Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-07-148 - Followup Information on Demolition PermitsrTC~ Economic flevelopmenf REPORT Report To: Councillor Christina Weylie, Chair & Development and Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: September 10t", 2007 Submitted By: Rob Browning, General Manager, DTS Prepared By: Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning Shayne Turner, Director of Enforcement Mike Selling, Director of BuildinglCBO wards} Involved: All Date of Report: August 30t", 2007 Report No.: DTS-07-148 Subject: Follow up Information on Demolition Permits RECOMMENDATION: For information only EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In researching this matter, the purpose of demolition control is to prevent premature or unjustified demolition of residential buildings. There are essentially two types of cases which may come forward. One is when the proponent requests a demolition permit. This is generally the easier one to manage. Currently, the City will issue demolition permits provided the proponent has a plan to reconstruct on the site within two years. Examples will be provided in the report illustrating why this policy exists. Although this is standard practice, if circumstances dictate accordingly, staff has been flexible and have recommended that demolition permits be issued without conditions where circumstances warrant. The more difficult occurrence is when the property owner does not request a demolition permit and may not want to demolish the building yet it is in a state of repair which takes away from the neighbourhood. In these cases the City's Property Standards By-law maybe looked at as a tool to deal with these buildings where the owner is not being cooperative in terms of moving forward with demolition and redevelopment plans. Assuming that the building is in a state of disrepair, such that obvious violations are evident, a Property Standards Order could be issued to require that the items in violation be repaired so as to return the building to a state that is more acceptable to the adjacent neighbourhood. Upon receiving the Order, the owner has the option to carry out the required work or demolish the building. The other potential avenue in a case where the owner does not request a permit is if the Chief Building Official receives a report from a structural engineer certifying the building is structurally unsafe. In this case the CBO may act under the Building Code legislation and order the building or parts of it to be demolished to remove the unsafe condition. -1- BACKGROUND: At the Development and Technical Services Committee meeting of August 13t", 2007, Council requested additional information on how the city could handle buildings within the City which were in a state of disrepair. Council observed that there are a few buildings which require attention. These buildings may be creating safety issues or may generally be having a detrimental impact on the appearance of a neighbourhood. REPORT: The purpose of demolition control is to prevent premature or unjustified demolition of residential buildings. There are essentially two types of cases which may come forward. One is when the proponent requests a demolition permit. This is the easier one to manage. With the exception of heritage buildings, the City will generally issue demolition permits provided the proponent has a plan to reconstruct on the site within two years. Examples will be provided in the report illustrating why this approach is used. However, if circumstances dictate accordingly, staff has been flexible and have recommended that demolition permits be issued without conditions. The various types of approval are outlined below. Unconditional Approval If the demolition is justified and no new building is proposed, Planning typically recommends unconditional approval. Examples where these approvals have been granted include the house on a church lot at Stirling and Highland and one of two houses on a group home lot at Union and Park. Conditional Approval If a new building -residential or not - is proposed (and regardless of the condition of the existing building) this typically justifies the demolition and staff will generally recommend conditional approval. The condition requires substantial completion of the new building within two years from the date that the demolition permit is issued. Failure results in a fine of $20,000 per residential unit demolished. There is some flexibility here. The time period can be more than two years but not less. The amount can be anything up to $20,000. Council may later revisit the condition and extend or waive it (this was commonly the case in the early 1990s). Conditional approval is effective when it results in a residential building remaining in use until redevelopment is truly imminent. It is not so effective if it results in a residential building remaining in place but in disrepair or vacant condition and beyond renovating. An owner is likely to defer obtaining a demolition permit (which starts the 2 year clock ticking) until they are sure of redevelopment. Refusal Refusal would be recommended if the demolition is simply not justified. This is rare but the examples are noteworthy. If another Margaret Avenue situation arose (stately homes demolished on northeast side of Margaret between Queen and Maynard; no imminent redevelopment then or now; community still remembers many years later and does not want to see a repeat) staff would likely recommend refusal. -2- The Mutual/Clarica/SunLife houses on Park Street were not approved for demolition in the late 1990s. In a negotiated settlement the