartment 511 and my records show that the car park labelled "NN" in the official plans is mine to use. However, the actual assignment and road markings for car parks 507 to 514 have been altered more than 12 years ago. They have been shifted by one position to the left. The net effect of this shift to the left is that all owners have been deprived of their right to use the car park immediately next to the lift, while at the "office" end, apartment 514 obtained parking space for two cars.
Car parks in Newmarket are a valuable commodity. Their current monthly rental value is approximately $100.00. Even 5 years ago, car park rental values were around $80.00 per month. Assuming an average rental value of $70.00 per month over the last 12 years, a total value of more than $10,000.00 has been taken away from all owners and turned into the private gain of the owner of apartment 514. I have asked BCA Ltd and our building manager Katrina James as the keeper of our records to investigate when and how this car park "land-grab" happened. Only the owners of 509 (Warrick Smith), 512 (S W Mowatt) and 514 (Graham Smith) have owned their affected car parks longer than I did and may know when and how this "shift towards the lift" happened. In a phone conversation with our building manager on 31.10.13, Katrina said the car park assignment as it currently stands, was in place for at least 19 years (since she moved into the building).
I'm asking that car parks should now be returned to their original assignments, with the car park next to the lift being made available for short-term use to all. I also believe, the owner of apartment 514 (Graham Smith) should pay back the improperly obtained value in excess of $10,000.00 into our crosslease's funds.
