Attachment 11: 2023 09 01 Kim Anema CAO to Beckers
Email from the CAO regarding the Town's position on the project and the requirement for engineering sign-offs.
From: Kim Anema KAnema@viewroyal.ca Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 11:31 AM To: Leanne Taylor ltaylor@viewroyal.ca; Stephen Patterson spatterson@viewroyal.ca Subject: FW: Request for In-Camera Meeting to discuss the Town of View Royal's New Building Bylaw No. 1111 and Inspection Process
This email will not get a response.
Kim Anema, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer Town of View Royal | 45 View Royal Ave. | Victoria, BC V9B 1A6 | Ph: 250-479-6800 | Fx: 250-727-9551
From: anna.becker Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 11:23 AM To: Kim Anema KAnema@viewroyal.ca Cc: Sid Tobias mayortobias@viewroyal.ca; 'John Becker' Subject: RE: Request for In-Camera Meeting to discuss the Town of View Royal's New Building Bylaw No. 1111 and Inspection Process
Hello Kim,
I appreciate that the Town of View Royal, as we do, wants to adhere to legislation and regulations; however, John and I asked for the Town’s help as we have an engineer who is not listening to our concerns regarding the potential structural failure due to five (5) out of the six (6) 6x6 supporting posts on the ground floor failing. To assist us in addressing our concerns, the Town obtained the 3rd party review by UNISOL Engineering Ltd. who agreed with us by suggesting that if a problem exists, it is due to the grade of the post.
Given the 3rd party did not obtain the drawings from us, in my July 23rd email and during the August 15th meeting with the Building Inspector and the Director of Development Services, John and I asked the Building Inspector to confirm with UNISOL what documents they used to conduct their “sample calculations” using “more accurate with our estimations of the existing (P5) post capacities”. We also asked for UNISOL’s calculations between the point loads for a Grade 1 versus a Grade 2 6x6 Douglas Fir and the load changes from I-beam to 2x12s.
We asked for this information through the Town’s Building Inspector as UNISOL’s email of June 15, 2023 (attached for ease of reference) states “3) The report was addressed to, and for the use of, the Town of View Royal only. It is up to them to decide if they will distribute it or not. If they decide to do so, then UNISOL Engineering Ltd is neither responsible, nor liable, for any decisions and/or actions taken by any other party on the basis of that report.”
As a side note, if you review the email trail, you will note that UNISOL changes their mandate from “confirm/identify differences between the original design and construction so I will probably be on site about an hour” to “review the engineer’s documents and express an opinion on whether the details conformed to the level expected of a practicing engineer.” We do not know if the change in mandate happened due to discussion(s) between the Town and UNISOL or unilaterally by UNISOL.
We are puzzled why the Town is keeping the information (the documents used for calculations, the point load differences, and load changes) from us, as we are the party being injured, and as previously mentioned, the BC Building Code allows for requesting the design calculations and analysis. John and I asked for the Town’s assistance to be proactive in trying to ensure the building at 12 Vickery Road does not collapse due to:
- OS2.1 – loads bearing on the building elements that exceed their loadbearing capacity
- OS2.2 – loads bearing on the building that exceed the loadbearing properties of the supporting medium”.
To continue to build, without changing the 6x6 supporting posts to a larger size or a different composition, is like going down the road heading directly towards a stonewall and hoping the stonewall will move out of the way.
We are disappointed the Mayor and you are unable to meet with us regarding our building project and the position the Town has taken:
“As the Engineer has not provided passing field reviews, the Building Inspector cannot continue inspections at 12 Vickery. Once the Engineers are satisfied that the owners have rectified all deficiencies and has submitted passing field reports the Town of View Royal can continue with inspections at 12 Vickery, If the Owner fails to comply with these requirements staff will consider recommendation to Council that a Note be placed on the Land Title of 12 Vickery that building regulations are contravened.”
Please be advised, as we do not want to misquote or to reference previous information incorrectly, we are keeping our correspondences with the Town, the Engineer on Record, and with the third-party reviewer (UNISOL) on file.
