Pincher Creek couple still looking for answers about adjoining development

View to the south has changed
for the Handfords

Toni Lucas, Pincher Creek Voice

Pincher Creek citizens Cheryl and Randy Handford have questions about the property that is adjoining theirs.  In 2012 construction began on a house adjacent to the south side of their property.

"On September 29 (2012) the stakes went in the ground.  I phoned the Town Office and I was told that the development was compliant with land use bylaw and all other requirements.  I questioned the setbacks," said Cheryl.  Their questions continued to multiply as the development progressed.  Originally all advertising regarding the development listed the address as 661 Fredrick Street.  Later on all communication listed the development address as 1102 John Avenue.  "The legal address changes two or three times, and they told us 'That's a typo'," said Cheryl.  According to the couple the main entrance of a dwelling determines the setbacks of the property.


The Handfords have asked about the setbacks, the basement, the drainage plan, and the real property report.  This area is in the flood fringe near the Pincher Creek so all development in the area should be compliant with flood reduction zoning that came into place after the Handfords built their own house 12 years ago.

"We're just questioning the process, and every time we question the process, they tell us there's an error.  We have it on report that it's 'human error' that the basement got built, that the development officer missed the basement in the plans," said Cheryl.

"This has affected us physically, emotionally and our health," said Randy, commenting one of the ways that this has affected their enjoyment of their own property. "We've lost the enjoyment of the south light, it's really upset our lives.  We have nine windows to take advantage of the southern light.  Imagine what a difference it would make to pitch the hip of the roof the other way.  That could have just been a conversation."

The couple have been to three town council meetings and a committee of the whole meeting that had Town Planner Mike Burla from Oldman River Regional Services Commission in attendance.  "We went there in good faith to discuss our concerns with this house," said Cheryl.  The couple say that at that meeting they were treated rudely and called names.

"Nobody apologized, the Mayor didn't stop the meeting, this carried on, then we were asked to leave the meeting," said Randy.

"The MDSA (Municipal Development & Subdivision Authority) committee made conditions to elevate the electrical, direct vent the hot water tanks, etc, and have a stamped engineered drainage plan, " said Cheryl.  "Outside of the motion, they make a recommendation that they can leave all this in the basement."

"Where I work, you do an engineered drainage plan first, before you do anything," said Randy.  "Then you know where the water will run, because it's the drainage plan.  You want to know that before you put the structure up.  There are three players that are immediately impacted by this, ourselves, the developer and the Town.  When you don't follow the rules, each of those parties are impacted to varying degrees.  We're affected the most, but if there are any liabilities down the road, if there are any other issues, and you haven't followed the process, it's going to come back to haunt you.  I've talked with Tom (the developer). Tom thought the Town was following the rules.  I think he's been let down, too."

"They attached some conditions to the construction of the building at the meeting on the (October) 29," said Randy.  "That was to create a discretionary permit.  When they came out of the meeting, they waived some of the conditions about where the furnace and hot water tank was located and things like that."

"The Town of Pincher Creek has waived the requirement that furnace and hot water be installed at or above flood level, on the condition that if the home owner decide to leave the furnace, hot water tank, and electrical components in the basement, they do so at their own expense and save harmless the Town of Pincher Creek," Cheryl said reading from the notes from her file.  "This is where they say all the things they have to do:  "The owners will provide at their own expense a report and certificate from a qualified engineer and stamped by the engineer which specifies that the following matters and factors have been incorporated:  Number three is a stamped sight drainage plan."

The couple requested a copy of the engineered drainage plan.  A drainage plan was provided, but according to Cheryl, "This is from the draftsman that designed the house, this is not an engineered drainage plan."

"We need an engineered drainage plan, to protect our investment," said Cheryl.  "Their eaves troughs are coming down and are pointed right at our property."  The couple expressed concerns about potential fire issues with the buildings located so close to each other.

"I would like to see some accountability to the process, and some sort of action down the road," said Randy.  "There is no real property report.  It's the law, you have to have one, it protects everyone, down the line.  The due diligence of the process just wasn't there.  The Town Council and administration are here to administer the Municipal Government Act and the land use bylaw, subsequent to that.  Their primary job is to take care of me as a citizen, not me as a customer. Who dropped the ball? Let's hold them accountable.  I don't know what that looks like.   Maybe we need some training,  maybe we need some mitigation, maybe we need more oversight. "

Pincher Creek Mayor Ernie Olsen and Emergency Services Chief  Dave Cox were both contacted about this story and had no comment to make.