Date:  June 09, 1997
                                                C.C. File No.:

   TO:       Standing Committee on Planning & Environment

   FROM:     City Building Inspector

   SUBJECT:  Demolition of Nuisance/Dangerous Building
             331 East 38th Avenue
             Request for extension of time


        THAT Council deny the extension request and instruct the
        City Building Inspector to proceed with the demolition of
        the building as per Council's Resolution of July 9, 1996.


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


   Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter enables Council by
   resolution or By-law to declare any building, in or upon any
   private or public lands a nuisance or dangerous to the public
   safety or health and by such By-law or resolution, to order that
   building to be removed by the owner, agent, lessee or occupier


   The following is a chronology of the events that have transpired
   with respect to this property:

        January, 1986       - single family dwelling extensively
                            damaged by fire

        1986 - 1996         - several orders to board-up building
                            and clean up the site (no repairs to
                            fire damage carried out)

        May 13, 1986        - petition submitted to Mayor and
                            Council from 14 neighbouring residents
                            requesting that Council require the
                            unsafe and unsightly building to be
                            renovated or removed

        May 28, 1996        - letter to property owner requesting
                            that they obtain demolition permit and
                            demolish building or City will request
                            that Council declare the building a

        July 9, 1996        - report to Council to declare building
                            a nuisance pursuant to Section 324A of
                            the Vancouver Charter

                            - Council unanimously approved the
                            recommendation and ordered the
                            registered owner to remove the building
                            and all demolition debris

        July 25, 1996       - owners ex-husband, Mr. Jack Sedlack,
                            appeared before Council to request that
                            they rescind the Resolution

                            - Council denied the request and

                            reiterated its motion of July 9, 1996
                            upholding the Resolution

        October 11, 1996    - Jack Sedlack obtained Combined
                            Development and Building Permit No.
                            DB403178 to carry out repairs to

                            - Mr. Sedlack advised by staff that he
                            must request that Council rescind the
                            Resolution before proceeding with

        December 12, 1996   - Council denies Mr. Sedlack's request
                            to rescind the demolition order but
                            instructs the City Building Inspector to
                            hold in abeyance the Resolution for a
                            period of 90 days.

        January 2, 1997     - owner advised in writing that work to

                            repair the building to a safe and
                            presentable condition to the discretion
                            of the City Building Inspector must be
                            completed by March 12, 1997

        March 12, 1997      - re-inspection confirmed no substantial
                            work done

        April 1, 1997       - owner advised in writing that work
                            under Combined Development and Building
                            Permit No. DB403178 has not progressed
                            satisfactorily and that demolition would
                            proceed on April 22, 1997, as per
                            Council's Resolution on of July 9,

        April, 1997         - Peter Sweeney contacted by Ombudsman's
                            office regarding the City's actions. 
                            Ombudsman recommends that the owner
                            submit a bond and a timetable for
                            completion of the work

        April 18, 1997      - Jack Sedlack submits his timetable
                            guaranteeing completion of the exterior
                            of the building complete with windows
                            and stucco within 27 days

        April 21, 1997      - letter sent to owner requiring written
                            agreement to complete work as per Mr.
                            Sedlack's timetable plus a Letter of
                            Credit in the amount of $17,500.00 to
                            allow City to complete work if Mr.
                            Sedlack defaults

        May 5, 1997         - meeting with Mr. Sedlack, John Nelson
                            (Law), Peter Sweeney and Carlene Robbins

                            regarding the proposed agreement and
                            Letter of Credit.  Mr. Sedlack and
                            property owner given final written
                            notice to provide Letter of Commitment
                            and Letter of Credit by May 12, 1997 or
                            City would proceed with demolition

        May 6, 1997         - City receives notification that Mr.
                            Sedlack has retained a lawyer (Bruce
                            Melville of Petersen Stark)

        May 8, 1997         - all documentation related to property
                            sent to lawyer

        May 12, 1997        - Letter of Commitment and Letter of
                            Credit not submitted - no notification
                            received from Mr. Sedlack's lawyer.

        May 15, 1997        - written notice sent to property owner
                            that demolition will proceed on
                            Wednesday, May 21, 1997

        May 21, 1997        - City commences demolition work but
                            stops when Mr. Sedlack appears on site
                            stating that he had obtained a court
                            order. (Subsequent calls to Mr.
                            Sedlack's Lawyer and search of Court
                            Registry reveals that no court order in

        May 27, 1997        - request for extension of time
                            submitted by Jack Sedlack to City Clerk
                            and Council with a petition from
                            neighbouring residents

        June 4, 1997        - letter couriered to owner and Jack

                            Sedlack by City Solicitor advising that
                            Ursula Sedlack must appear before
                            Council and that a reinspection of the
                            site will occur on the 25th of June to
                            determine if any progress has been made 


   Staff have had numerous meetings and discussions with Mr. Sedlack
   over the past year wherein they have urged him to hire a
   competent crew to assist him in completing the work.  Mr. Sedlack
   appears determined to work on the building virtually on his own
   and at his own pace.  Consequently, there has been very little
   progress as of the date of this report.

   The building as it stands today, has no roof, only partial
   exterior sheathing, no exterior finishings such as stucco,
   windows, or doors.  This building is not adequately secured and
   is accessible to the public.  The owner and Mr. Sedlack have had

   over eight months since issuance of the Building Permit, yet have
   not demonstrated their ability to complete the job.

   Ursula Sedlack has been kept up to date on the issues with
   respect to her property but appears to have taken a back seat to
   Mr. Sedlack's involvement.  Both parties have been advised that
   because Ursula Sedlack is the property owner, the City will be
   dealing with her on all future matters unless she confirms that
   Mr. Sedlack has the legal authority to act on her behalf.


   As of the writing of this report, staff have no confidence that
   Jack Sedlack or Ursula Sedlack have the means or inclination to
   complete the work on the building within a specified time frame,
   and feel that another extension will only prolong detrimental
   impact on the neighbourhood and the inevitable demolition action. 

                 *   *   *   *   *