The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

I 77 m. WW‘WJWZZ.NH 07 Residents stonewalled by city Br PAIGE Dmono Q. chronic/151115 . A f . _,,_,.. . .. N x .‘ (onlllL‘l with the city's bylaw office A: . .\ j l Abecantt- so stressful. it landed a city . . 1 man lll hospital Monday morning. “venty years, numerous bylaw com- plaints and otte Waterloo Chronicle story later. Austin Drive homeowners John and wife Donna said they have been slapped in i the face by the City ofWaterloo bylaw 1 department. » ' i The Kroess' have been in an ongoing bat- . . i tie to have their neighbour's retaining wall W \ } repaired. 1 According to the couple, the collapse of t the wall in 1992, aside from being an eye "flag 1 sore, forced them to remove a walkway at i the side of their home and build a deck “'3‘ l anchored to the house, due to erosion. The ‘ i ' KroeSs' property is graded higher than their 1 neighbour’s. Thursday. the couple received an order l from the city to repair the retaining wall. 1 “If that wall would have been ours it “‘ would have been fixed way back." John told 3 if the Chronicle Friday. “We were stunned." ' :1, He was planning to get in touch with the keg ' city again Monday. but postponed the move 1 t after stress pushed him to his limit. Donna 1 said. 1 Jim Barry, director of bylaw services for l l the city. declined to comment. ' I “I can‘t comment on that specific concern The crumbled retaining wall in question. 1 because of privacy issues." Barry said. located at 45 Austin Drive, next door to the a 3 "There maybe an investigation ongoing." Kroess family. i Donna said the couple would be contact- ‘“ m“ H; in). ing Barry and their city councillor when entirely situated on the neighbour's lot â€"â€" a 2011 VERSA n S ‘ . I lohnis feeling better. document that John said he forwarded to .. "J I I I 1 The bylaw order comes about one month the city right away. . | after a story appeared in the Chronicle in Nothing was done. E M P L DY E E ' May. detailing the Kroess' frustration. They called the city again in 2010, and ’g" * Shortly after the wall fell in the '905, John said a bylaw officer told them she could not PRICE SAVINGS 0F ‘2. 3"" ‘ contacted the city to ask that bylaws regard~ enforce property standards. because owner- I I ing property standards be enforced. The city ship of the wall is in dispute. $ ~ ._ N asked Community Justice Initiatives to hoess said he has twice sent copies ofa ‘ v r _ mediate the conflict. survey conducted on his property at 47 ' John declined due to his frustration with Austin Drive in March 2000 by Metz and ’ _. .J the expense of removing the walkway on his Lorentz Ltd. Land Surveying to the bylaw pro'pegtggo h K f '1 ed h MEX: d‘ th d Th ‘ ' n . t e mess amt y contact t e cor mg to e ocument1" eexisting bylaw department again. They were told to 0.7 foot wide concrete block retaining wall is 2011 SENTRA 4 ‘4 v“ share the cost ofrepairs, or get a land survey situated entirely on Lot 29 (known as 45 to determine who is responsible for the wall. Austin Drive)." A survey dated 2000 states that the wall is With filesfrom Charlotte Prongâ€"Parkhill E M P L OY E E 1 .. _ PRICE SAVINGS 0F 1 l . $ . . i ' IASHBROOK’S SHOES 3,995 ';"~' ~ -._ ..: c- as»: .. ' as r. “‘5? "~15. »-.. , . - 1 ' : V ., a 2011 ALTIMA ' ‘ r ‘ ‘ 'r G??? ”5’3: 3%. l I U I i U. V . . , . ,_ .~ EMPLOYEE i *1 a» ‘ SIDE‘WALK SALE! PM “"65 "F ‘3 ’1 ’ 3 ' . _ I - I - ‘ ' ‘ ’ L A . * ‘ ’ _ .41}? :33‘1-yve‘ahfi ~ * 1 .. ‘ N ‘ V $6 3 3 2 tw‘. ‘ ‘ A ; JUNE 22 - JULY 2ND . I 1 l WW4W' I .33. if A... .3 t 1‘ , ;. 5.1 “aw": sesame“. CONTACT WATERLOO NISSAN FOR MORE onus ’ Great Savings on women s l y shoes, sandals 8. handbags l “iv“wt -.r.»‘ "' L . m.- l, t l . Hi > . ' . 1 so WESTMOUNT PLA(F HJOTWEAR FOR ‘ 38S fAlRWA‘v’ ROM) . .. . , 519-8§4'i3660 . é rl ' l i WAJERLOO 519 886 57am mm AND womm tumours at“ am 3888 ’ ' ‘ ‘ a, v. ‘ H t ‘ M ' W l