Anna
From: Kim Anema KAnema@viewroyal.ca Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:01 AM To: anna.becker Subject: RE: Request for In-Camera Meeting to discuss the Town of View Royal's New Building Bylaw No. 1111 and Inspection Process
Good morning.
It is my understanding that your project falls outside of Part 9 of the British Columbia Building code and therefore requires participation of a Structural Engineer.
Your building permit was issued with the understanding that the project Engineer on record is Buepoint Consulting ltd.
We also understand that a 3rd party review was completed by Unisol Engineering LTD.
The 3rd party review concluded that the Engineer on record has fulfilled his duties in designing a house that does comply to best Engineering practices.
Our building Inspector provided you with the following email August 22, 2023 to clarify your role in regards to the involvement of the Engineer participation in your project as follows:
“To John and Anna Becker,
In response to your email of August 15th, 2023, the following information has been provided.
- It is the owner’s responsibility to provide information with respect to the Structural Engineer on record for the single-family dwelling.
- Any questions with regards to documents and or calculations used must be followed up by the owners and their Engineer on record.
The original building permit required that a Structural Engineer be involved with the construction and design of the single-family dwelling. The Town of View Royals office received a building permit application containing owner supplied building plans, sealed engineered stamped drawings along with British Columbia Building Code Schedules. Buepoint consulting ltd is the Structural Engineering firm that was hired by John and Anna Becker to assist them with the design and construction of their single-family dwelling. Subsequently, a building permit was issued by the Town of View Royal which would not have been granted prior to receiving all required documents.
As per Notes to Part 2 Administrative Provisions of the 2018 British Columbia Building Code: A-2.2.1.2.(1)Structural Design. Part 4 of Division B is written on the assumption that structural design will be carried out by a registered professional who is qualified to perform such design.
The above information indicates that it is the owner’s responsibility to follow up with their Engineer on record for any information regarding the Engineers inspections and structural information. Please contact Buepoint consulting ltd at 1-250-597-2296 or engineering@buepoint.com.
Stephen Patterson”
The Building Inspector response was intended to clarify that the Town of View Royal is not responsible for obtaining information from the Engineer on behalf of the owners at 12 Vickery.
It is solely the homeowner’s responsibility to work with their Engineer on record and to comply with all designs and receive a Schedule C-B upon completion.
The 2018 British Columbia Building Code clearly states that a Schedule C-B must be submitted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (The Town of View Royal) before an occupancy can be granted.
As the Engineer has not provided passing field reviews, the Building Inspector cannot continue inspections at 12 Vickery.
Once the Engineers are satisfied that the owners have rectified all deficiencies and has submitted passing field reports the Town of View Royal can continue with inspections at 12 Vickery,
If the Owner fails to comply with these requirements staff will consider recommendation to Council that a Note be placed on the Land Title of 12 Vickery that building regulations are contravened.
In the meantime, Mayor Tobias, and Kim Anema, the Chief Administrative Officer, are not in a position to meet with you on the subject of your building project.
Best Regards
Kim
Kim Anema, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer Town of View Royal | 45 View Royal Ave. | Victoria, BC V9B 1A6 | Ph: 250-479-6800 | Fx: 250-727-9551
From: anna.becker Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 5:47 PM To: Sid Tobias mayortobias@viewroyal.ca; Kim Anema KAnema@viewroyal.ca Subject: FW: Request for In-Camera Meeting to discuss the Town of View Royal's New Building Bylaw No. 1111 and Inspection Process Importance: High
Dear Mayor Tobias and Mr. Anema,
Before the in-camera meeting regarding the Town of View Royal’s New Building Bylaw, we would like to meet with you to discuss our building (Building Permit # 2485) concerns.
As Mayor Tobias was carbon copied in our July 23rd email and August 15th response to Stephen Patterson regarding the UNISOL Engineering Ltd. (UNISOL) report findings and Mr. Anema was carbon copied in Stephen’s email dated August 22nd, you have some background information regarding our concerns with the building inspection process and the build at 12 Vickery Road.
