CITY OF VANCOUVER

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

 

Date:

October 28, 2004

 

Author:

Pattie Hayes

 

Phone No.:

604-873-7787

 

RTS No.:

04636

 

CC File No.:

2701

 

Meeting Date:

December 2, 2004

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

City Building Inspector

SUBJECT:

6965 Fleming Street
Warning to Prospective Purchasers

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

Section 336D of the Vancouver Charter provides a mechanism whereby the City of Vancouver can warn prospective purchasers of contraventions of City By-laws relating to land or a building or structure. It provides that if the City Building Inspector observes a condition that he considers to be a contravention of a By-law relating to the construction or safety of buildings; or as a result of that condition, a building or structure is unsafe or unlikely to be usable for its expected purpose; or is of a nature that a purchaser, unaware of the contravention, would suffer a significant loss or expense if the By-law were enforced against him, he may recommend to City Council that a resolution be considered directing the City Clerk to file a notice against the title to the property in the Land Title Office.

Sections 334 and 571 of the Vancouver Charter allow the City to seek injunctive relief for any By-law contravention.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to request approval to file a 336D Notice against the title to 6965 Fleming Street to warn prospective purchasers of By-law violations and to request approval to seek injunctive relief.

BACKGROUND

The property addressed as 6965 Fleming Street is approved as a one family dwelling and is located in an RS-1 (One Family Dwelling) District. This building was constructed in September of 2002.

As a result of a complaint, our inspection services reported that an approximate 12' X 14' sundeck addition at the rear of the second storey was erected without permit or approval in contravention of the Zoning and Development and Vancouver Building By-laws.

The owners were ordered to stop work in October of 2002 and make application for the required permits or remove the unapproved work. As no applications had been submitted, and the unapproved work was still existing, in November of 2002 the owners were ordered to remove the sundeck addition. In November of 2003 the owners were found guilty in Provincial Court and were fined.

A Development Permit was then applied for and was refused. A subsequent appeal to the Board of Variance was heard January of 2004 and was also disallowed. A follow-up inspection was carried out, and it was reported that the sundeck addition to the second storey was still existing. A further order was sent to the owners in January of 2004 to remove the sundeck addition. In August of 2004 the owners were again found guilty in Provincial Court and received a second fine.

DISCUSSION

A recent inspection indicated that the unapproved sundeck addition still exists and no permits or approvals have been obtained.

CONCLUSION

Although the building is not currently listed for sale, it is recommended that a 336D Notice be filed against the title so that any prospective purchasers will be warned that there are violations of the Zoning and Development and Vancouver Building By-laws. Subject to Council approval, I will be referring this matter to the Director of Legal Services to request that she commence legal action and seek an injunction if, in her opinion, it is appropriate to do so.

* * * * *