CITY OF VANCOUVER
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
FEBRUARY 27, 1997
A Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Thursday, February 27, 1997, at approximately 5:08 p.m. in the
Council Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall, following the Standing
Committee on Planning and Environment meeting, to consider the
recommendations of the Committee.
PRESENT: Mayor Philip Owen
Councillor Don Bellamy
Councillor Nancy A. Chiavario
Councillor Jennifer Clarke
Councillor Alan Herbert
Councillor Gordon Price
Councillor George Puil
Councillor Sam Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Lynne Kennedy
(Due to Conflict of Interest)
Councillor Daniel Lee (Sick Leave)
Councillor Don Lee (Sick Leave)
CITY MANAGER'S
OFFICE: Judy Rogers, Deputy City Manager
CLERK TO THE
COUNCIL: Nancy Largent
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor
Owen in the Chair.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
February 27, 1997
Council considered the recommendations of the Committee as
contained in the following clause of the attached report:
Cl. 1: Warning to Prospective Purchasers of Individual Strata Lots at
1238 Seymour Street
Warning to Prospective Purchasers of Individual
Strata Lots at 1238 Seymour Street (Clause 1)
MOVED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT the recommendations of the Committee, as contained in Clause 1
of the report, be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Clarke,
SECONDED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Council adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
* * * * *
REPORT TO COUNCIL
STANDING COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
ON PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
FEBRUARY 27, 1997
A Regular Meeting of the Standing Committee on Planning and
Environment was held on Thursday, February 27, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. in
Committee Room No. 1, Third Floor, City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Philip Owen
Councillor Don Bellamy
Councillor Nancy A. Chiavario
Councillor Jennifer Clarke
Councillor Alan Herbert
Councillor Gordon Price
Councillor George Puil
Councillor Sam Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Lynne Kennedy
(Due to Conflict of Interest)
Councillor Daniel Lee (Sick Leave)
Councillor Don Lee (Sick Leave)
CITY MANAGER'S
OFFICE: Judy Rogers, Deputy City Manager
CLERK TO THE
COMMITTEE: Nancy Largent
RECOMMENDATION
1. Warning to Prospective Purchasers of Individual
Strata Lots at 1238 Seymour Street
The Committee had before it an Administrative Report dated February
12, 1997, in which the City Building Inspector recommended 336D Notices
be filed against the Certificate of Title of various individual strata
lots at 1238 Seymour Street, in order to warn prospective purchasers
that there are contraventions of the Zoning and Development and
Vancouver Building By-laws related to these strata lots. The General
Manager of Community Services recommended approval.
Peter Sweeney, Supervisor, Building Inspections, reviewed Council's
authority under Section 336D of the Vancouver Charter to file notices
against the titles of property. These notices are intended to warn
purchasers that by-laws have been contravened, such that a purchaser may
suffer significant loss or expense if the by-law were enforced. Mr.
Sweeney reviewed the history of the building, and described work carried
out without permit or approval. Issues include:
combustible construction of mezzanine additions and concerns over
their structural integrity;
inadequate sprinkler coverage or covered sprinkler heads;
replacement of existing stairs by spiral stars which do not meet
Building By-law requirements;
uncertainty as to safety of electrical work done without permit and
covered without inspection;
breaches in fire separation;
additions to mezzanines and removal of balcony doors which have
increased floor space beyond the maximum allowed.
The infractions threaten the life safety of occupants of the
building, and could financially impact upon prospective purchasers.
Therefore, staff are recommending 336D Notices be placed against the
titles while staff proceed with enforcement.