In my August 15th email, I requested the Town of View Royal to follow up with UNISOL to request which documents they used to reach their conclusion “We believe the engineering drawings are adequate for this structure” and how they determined “We are satisfied that member sizes appear adequate”. Stephen and/or Leanne Taylor were to request this information from UNISOL as their report was prepared for the Town of View Royal.
We asked for this information as the 2018 BC Building Code section 2.2.4.5. Design Calculations and Analysis, point 1) states “The calculations and analysis made in the design of the structural members, including parts and components, of a building shall be available for inspection upon request”; and therefore, the Town of View Royal has the capability to request how UNISOL determined “member sizes appear adequate”. We did not request the information from the Engineer on Record (EOR) as we asked for a second opinion because we believed a mistake was made when the EOR issued change directives but he did not take into consideration the impact these change directives on the load bearing posts on the Ground Floor.
We look forward to meeting you in person.
Sincerely, Anna and John Becker
From: anna.becker Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 8:46 AM To: 'mayortobias@viewroyal.ca' mayortobias@viewroyal.ca; 'Don Brown' dbrown@viewroyal.ca; 'dkowalewich@viewroyal.ca' dkowalewich@viewroyal.ca; 'glemon@viewroyal.ca' glemon@viewroyal.ca; 'amackenzie@viewroyal.ca' amackenzie@viewroyal.ca; 'rmattson@viewroyal.ca' rmattson@viewroyal.ca; 'jrogers@viewroyal.ca' jrogers@viewroyal.ca Cc: 'john' Subject: Request for In-Camera Meeting to discuss the Town of View Royal's New Building Bylaw No. 1111 and Inspection Process Importance: High
Dear Mayor and Council:
We, John and Anna Becker, have been residents of the Town of View Royal since April 1, 2003, and during the past 20 years, we have completed additions for two houses and are currently working on a new build.
As the Town of View Royal (“Town”) has scheduled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reading for the new Building Bylaw No. 1111 on September 5, 2023, we would like the opportunity to discuss, in camera, our past and present experience with the Town’s building inspection process prior to the enactment of the new Building Bylaw to assist the Town in avoiding situations like RidgeView Place in Langford. In particular, we would like to discuss our current situation at 12 Vickery Road: an Owner/Build construction. As the builder, we identified an unsafe situation and after trying to work with our engineer on record, we advised the Building Inspector of our concerns regarding a design flaw that may not meet the BC Building Code’s objective for Safety: “to limit the probability that, as a result of the design, construction or demolition of the building, a person in or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury” (Division A: Compliance, Objectives and Functional Statements, section 2.2.1.1 Objectives, point 1) OS Safety).
With the help of the Town’s Building Inspector, we received confirmation that the supporting posts are failing and checking; however, the Review of Engineering Details Specified for New Structure at 12 Vickery Rd report does not provide supporting evidence as to how they reached their conclusions. As the report was prepared for the Town of View Royal, we requested the Building Inspector to ask the report writer for supporting evidence in order to confirm the conclusions took into consideration the engineer’s approved changes during construction. We’ve requested the supporting evidence as we believe that structural failure is imminent if we continue the build without making changes to the supporting posts on the ground floor. Without this correction, the build would result in a similar situation as RidgeView Place as per BC Building Code’s Objectives section OS2.1 and OS2.2, the “risks of structural failure addressed in this Code are those caused by--
- OS2.1 – loads bearing on the building elements that exceed their loadbearing capacity
- OS2.2 – loads bearing on the building that exceed the loadbearing properties of the supporting medium”.
Lastly, as the construction industry is currently waiting for the BC Codes 2023 to be adopted later in the year with a December 2023 effective date, pending ministerial approval, why is the Town of View Royal enacting a new Building Bylaw before the BC Building Codes 2023 takes effect? The following link shows you the notice currently posted on BC Codes website: BC Codes.
We look forward to meeting you in person to discuss the options to improve the Town of View Royal’s new Building Bylaw and the inspection process to avoid situations like RidgeView Place.
Sincerely,
John and Anna Becker 24 Vickery Road View Royal, BC