There was no wavering of resolve of City Council when it comes to the removal of two structures in the city that are the subject of Remdial action Orders, with Council members moving the process of removal forward at their Special Council Session of Wednesday evening.
Both properties were up for review and discussion, with the property owners of each filing correspondence with the City related to the recent orders which were first outlined at the July Council session.
Wednesday night, Mayor Herb Pond read out the detailed orders related to both the Rose's property and that of the Angus Apartments and offered an opportunity for each property owner to speak to the topic.
Towards the Rose's property, As part of the process, the owner of the property in question was allowed to speak to the City's order.
For her commentary on the orders, owner Marie Luong and her adviser participated by Zoom for the council comment opportunity.
Her adviser, a real estate developer outlined her view of the situation related to her property, observing that she has contacted a local businessman, Parm Sandu in Prince Rupert to seek out further information as to what could be built on the property in question.
Noting for the need of a little bit more time and with an answer they would then demolish the existing property and then develop something towards a standard that the city may be looking for. He observed that the prices of demolition that they had received were higher than they believe reasonable.
The owner and her representative also observed that there had been some interest from the city in buying the property but that seemingly had fallen through owing to a lack of federal funding, at which time the city's interest had waned in any potential purchase of the land.
Towards that topic, the Corporate Administrator advised that it would not be appropriate for staff to discuss any potential land conversations, as there were legal implications to that. Ms. Miller did confirm that there were no current offers, agreements, pending deals, or any of the latter in respect to the property
Council members had a range of commentary towards the presentation and the state of the building, with Councillor Forster noting of the eleven correspondences that the city has forwarded to the property owner in just the last few months.
"I think in my opinion it would be hard to argue that there hasn't been opportunity to respond, there has been ample opportunity"
Councillor Cunningham also picked up on the trail of correspondences and the lack of action towards remediation of the site.
"I find it interesting that you've been given notice since April ... to look after this and now that we're finally putting the foot done and saying that it has to be done ... the owner is coming in front of us now and asking for an extension, when the owner has no definite plan or anything yet their asking for an extension.
Councillor Wade Niesh also noted of the lack of action to this point and how it is point of contention for the community.
"The community has spoken loudly over the last year, fifteen months, about these properties and they are disgusted by them and they want to see them removed. To me this is a last ditch effort at trying to get a cheaper price, but the reality is, is that there are only so many contractors available in this town to do this work ... I see absolutely no reason to delay this any further, the community has spoken and it's time for it to go "
As the conversation continued, Council members made it clear that they had no interest in offering any extension and then voted unanimously to approve the recommendation requiring the lot adjacent to the property be cleared by Friday August 18th, with the remainder of the main property in question to see demolition commence action within 30 days.
Much the same tone was prevalent for the second of the two orders, that related to the Angus Apartments
As with the previous remedial action order, the owner of the property in question Pierre Wong, who participated by way of telephone, was allowed to speak to the topic.
His main focus was to seek out answers to some questions and comments that he had posed by way of a correspondence to Council.
Before addressing that element, the Mayor called for comments from Council.
Councillor Wade Niesh recounted the history of fires at the location and the state of disrepair that the building has had in recent years and how no action has taken place towards improvement, adding that the order needs to take place immediately.
Councillor Adey spoke to the process of demolition and the impact it may have no neighbouring buildings.
"This is a building that is in close proximity to a number of other buildings some of which are kept well and the people who live in them enjoy living in them, I'm just wondering if there are provision in place for ensuring when the clean up there is no unintended consequences for the surrounding properties that we would need to prevent from happening.
I'm thinking in terms of rodents or anything of that nature that may move elsewhere as a result of the demolition."
Corporate Administrator Rosa Miller advised that the city had contacted and contracted with a pest control company to address the reports of rodents and other pests in the building in question.
"In anticipation of the clean up we have contacted and contracted with a pest removal company to go and attend to the property. We have placed traps around the property, we have had numerous reports of rodents in the area. So as a preventative measure we have already gone ahead and started with that process to try to alleviate any further issues once the demolition takes place, but that is definitely a consideration"
Mr. Wong then returned to the conversation noting of previous illegal entries to the building and the damage that has taken place at his property, as well as to note of thefts of items from it.
Mayor Pond observed that thefts and illegal entries of the building are the responsibility of the owner and not that of the city.
"I'm not going to make a lot of comment, the theft or the entering, illegal entering of the building all of those are the responsibility of the owner, it's unfortunate but those are those realities."
Mr Pond added that the city is certainly not responsible for the theft of tools and the other things he had identified in his letter to the City.
Councillor Cunningham then asked for a sense of the owners intentions toward the property.
In reply, Mr. Wong outlined that as he is still in negotiation with his insurance company he could not outline what intentions that he may have towards it.
Councillor Randhawa asked if the owner had any timeline towards a decision from his insurance company, the answer did not address the deadline question, with the owner speaking instead to some incorrect timelines that the city had relayed towards the two fires in question.
Corporate Administrator Miller outlined how the dates noted were irrelevant as the properties have been disrepair and that there have been two fires that have taken place at the site and it needs to be cleaned up regardless.
The owner outlined how he had tried to clean up the property, then returned to some of his complaints against the City and how they have attended to his case.
Councillor Skelton-Morven echoed some of the previous comments noting how the situation had not been addressed by the owner and that the city had opportunity to take action.
As was the case previous, Council members had no interest in offering any extension and then voted unanimously to approve the recommendation requiring property in question to see demolition commence by the end of the month.
Should that not take place, the action order would see the city take the required action and forward the cost to the property owner.
Details related to both of the City's order can be examined from the Council Agenda from Wednesday evening.
Correspondences to the City from both owners are included in the agenda packing on pages 11 and 12.
You can review the full range of the discussion towards both orders through the City's Video archive starting at the 19 minute mark.
We also feature some expanded notes on the council opinions on the topic through our Council Timeline Feature.
More notes related to the Wednesday Council session can be reviewed here.
The big question is Why was April when the communication started? The city dragged its feet for a year on Rose's. Councilors find this acceptable?
ReplyDeleteThe Angus even more time. What happened to Barry tough talking shortly after the fire?