- Mario, you obviusly have self interest at heart ie selling the wood etc to build the properties. You don't live in Coldstream and obviously don't understand why we live here. So kindly refrain from adding your comments to the debate. IT DOES NOT CONCERN YOU. We live in Coldstream because of the existing character of the place, not over crowded and noisy. Introduce dual cccupancy into this area it will become an unbearable place to live.
If you are looking for COLDSTREAM TIMBER go to the link shown in the GOOD LIKNS. EMAIL COMMENTS FOR PUBLISHING TO mariogalteri@gmail.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Reply to Coldstream32
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hear, hear Mario....
Mario, of course your opinions are biased, however, this is your blog and you are entitled to say whatever you want.
As for the remark about spending more waking hours here than people that OWN PROPERTY and SLEEP here.... really!!! That's ridiculous.
My opinion, as you know, is.... if people were truly concerned about our township growing, the right thing to do would be to mount a campaign to get the government to rectify the huge mistake it made when it made the land on the west side of Maroondah Highway Green Wedge. Some of this land should have remained available for future housing in our township.
Overcrowding our existing community - mostly under single dwelling covenant - and most likely meant to be totally under covenant - is going to change the nature of the neighbourhood we currently enjoy.
Overcrowding certain areas in Coldstream just so a couple of people can make a buck and feel better about themselves getting their own way... well... that's not very community minded is it?
Rosie Wood
Resident - Fed up with people taking advantage of the Coldstream Community.
Rosie, in response to your attack on Mario...I ask again...how on earth can 10, 20 or 30 extra houses "overcrowd" Coldstream...???
Rosie, I have been pushing for the UGB to be expanded for 20 years, but the Shire in their wisdom refused over an over to listen.
Blame them, not me!
If you think Coldstream Timber will get rich on 20 small new houses in Coldstream you are wrong,even if we get a chance to supply the material.
Also I don't see 20 new houses "overcrouding our existing community".
In response to Mario and the very brave "A".....
I'm not attacking Mario, I happen to think he's a great fellow and I admire his passion. I am merely putting forward opinions that are not only my own. It's called attempting to level the playing field when the blogger so clearly has an agenda.
And, as I said, it is Mario's blog. He can say whatever he likes !! I don't believe in censorship.
As to your suggestion that 20, 30, 50 new homes being crammed into an estate that (without checking on the legal documentation that I don't have access to), I would make an educated guess in saying that some of the plans of subdivision without the covenant should have had the covenant. How on earth does a staged plan of subdivision where a covenant was negotiated for the whole of the suvdivision, from the parent titles, end up with a few of the 'plans' free of the covenant? I'm not referring to the properties on the highway. I'm suggesting, however, that with the majority of the estate, someone made an error.
Secondly, people bought into this estate with a SINGLE DWELLING policy in the planning, whether they have a single dwelling covenant on their property or not. When we have ALL purchased in this estate on that basis, why should a few of you now be able to change the rules. That would be the minority getting to govern the majority.
Thirdly, I noted that the supposed independent planning advisor (who is actually listed on some of the documentation of these proposed dual occupancy applications and clearly an interested party) made comment that it wouldn't cause much change as developers wouldn't want to tear down houses to make use of land for larger unit subdivisions. Well, what a load of old cobblers!!
With the size of many of our blocks and an opportunity to potentially build 3 or 4 units/ townhouses, it would make commercial sense to demolish. I was personally slightly insulted that someone would make statements to water down the possible commercial potential in that way. I wondered if she thought Coldstream residents to be simple!
Rosie Wood
Resident
Fed up with a minority taking advantage of the Coldstream Community
Rosie, how lovely it is to be patronised by you for wanting to remain anonymous.
None of what you said in response to my question about a few more houses in the estate making a big difference made sense to me (I think I must be one of those simple Coldstream folk that you mentioned didn't exist).
I think you'll find when this estate was originally released, it was released in two (or more?) different stages. The first stage did not have any single dwelling covenants attached and the second one did.
