ROCKY VIEW COUNTY ENFORCEMENT APPEAL COMMITTEE Decision of the Committee

Transcription

1 Hearing Held: May 16, 2018 ROCKY VIEW COUNTY ENFORCEMENT APPEAL COMMITTEE Decision of the Committee Chair: D.Kochan Vice-Chair: K. Hanson Committee Member: I. Galbraith Committee Member: H. George Committee Member: W. Metzger APPELLANTS/OWNERS: Alberta Ltd. c/o Satpreet Thiara Ave Edmonton, AB T5S 2Z1 DECISION: Having been satisfied that notice of this.hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter M-26; upon having read the materials provided; and upon having heard the representations from the Appellant/Owner and the Development Authority (Enforcement Services) with respect to the appeal filed by the Appellant/Owner of the Development Authority's (Enforcement Services) Order, dated April 5, 2018, to take the fo llowing steps to t he reasonable satisfaction of the County on or before April 30, 2018 for the partially constructed structure on the Lands: 1. Obtain any necessary permits through the County's Building Services required for the restoration and continued construction of the structure, and commence work to complete the structure; or 2. Obtain any necessary permits though the County's Building Services required for the demolition of the structure, and have the structure demolished and the site levelled; at Lot 27, Block 3, Plan in the NE W5M (the "Lands); the Rocky View County Enforcement Appeal Committee has decided to UPHOLD the appeal and VARY the decision of the Development Authority (Enforcement Services). The Enforcement Appeal Committee directs that: The Appellant must obtain a building permit for the partially built dwelling on the Lands by August 30, 2018 and that the construction of the dwelling be completed by April 30, II FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Lands are classified as Residential One District (R-1) in the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw C (the "Land Use Bylaw"). 2. The Lands are owned by Alberta Ltd. 3. The Lands are ± 2.00 acres in size and developed with a partially completed dwelling. Page 1 of 7

2 4. The Lands are located approximately 500 m. south of Lower Springbank Road and 200m. west of Range Road The Committee has determined it has jurisdiction under section 13(2) of Rocky View County's Bylaw C , Nuisance and Unsightly Property Bylaw (the "Bylaw") to review the Order dated April 5, 2018 and that under section 54 7(2) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) the Committee may "confirm, vary, substitute or cancel the Order." 6. The Committee confirms that the Order was received by the Appellant/Owner on April 9, 2018 and that the Notice of Appeal was filed on April 16, The Committee confirms that the Notice of Appeal was received on time in accordance with section 547(b) of the MGA. 7. The Committee heard the following details from the Development Authority (Enforcement Services) on why the Order under section 546 of the MGA was issued to the Appel Ia ntj Owner: a. An inspection of the Lands On March 7, 2018 confirmed that: i. the property was abandoned and exhibited signs of significant physical deterioration; ii. the partially completed dwelling was fenced but there was no evidence that construction had occurred in many months; iii. snow had infiltrated the unsealed structure; iv. t here were signs of the wood weathering and deteriorating; v. an accumulation of bird feces had occurred in the interior. 8. On April 5, 2018, the Order to Remedy Dangers and Unsightly Property was issued by the Development Authority (Enforcement Services) to take the following steps to the reasonable satisfaction of the County on or before April 30, 2018 for the partially constructed dwelling on the Lands: a. Obtain any necessary permits t hrough t he County's Building Services required for the restoration and continued construction of the structure, and commence work to complete the structure; or b. Obtain any necessary permits through the County's Building Services required for the demolition of the structure, and have the structure demolished and the site levelled; 9. The Development Authority (Enforcement Services) issued the Order to Remedy Dangers and Unsightly Property under section 546(0.1)(b)(i) of the MGA which outlines that an "unsightly condition" includes "in respect of a structure, includes a structure whose exterior shows signs of significant physical deterioration." 10. Section 546(1) of the MGA states that: Page 2 of 7

3 If, in the opinion of a designated officer a structure (... ) is dangerous to public safety or property, because of the unsightly condition, is detrimental to the surrounding area, the designated officer may by written order (a) require the owner of the structure to (i) eliminate the danger to public safety in the manner specified, or (ii) remove or demolish the structure and level the site. 11. On April 16, 2018, the Appellant/Owner appealed the decision of the Development Authority (Enforcement Services) on the grounds that: a. They want to obtain any necessary permits through County Building Services as required to complete the structure. 12. Lovedeep Virk, the Appellant's representative, was in attendance at the hearing and stated that: a. He is representing the Owner. b. They have been working on numerous houses in the area and this is the last one they have to complete. They have had some financial difficulties that have prevented them from finishing the project. c. This structure has been conditionally sold and the building must be finished according to the specifications of the new owners for the sale to be finalized. d. They are asking for 90 days to finalize the new plans and to apply for a new building permit. If they get 90 days to apply for a new building permit, they anticipate that construction will be completed by April e. They disagree that the bird feces is a health issue. f. They intend to finish the construction of this building. g. The last communication they had with the County was when the County ordered them to erect a fence. h. They did not find any cracks in the foundations during inspections on the Lands. 13. Kelly Albrecht was in attendance and spoke in opposition to the appeal. He stated that: a. He purchased the property directly north of the Lands in June 2015 and is currently building a dwelling. b. He has not seen any progress on the Lands since he moved in. c. Not all the doors and windows have been installed in the dwelling on the Lands. d. He is concerned that the partial structure on the Lands is bringing down property values in the area. Page 3 of 7

