Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
General Landlording & Rental Properties
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated almost 4 years ago,

User Stats

1
Posts
0
Votes
Tahira Chaudhry
0
Votes |
1
Posts

Parkland Fee applicable to Existing Property in Hamilton, ON?

Tahira Chaudhry
Posted

In the City of Hamilton, ON, we purchased a mixed use (commercial/residential) property with a basement already constructed. The city is giving us a hard time to get permit to legalize the basement, many conditions and requirements. Now, prior to receiving the basement permit to legalize status, the City sends a letter to pay for the parkland fee of $9500. We are confused because we didn't do a structural change or zoning change. Why has this been applied in my case? Totally surprised, so what's the best advice to get this fee waived as in my case, there has been no new construction or addition. No parkland impacted in any way. Is this a new rule?