Being a legal eagle, it suprises me that you have not realised that there is a difference between local council policies, preferences,BIASES (whether that be negative or positive) and the law.
Yes, YOU may have bought into this estate believing it had single-dwelling policy, but to you and all the others that say the council has "changed it's rules" - how ridiculous! The Council (and some councillors) had a "preference" that Coldstream would remain with only one house on each block - but there has never been anything saying that the whole of Coldstream estate is covenanted.
Dear J.... oops... A...
You are most welcome for my patronage.
Anonymity is everyone's choice on blogs. I choose to put my name behind my comments.
I'm all in favour of transperancy - something that was overlooked somewhat in publising in the local media a bias push for support in forever changing our rural township of Coldstream.
Apparently my comments in this blog were difficult to understand. I don't consider the people of Coldstream to be simple as I hadn't met any simpletons here. Perhaps you are my first, or perhaps my comments were too suble, unlike your sarcasm.
Here are, what I hope to be 'easy-to-grasp' comments about the difference between having the rural single dwelling township we have enjoyed, and the possibility of multiple dwellings on a lot.
You say 20, 30....
If multiple dwellings are possible in Coldstream, opportunities open for developers to tear down homes on uncovenanted lots and build units. If it is commercial profitable, a developer certainly will tear down 'one' dwelling in favour of creating '3-4' for sale. Therefore, you're supposed 20 - 30 dual occupancies is not a figure that can be relied upon.
Construction of units will create greater opening for more rental properties, people, cramped parking, greater use on our current infrastructure (the power, for instance, seems to have trouble being stable with the usage it has now). It will change the nature of a very family orientated estate to one with busier roads and more transient residents (renters).
What is currently a 'normal' size lot would become a 'large' lot in a multi dwelling estate. How would that affect the land values and therefore the cost of the rates? Well, I think we all know the answer to that.
I hope that helps you understand. If not, at least the 'developers' will be armed with more arguments in readiness thwarting the residents at upcoming VCAT hearings.
No one has suggested the whole of Coldstream is covenanted. I was referring to a large Staged Plan of Subdivision originating from the Lewis Estate. I thought it was clear when I said that it may have been 'meant to be totally under covenant' that I was referring to the large Stage Plan of subdivision. You know, the one done in stages, so that it has many different plans of subdivision within it. If they come from parent titles that had the covenant negotiated for that land, it makes sense the covenent should be on any further subdivisions.
In fact, I recall a conversation with 'one of the developers' about this very topic and, at the time, he actually admitted that, having done some research on the estate, he thought I might have been right about that. Of course, opinions on the nature of the placement of covenants is purely speculative as we do not have the relevant documentation to hand. (Perhaps that developer has changed his mind on that issue).
I have neither referred to any laws when discussing this matter, or to being a legal eagle, duck, turkey, pheasant or wildlife bird of any kind. And I am certainly no chicken!!
Thanks for your reply. It's been enormously enjoyable. (In fact, I laughed so hard I nearly p'd my pants!)
Rosie Wood
Resident
Fed up with a minority taking advantage of the Coldstream Community.
Oh... by the way, "A"... yes, when my home was purchased, we were in deed told by the agents that, save for subdivision down at the Highway, the rest of the estate is under covenant. Also, that the whole estate is single dwelling.
Enquiries with the Shire actually confirmed this so.... if you are correct (as opposed to just finally convincing someone to change the rules) perhaps everyone was making it up.
Rosie Wood
Oh Rosie,
Don't tell me you believe what agents tell you? They will tell you anything to get a sale!
When you purchase a property you have a copy of the title shown to you. You simply look at it and it tells you what you can and cannot build.
I agree that I have an agenda BUT I have never stopped anyone from posting material on this blog.
Oh Mario.... of course not. If you keep reading I said that we checked with the Shire Council. As a former conveyancer, I know how to read a Section 32 statement, but thanks, mate!
Yes, I agree with you, people get to have their say and you don't censor. That is a great thing.
Cheers
Rosie
...Thanks for that Rosie...I think you've got the wrong person
Post a Comment