The following speakers opposed the recommendation. All speakers
were suite owners or represented suite owners at 1238 Seymour:
Amalia Liapis
Chris Kientz
Mervyn Vidler
Allan Altenburg
Marc Ramsay
Peter Ryznar
George Costa
Daniel Koppersmith
Jocelyne Peden
Eduardo Shinyei
Rob Utendale
Stuart Child
Sarah Lloyd
Elizabeth Fricke
Jackson McKiee
Scott Lewis
Angus Ingram
Martin Aldaba
Aaron Hughes
Robert Smith
Barry Wilkinson
The foregoing opposed the recommendation for one or more of the
following reasons;
if 336D Notices are filed against the suites, their value will fall
below the level insured by the CMHC and lenders will foreclose on
the mortgages; many speakers indicated they do not have the means
to pay off their loans, and would be forced into bankruptcy;
336D Notices are an unnecessarily harsh measure, since prospective
purchasers could be protected through a Real Estate Board
Disclosure Statement instead, without such drastic effects on the
owners' financial positions;
few suites in the building are currently for sale, and in view of
the heavy media exposure of this building, it is unlikely that any
prospective buyer would be unaware there have been problems;
not all suites have life safety contraventions, and it seems unfair
that those with only zoning-related contraventions should suffer
the same severe financial repercussions;
purchasers were mislead by the building realtors, who marketed this
building on the premise that owners could do whatever they liked
with the space, without reference to permit requirements, and even
offered sample books and other inducements to encourage purchasers
to make creative use of the space;
many of the purchasers were first-time home buyers, who were
naively unaware of the need to obtain permits;
some owners claimed the realtors had assured them that permits were
not required, while others were told that since the building had
its occupancy permit and would not be re-inspected, permits were
not an issue;
the building units upon occupancy were essentially shells
(staircases, for example, were constructed so as to be easily
removed), and the owners would never have bought them if they had
realized they would be unable to make many of the necessary changes
to make their suites livable;
the units will not be livable if the owners are not permitted to
retain the alterations they have made, and they will suffer
financial hardship if required to make replacements;
one owner argued his loft should be exempt because it is of
modular, i.e. removable, construction;
civic staff should work with the owners to find solutions to these
problems rather than bring down punitive measures;
the problem is a lack of floor space, and there are avenues which
could be explored to resolve this problem such as the purchase of
heritage density, with consultation between the owners and the
City;
some owners indicated willingness to bring their units into
compliance, but requested time to do so before the City considers
336D Notices;
some owners whose units are not in contravention of by-laws
appeared to support their fellow owners, and noted that their
property values may also be affected;
the building has not been inspected above the 11th floor, and some
speakers felt this indicated favouritism toward owners of those
units;
the City expected this building to be a problem, since it placed a
restrictive covenant on the units warning of insufficient floor
space for additions (subsequently removed after the purchase of
heritage f.s.r.) and instructed staff to inspect the building
annually, yet the owners rather than the developer are now being
penalized;
there are illegally renovated buildings all over the city (homes
with basement suites, for example), so why should the City choose
to make an example of this building only?
Terry Bland, Corporation Counsel, responded to a variety of
queries. Regarding the suggestion that property disclosure statements
would serve the same purpose as 336D Notices, Mr. Bland advised that
property disclosure statements are not statutory in nature, and may not
come to the attention of purchasers buying a property directly from the
owners or agent other than a real estate agent, whereas a title search
would always bring a 336D Notice to the prospective purchaser's
attention. Regardless of whether a 336D Notice is filed, the units must
be brought into compliance with City by-laws. Banks would likely be more
concerned about illegal construction than by 336D Notices. It would not
be possible for the City to amend its by-laws insofar as just one
building is concerned except that with regard to zoning issues, only,
Council has the power to change the zoning of the building following
Public Hearing. Mr. Bland also advised it would be Council's
responsibility to deal with each 336D Notice separately since the
circumstances of each unit vary, or at least to consider each class of
deficiency separately. Liability issues were also discussed.
Mr. Bland also asked several of the delegations about the content
of any prospectus or other materials provided to them by the Realtors.
Based on this, it appeared a formal prospectus may not have been
provided, and Mr. Bland indicated he would follow up on this question.
It also appeared that materials provided to the purchasers did state
that it would be necessary to obtain building permits, but not that it
would not be possible to obtain them for some types of renovations which
would likely be contemplated. Asked whether any legal requirements
could be brought to bear on real estate agents, Mr. Bland indicated this
would fall under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Real Estate,
who has the power to investigate this situation.
Mr. Sweeney responded to questions regarding the procedures to be
followed if Council approves the filing of 336D Notices, and to
otherwise deal with the infractions against City By-laws. Mr. Sweeney
indicated the owners would first be sent 30-day notices - or longer
should Council so chose - to give them an opportunity to rectify
infractions before notices are filed against their properties. The usual
procedure is to file immediately; however, these are unusual
circumstances. Discussions will continue with the owners about how best
to resolve some of the issues. For example, it may be possible to
resolve the density issue through purchase of heritage density or
through rezoning. The City Building Inspector is most concerned about
life safety issues, and the department will be enforcing those first.
