ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: June 09, 1997
C.C. File No.:
2701-1
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
RECOMMENDATION
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.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS
approval of the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
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
thereof.
BACKGROUND
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
nuisance.
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
building
- Mr. Sedlack advised by staff that he
must request that Council rescind the
Resolution before proceeding with
repairs
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,
1996.
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
place.)
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
DISCUSSION
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
* * * * *