4 e. He is worried the property is open to vandalism and arson which will negatively impact his property. f. There are openings in the fencing that could be accessed by a person who could hurt themselves or do illegal things. g. The building is an eyesore. h. The Owners have had years to finish this project and there has been no effort to finish the project. He would like to see the building finished as soon as possible and is worried that the Owners are just stalling and will not get the project done. i. He would be satisfied if the dwelling is completed by April 2019 and there should be some repercussion if they do not meet the deadline. 14. Mike Strauss was in attendance and spoke in opposition to the appeal. He stated that: a. He is a homeowner in Wind horse and is the president of the Homeowners' Association. b. He has seen teenagers go over the fence on the Lands and he has had to call the RCMP. c. He is frustrated that the Appellant has stopped doing work. d. It is an expensive area to build in due to water issues in the area. e. The building is affecting property values in the area. f. The Owner does not have good history in the area and allowing 90 extra days is contributing to the extended problems that this company has caused in the community. g. He is concerned the project will be delayed and will not be finished. 15. Pummy Bhogal was in attendance and spoke in opposition to the appeal: She stated that: a. She is homeowner in the area and has lived there for five years. b. She agrees with the comments provided by Mr. Strauss and Mr. Albrecht. c. There should be repercussions if the Owner does not follow what they are ordered to do. 16. In rebuttal, Mr. Virk stated that: a. He will pay the liens on the building. b. They are aware of the architectural controls in the area and will build to that standard. Page 4 of 7

5 c. This is not the only house in Windhorse that has been delayed and other houses are more incomplete than the dwelling on the Lands. They would really like to finish the building which will be better for the neighbours in the long run. d. Their home is not the cause of criminal activity in the neighbourhood as that is a general trend in rural areas. e. They are committed to having the house finished for the owners by April f. He understands the concerns of the neighbours and would like to get this project finished. g. He feels he had a fair hearing. 17. The Notice of Hearing of the Enforcement Appeal Committee was circulated to 62 adjacent landowners. 18. The Committee received no letters in support or in opposition from adjacent landowners. 19. The Committee confirmed with Enforcement Services that: a. They consider the wood deterioration signs of structural problems with the building and the bird feces to be a health concern. The building is also unsightly under the section 546 of the Municipal Government Act as the building shows signs of significant physical deterioration". b. They worked with the County's Building Services department when evaluating the condition of the building. c. There is construction fencing on the Lands. d. If the structure is not completed in the required timelines, they would likely seek removal of the building through the courts. 20. The Committee confirmed with Building Services that: a. There have been several Safety Codes Officers who have gone through the building. They attended the Lands with the enforcement officer and support the determination that the building is deteriorating. b. Th e building permit was issued in March of 2014 and they completed a foundation inspection in 2015 which the building passed. They did progress inspections in 2016 and 2017 but did not reach the next step of completing a framing inspection. The plumbing, gas, and electrical work is not complete. The building has a completed roof. c. They have been sending notices to the Owner about needing to finish the work and sent a notice of the expiry of the building permit due to inactivity. d. The last progress check they did, which failed, was in March e. At this point, remedial work would need to be done and a pass from a structural engineer would be required. The County would also ask that a qualified company Page 5 of 7

6 File No.: ; REX produce a report under the Health Act on the work that would need to be done to remediate the feces. f. Typically when a building is at this stage, there is mould present but he cannot confirm that. The pictures primarily show deterioration and structural problems. g. Building Services would be open to new architectural plans but the Owner would also have to submit plans for the required remedial work. h. 90 days is a reasonable timeline to procure new architectural plans. There are some nuances to an existing building that may impact timelines due to possible remediation requirements. i. They have received complaints (with Enforcement) from neighbours about people illegally accessing the Lands. j. There is no security lighting on the Lands to their knowledge. k. Their mandate is to enforce the Safety Codes Act and the codes that fall under it. Ill REASONS FOR DECISION The Committee is ALLOWING the appeal and VARYING the decision of the Development Authority (Enforcement Services) for the following reasons: CLOSING: 1. The Committee is satisfied that the partially built structure on the Lands is showing signs of deterioration which contravenes section 546 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) which defines an unsightly condition as "a structure whose exterior shows signs of significant physical deterioration." 2. The Committee is satisfied it has the authority to execute this Order as per section 546(1)(c)(i) of the MGA which states that a designated officer may "require the owner of the property that is in an unsightly condition to improve the appearance of the property in the manner specified (... )" and section 546(1) of the MGA which states that "the order may state a time within which the person must comply with the order." 3. The Committee heard that the Appellant/Owner is committed to finishing the building and that the County believes there is a possibility that the structure can be remediated and completed. As the Board is satisfied that the structure does not cause an immediate danger and there is a possibility that the structure can be remediated, it is in the best interest of all parties that the Appellant/Owner be given the opportunity to complete the structure. This decision can be appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench if the procedure required to be followed by the Municipal Government Act was not followed or the decision is patently unreasonable. If you wish to appeal this decision you must follow the procedure found in Section 548 of the Municipal Government Act which requires an appeal to be made within 15 days after the date on wh ich you were served with this decision. Sf:- Dated at the City of Calgary, in t he Province of Alberta this~ day of May, 2018 and signed by the Chair of the Enforcement Appeal Committee who agrees that the content of this document Page 6 of 7

7 adequately reflects the appeal hearing, deliberations and decision Committee. Committee Order No.: Don Kochan, Chair Enforcement Appeal Committee EXHIBIT LIST: 1. Enforcement Appeal Committee report with attachments (32 pages). Page 7 of 7