 |
| City Council members gained a historical review of the property at Second Avenue West on Monday night and in a follow up action; allowed the property owners some time to address the issues related to a remediation order for the property |
Prince Rupert City Council addressed another of the list of nuisance properties on their list for attention this year, though when it comes to the property in question on the night, that of the former Mohawk Gas station site on Second Avenue West, the council deliberations on the evening featured some passionate advocacy by the property owners themselves.
The discussion of the topic of the fate for the former Gas Station site began during the public comment period, that's when property owner Sal Chirico appeared in front of City Council in the Chamber to speak on the theme of his property at 2nd Avenue West and First Street.
He then asked a question of the City, as to whether they look back or seek out a full history of a property in question towards how the information is relayed to property owners related to compliance orders and remedial action requests.
"I'm here to apologize for that for what has happened and I hope we can move forward.
The one question that I do have and I'm not sure if Council can address it, or though Ms. Miller.
Is with the communication that has, of my family I'll speak, since 1960 and being a property owner since 1978 in this city, do we not look back at that to avoid a situation like this?
Or do we just simply go off what's on record and go forward from there? ...
To avoid situations like this for us and any other landlord/owner, would it not be the right way to just reach out in a different manner as opposed to a registered letter that doesn't go to the right family, the right person, the right individual is one of my questions on that" -- Property owner Sal Chirico to Council on Monday evening
Mayor Pond noted that the purpose of the public comment period was not one where the Council or staff would reply to that question.
From that Mr. Chirico provided a short history of the family history in the community, as well as to speak of the Second Avenue West property and to ask Council to reconsider its recent order of demolition for the structure on the property.
"Since we received the e mail, I believe I've come up and done what I feel is appropriate for the building and I would like to ask Council to reconsider the demolition order that's been put forward to it there. If you like I can speak to as to what's happening to the property"
He also provided some background on it's past tenants and the nature of the remediation work that had taken place on the property since that time, most of that focused on its previous time as a Husky/Mohawk gas station.
He also observed of a level contaminants for the property that dates back far beyond the gas station and beyond their control. As well he outlined how they continue to seek a risk based certificate of compliance through the province to move forward with funding for the property to develop it to a commercial standard.
A process he noted that could take at least six to eight months before they could consider a return to service for the property, Mr. Chirico also noted of the volume of businesses that have enquired about the status of the property.
"We'd like to jump on this property again to get it going to where it needs to be.
I get numerous phone calls on a weekly basis from other service station companies, restaurants, fast food chains, local business entrepreneurs any type of business on a regular basis.
And I completely say, I'm sorry I don't know what to tell you. I'll keep you on a list of things, I've got a list of numbers I need to call to keep them up to date.
Once we start the process of remediating that building fixing it up where it needs that's when we will start the process. But I cannot do anything until we get that risk based certificate of compliance"
To close his commentary he observed of their history in past projects such as the Capital Theatre renovation which also nearly met a wrecking ball as well as to the family's commitment to the community.
Mr. Pond observed that the comments from his presentation would be factored into the decision to come later in the evening, adding that the Chirico's are part of Prince Rupert regardless of where they reside.
He observed how taken back the family was with the city's approach to the issue and how they were not notified and how that was something that needs to be recognized, noting how the city had moved ahead with their order and how they were looking for reconsideration of that order.
"I understand where the city's coming from and we support, let's make it very clear that Chirico Enterprises, the Chirico family has been a very integral part of the community in Prince Rupert for the better part over fifty years. And I think there's many people on council that would second that.
But to feel almost picked on I guess to say and to have a break down in communication, we've always been stand up people within the community. We've always responded well to any communication that has been put forward in regards to this building."
He also noted that they were willing to work with the city on the issue however that there was no acknowledgement of any error in the handling of the issue, or an apology from the city for that error.
"I can't stress enough how taken aback by this on the actions that have taken place, but we want to put our best foot forward to try and work together and leave our differences from the beginning aside.
But at the token that I think that there needs to be some acknowledgment that the Chirico Family and Chirico Enterprises were not notified and I think that's something that needs to be recognized.
Because it hasn't been yet, we've proven that we didn't receive registered mail but yet the City moved forward with a motion without taking into account what we were trying to say"
He closed by noting they want to work with the city, but there must be acknowledgement of the city that the family has been portrayed in a negative light.