Combustible materials, for example, must be removed.
In response to further questions, Mr. Sweeney clarified there may
be two types of infractions involved. In some cases, alterations may be
in violation because they were carried out without permit, but are
nonetheless permittable if a permit were obtained and an inspection
carried out. It is customary to withhold enforcement in such cases to
provide an opportunity to obtain a permit and have the work inspected.
However, there are also instances of alterations which can never be
brought into compliance, such as flammable construction materials.
Questioned regarding the possibility of similar infractions in
similar buildings, Mr. Sweeney advised a survey of other residential
buildings with extra-high ceilings is currently underway. If
infractions are found, enforcement will commence.
Mr. Bland confirmed it is at Council's discretion when to file
notices, weighing the potential problems for prospective purchasers
against the difficulties caused for owners.
Ron Dyck, Building Inspector, described his findings during
inspection of the building. Asked why he had not inspected the entire
building, Mr. Dyck explained that above the 11th floor, ceiling height
drops down and floor plates are larger. Some of these units were
inspected on a random basis but no infractions were found. Based on
these factors, and because inspection of every unit would be onerous,
not all units above the 11th floor were inspected.
Ted Droettboom, General Manager of Community Services, reviewed the
history of the building, which was referred to Council for advice by the
Development Permit Board at the development permit stage. The Board was
concerned that zoning for the area had not anticipated 17 foot
floor-to-ceiling heights, and asked Council whether this was acceptable.
Council advised it was acceptable with some conditions regarding floor
space. [The relevant extract from the January 13, 1994 Report to Council
and relevant Policy Report dated December 29, 1993 are on file.] The
covenant placed on the building was subsequently removed after the
developer purchased sufficient heritage f.s.r. to construct lofts in the
units, but anyone searching the title prior to August 9, 1996 would have
been aware of it.
Mr. Droettboom commented the City is now looking at a situation
unlike any it has faced before. A building has been created which will
continue to encourage its occupants to make alterations to it, with the
potential for life-threatening construction to occur in a multi-family
building. If alterations are made, they will not be visible from the
street. At this point there is no decent mechanism for dealing with
such situations, and one will have to be worked out. It is typically
the expectation in large urban areas that one does not construct without
a permit, but in this case a considerable number of owners claim to have
been ignorant of this requirement. If people are ignorant of the law,
the City may need to take steps to correct that. Mr. Droettboom
indicated he had recently written to the owners of a similar building
advising them of permit requirements and lack of residual f.s.r. in
their building.
The Committee expressed sympathy for the owners plight, and was
willing to afford a reasonable period of time to bring the building to
code before filing 336D Notices. However, the Committee was insistent
that no life-threatening alterations will be forgiven; they must be
brought to compliance or they must be removed.
The following motions by Councillor Price were put and carried.
Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
A. THAT the General Manager of Community Services meet with
representatives of the residents of 1238 Seymour Street to
report back on resolution of by-law infractions, floor space
issues, and parking requirements.
B. THAT the City Clerk be directed to file a 336D Notice against
the Certificate of Title to the specific strata lots outlined
in Appendix A of the Administrative Report dated February 12,
1997, in order to warn prospective purchasers that there is a
contravention of the Zoning and Development and Vancouver
Building By-laws related to these individual strata lots, at
the end of 60 days if violations are still present on which
enforcement is not being withheld.
C. THAT Council instruct the Director of Legal Services to refer
this matter to the appropriate licensing, regulatory and
professional bodies for investigation where there is a
possibility of a violation of any Acts, regulations or codes
of ethics.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The following motion by Councillor Herbert was put and carried.
Therefore the Committee
RECOMMENDED
D. THAT Council request the Superintendent of Real Estate to
require that a real estate salesperson must verbally draw to
the attention of a possible purchaser any covenants which have
been registered against a property offered for purchase.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The following motion by Councillor Chiavario was put and carried.
Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
E. THAT the entire building at 1238 Seymour Street be inspected.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.
* * *