City agreed to allow demolition of houses on Mutual Street and Mount Hope Street, as well as two on Park Street. Clarica agreed to retain 10 houses, which were renovated and leased out as office space to community service groups, etc. until redevelopment of the block for new buildings was imminent. This satisfied the community's interest in retaining the residential streetscape appearance along this stretch of Park Street, as opposed to demolition for a surface parking lot. "Soft Refusal" or "Soft Conditional Approval" If the demolition is to be justified on the basis that the building is deteriorating and prohibitively costly to repair, and no new building is proposed, staff typically will not recommend approval as there is an expectation that property owners maintain their buildings. However, as staff also want to be practical they will include balanced comments in the staff report. Staff will discuss the matter with the Ward Councillor so that Council can opt for unconditional approval with some justification. Other Considerations The question "Is it better to have a vacant site than a derelict building?"should be considered if no new development is proposed. In the case of the Kraushaar land assembly (FredericklLancasterlBingeman)the buildings were boarded up and sat vacant for years. Later they were sold off individually. The homes on Bingeman and Lancaster have been renovated and families have moved back in. Likewise some of the buildings on Frederick have been renovated and mixed commercial/residential uses have moved in. Some demolition and reconstruction has been allowed. Over all the character of the area and the heritage value of the buildings and streetscape has been retained. In recent years staff has considered improvements to the demolition procedure, to achieve streamlining efficiencies, but have not completed this work. In the mean time we will raise the question "Is it better to have a vacant site than a derelict building?" in our reports to Committee/Council. The more difficult occurrence is when the property owner does not request a demolition permit and may not want to demolish the building yet it is in a state of repair which has a negative effect on the neighbourhood. In these cases the City's Property Standards By-law may be looked at as a tool to deal with these buildings where the owner is not being responsible by maintaining or repairing the building, or not being progressive in terms of moving forward with demolition and redevelopment plans. Assuming that the building is in a state of disrepair, such that obvious violations are evident, a Property Standards Order could be issued to require that the items in violation be repaired so as to return the building to a state that is more acceptable to the adjacent neighbourhood. Upon receiving the Order, the owner has the option to carry out the required work or demolish the building with a demolition permit. Under this scenario, the owner has the option of appealing the Order, and the Property Standards Appeal Committee would be required to rule on the appeal. Assuming that the Order is confirmed, and the owner still fails to comply with the Order within the prescribed time frame, City staff could proceed with the demolition procedure. This would require collaborating with the Building and Planning Divisions to prepare a report to justify unconditional approval of a demolition permit. This justification should consider factors such as -3- the heritage value of the building, length of time the building sat vacant, its current state of disrepair, any safety concerns, the amount of time and resources expended by City staff to monitor and deal with issues arising from the vacant state and any evidence of illegal access being gained to the structure itself. Incases where the owner does not request a demolition permit and the building is structurally inadequate, the Chief Building Official may declare the building or part thereof unsafe pursuant the Building Code Act. Prior to the CBO declaring a building or part thereof unsafe under this scenario, the CBO will review a report prepared by a structural engineer including a visit to the site for verification. Where an unsafe condition exists, the CBO will take the necessary steps to remedy the unsafe condition and to protect and maintain public safety. The CBO will issue a written Order to the owner(s) advising the building or part thereof must be demolished to remove the unsafe condition. When the CBO issues an Order for the building or part thereof to be demolished, a demolition permit will be obtained, however demolition control is not applicable given the unsafe condition. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None at this time COMMUNICATIONS None SUMMARY It seems there are a few options which can be exercised when the building owner is willing to apply for a demolition permit. Staff examines the details around each application and determines their best recommendation for Council's consideration. The challenging situation occurs when the building owner is not looking after the property and does not apply for a demolition permit. Unless the building can be determined by an engineer to be structurally unsafe (and therefore the CBO can take action under the Building Code Act), the only option left is to proceed using the property standards approach. This approach can be onerous and take some time as staff work through compliance periods and appeals. Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning Rob Browning, General Manager Development & Technical Services Shayne Turner, Director of Enforcement Mike Selling, Director of Building/CBO -4-