Mr. Chirico then noted of some of the measures that they have already address and how that history shows they work to hold up their end of the deal and how they hope they can move on to find a solution to the issues of the property.
As the Mayor had noted previous, Council members would later take up the topic as part of their Agenda on the night, with the presentations of both of the Chirico's helping to shape some of that discussion.
That conversation came as Council received a report outlining the steps ahead towards a Remedial Action Order for a property at 201-2nd Avenue West. Council will be asked to move forward on list of items related to the required clean up of property by May 30, 2024.
The report from Rosa Miller the Director of Corporate and Legal Services which we previewed on Monday, included a list of remediation actions that likely will keep the structure from the demolition teams should the property owners comply by the date noted.
Those seven items on the To Do List include:
1. Removal of all unkept grass and weeds on the property
2. Pressure wash the premises (entrances, property grounds, etc.)
3. Clean-up and removal of all garbage on site
4. Removal (or covering up by way of painting the exterior) of all graffiti on the property
5. Replace any damage fence panels
6. Removal of the old, dilapidated signs at the corner of the property
7. Removal (or appropriate replacement) of plywood window coverings.
Towards comment, Councillor Wade Niesh opened the conversation noting of the presentations of the Chiricos's on the night and how they had already addressed most of the items that were on the city's to do list.
"I'm just glad to see that the Chirico's came and took care of things so fast when called upon. I think there's still a couple of more things on the list, but other than that I'm glad that they they've taken care of most of it already before we even got here this evening"
Councillor Cunningham had a question towards the date and asked if there could be an extension provided should they require one. Mr. Cunningham also noted of the need for coverings for windows and asked what might be considered appropriate substitute over plywood.
"In the environment in our town right now with vandalism and that, you pretty well have to cover some windows up, but what's an appropriate covering other than plywood for something like that"
City Manager Rob Buchan confirmed that the extension could be granted if a compelling reason was provided.
"On the first point, can an extension can be granted the answer is yes. The report lays out the seven items, if there is a compelling reason why one needs to be amended or more, the request can be made and Council can consider it"
He also spoke to the need to confer with staff further on other options beyond plywood.
Councillor Cunningham then noted of the growing volume of boarded up windows in the community.
"I just think that you know there's a lot of windows covered in plywood in this town and I think it should be addressed to all of them"
The City Manager advised that the issue was being addressed by staff.
Councillor Adey then asked if the seven items were addressed would the demolition order be vacated, he was advised that was correct.
He also noted of the Chirico's work towards future development and observed how he would allow the deadlines to follow towards the provincial certificate should define the path forward.
"I share with the Chirico's the expressed vision that the building become a vibrant concern of some kind, I don't know what that is going to turn out to be. I think that's a common purpose for all of us"
Councillor Forster spoke to the issue of any clerical errors and how the city would address those.
Director Rosa Miller outlined the process that the city uses towards those orders and how the onus is one the property owner to provide correct addresses.
"With respect to the clerical error, it's staff's responsibility to send the notices strictly as noted on title and then to whichever address we may become aware after the fact. So we then communicated by email, but it would be up to the property owner to ensure that their title is correct. There's nothing that staff could do to correct that title, the information in our system is strictly from BC Assessment"
Councillor Cunningham followed up on Councillor Adey's comments noting how the provincial issue was separate to the City's current work list for the property.
From that Council adopted the motion.
The full Video of both the presentations from the Chirico's and Council's deliberations can viewed from the City's Video stream below:
Sal Chirico speaks to the topic at the 7 minute of the public comment period, his brother Frank joins the discussion at the 26minute mark.
The City Council review of the report and final decision towards it comes at the 35 minute mark.
Some of the recent history towards the concerns over the Second West property can be reviewed below.
Second Avenue Business owners push back on City Demolition plans
City Council to review two Remedial Property Removal Orders at Public Session tonight
More notes on Monday's Council Session can be reviewed through our Council Timeline feature.
If the building owners are so invested in this community, specifically bringing up their 50 year history of property ownership, why have they allowed this building to become so derelict that it has become a massive eyesore, another stain of neglect in the down town?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should watch their presentation where they clearly said that they’ve been working to get the property functioning again but have been held back by longstanding environmental issues. The Chirico’s are stand-up people. There are property owners who live in the community who’s properties are in worse condition and do less work to have them functional and occupied.
DeleteI fail to see how the environment issues preclude them from picking up the garbage, scraping the moss and removing the graffiti.
DeleteThe condition of another piece of property has no bearing on the Mohawk property. The city chose it at this time and I hope they do more of the same.
I was very disappointed council wasn’t asked permission to send more letters out this meeting.
1. The wind blows garbage all of this place. Maybe the people who actually live here should manage their junk a bit better rather than chastising a property owner for not cleaning it up when they’re not in town to do so.
Delete2. Perhaps if some members of the public didn’t deface private property it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s too bad that this family is being drug through the mud because other people’s issues are impacting their property.
3. Could it be cleaned up? Sure. Do they need to be labelled as neglectful property owners? Absolutely not.
The family bought a former gas station in 1978 and have been humming and hawing about remediation costs since then. No one is a bad person, but bad investments happen.
Deletehttps://www.bcassessment.ca//Property/Info/QTAwMDBNMUYxNA==
Tear the building down, leave the tanks in the ground. Create a paid parking lot. Sell monthly and annual parking passes.
No one will willingly buy or develop on a lot that has tanks in the ground.
Start watching just after 11:00 when Mr. Chirico says that infrastructure was removed after the gas station closed. It doesn’t appear that tanks are in the ground. Your assertions of them humming and hawing since 1978 are false. That property was developed and in use from 1986-2012.
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=789&v=_kZ70G-C2VA&ebc=ANyPxKrToFQf3muxO_kZX9jLPAjTKedrWr_HTcOeBdnixe6BLOtR-6neVKFWzcokEltnFGud63lGb7pmHtLVPn51_Ej57OU8oA&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.princerupert.ca%2F&source_ve_path=MTM5MTE3LDEzOTExNywyODY2Ng&feature=emb_logo
It has been a derelict building for YEARS, more than a decade. What was the excuse all those years?
DeleteVacant doesn’t mean that it’s derelict. Would new plywood on the windows appease you?
DeleteAgain, if you watch their presentation it’s all there.
Words like doesn't appear is like saying maybe.
DeleteIf Husky vacated in 2012 and decommissioned in 2014, than it should be a compliant site.
A decade later, there are no certificates confirming compliance, and now more certificates are needed from the government.
That sounds like humming and hawing to this reader.
“This reader” should do some research and pay attention to what’s being said. These processes take time. The site is contaminated from historical uses. No humming and hawwing. It’s a waiting game in terms of remediation and permit approvals.
DeleteIt’s what isn’t being said.
DeleteWhy ten years for certificates?
The city built a dam in less than ten years, it doesn’t take that long for paperwork.
“ Regardless, this type of in-situ remediation can take years or even decades, and in the meantime we can end up with a vacant lot, surrounded by a rental fence, …”
Delete“ The owner is limited by what (s)he can do with the contaminated land (because they can’t get those municipal permits), but unless they have a compelling business reason to do something about the contamination, there is no law or other requirement saying they need to take any action towards cleaning it up. ”
Yet, we have an owner who’s clearly indicated a years long endeavour to move forward.
https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2013/04/whats-with-abandoned-gas-stations-part-1.html
Gas stations are redeveloped all the time in other areas.
DeleteSo first the excuse was it was contaminated before the gas station.
Now it’s a not being able to get municipal permits for a decade.
We have an owner who wants to move forward but doesn’t communicate a mailing address to the city they own property in?
You’re losing in the court of public opinion.
Don’t think so. Mine is a public opinion.
DeleteTheres all sorts of good reasons why things are the way they are. At the end of the day, the Chirico family are valuable contributors to our community despite what a few whiners might think.
There are reasons and excuses.
DeleteI would like to thank the Chirico family for contributing to Prince Rupert's Cruise Mummy award win.
https://www.cruisemummy.co.uk/worst-cruise-ports/
Been an eye sore for years, nothing being done. For a family that has owned property for years. They don't show that they care about this community.
ReplyDeleteObviously you didn’t listen to what was said .
ReplyDeleteIn the environment in our town right now with vandalism and that,
ReplyDeleteRight now councillor?
You've been in the chair for over two terms and the vandalism issue is a concern of yours right now?
The city has missed an opportunity to increase the taxes on vacant commercial and residential properties.
These vacant properties are eye sores, nuisances, and impact the quality of life for residents.
Think how much additional tax could have been made off of the owners of the DQ site over the years.