Town of View Royal Minutes of a Council Meeting held June 2, 2015

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Screech called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers

THAT the agenda be amended to include item 9.1 (a);

AND THAT the agenda be approved as amended CARRIED

3. MINUTES, RECEIPT & ADOPTION OF

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers

THAT the minutes of the Council meeting held May 19, 2015 be adopted as presented. CARRIED

4. MAYOR’S REPORT

5. PETITIONS & DELEGATIONS

6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD

7. BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES

8. REPORTS

8.1 STAFF REPORTS

a) HEARING – 14A Helmsmen Road

This Hearing section of the Agenda is convened under the authority of s. 72-80, 17, 80 and 258 of the Community Charter.

1. Report dated May 19, 2015 from the Building Official

i) Comments from Municipal Staff

The Director of Protective Services stated that on May 19, 2015, property owners, P. and J. Alcock, were served by a process server a copy of the staff report dated May 19, 2015 and notice of tonight's meeting regarding consideration of remedial action with respect to 14A Helmcken Road. These same notices were served by way of process server on May 19, 2015 to occupants and tenants of the building.

The Director of Protective Services read verbatim the following sections of the report:

• staff recommendation;
• executive summary;
• Director of Protective Services' comments;
• background/discussion, including some of the complaints received about the property;
• budget implications; and
• conclusion.

He noted that he had reviewed R. Batchelor's (lawyer representing P. and J. Alcock) response to the staff report and identified for Council discrepancies in that response. The Director also stated that there is a pattern of lack of control over the property by the property owners and seemingly no intent to solve the ongoing issues at 14A Helmcken Road. He noted that should a fire start at the property, that it would spread rapidly due to the combustible and explosive material kept at the premises.

ii) Comments from the Respondents, Mr. & Mrs. Alcock

R. Batchelor suggested that an alternative dispute resolution would be an appropriate process to resolve this matter. He noted that the property owner has made several attempts to secure the residence on the property in the Fall of 2014.

Council and R. Batchelor discussed the arrangement between the property owner and a tenant at the site, whereby she was to have cleaned up the site in lieu of rent payments. R. Batchelor indicated that the property owner regrets having made such an arrangement with this tenant and filed an application to the Residential Tenancy Branch for dispute resolution; a copy of this application was not provided to the municipality. R. Batchelor inquired as to where in the remedial action requirements process this matter is. D. Goodfellow (lawyer representing the Town), described that notice of remedial action would only be given if the staff recommendation before Council is approved. The Mayor confirmed that the property owners could request reconsideration if the Council approves the staff recommendation.

R. Batchelor provided an historic overview of the site regarding construction, periods of vacancy, bylaw infractions and inspections. He noted that P. Alcock was shocked with the September 25, 2014 contact from the municipality not because of the marijuana plants found at the site, but because he was not aware of the seriousness of the state of the property and in particular the very bad condition of the residence.

R. Batchelor described that the property owner then contacted H. Dunn to undertake the assessment work required under the Town's Safe Premises Bylaw. The Town indicated to the property owner that H. Dunn did not meet the certification requirements and subsequently the property owner retained Northwest Environmental Group to undertake the required assessment work in March 2015. R. Batchelor stated that the property owner sought information as requested by the Residential Tenancy Branch from both the RCMP and the Town but did not receive what he asked for.

R. Batchelor indicated that he, the property owner and the property owner's son were involved in a telephone conversation with Town staff whereby the property owner suggested that the Town could relax some of its penalties if a mutually agreed upon workplan and timeline were laid out and followed by the property owners. R. Batchelor stated that the Director of Protective Services never got back to him on this proposal. It was clarified that one of the two special inspection fees has been paid though none of the tickets issued have been paid.

R. Batchelor noted that the "Do Not Occupy" posted at the residence on September 25, 2014 meant that the property owner was unable to go in to effect clean-up of the building. The Mayor clarified that the property owner had received notice in September and that there had been sufficient time to have now remedied this matter.

R. Batchelor said that demolition of the residence is akin to using a "hammer to kill an ant" and instead, the property owners wish to remove the drywall so that an engineer can examine the building to determine structural soundness. At this point the property owners are looking at the costs for both demolishing and remediating. The property owner would like a variance to permit commercial uses at the site.

R. Batchelor confirmed that not only is the community suffering from this matter, but also the property owners and they have had a trailer stolen from the site. He noted that the issues are related to the tenants in the building and not the structure itself.

P. Alcock discussed his recent initiatives to determine costs for both demolition and remediation; requests to get information in the Fall of 2014 for the Residential Tenancy Branch; development of the building originally as a daycare; issues with tenants in previous years as well more recently when the sole tenant with whom he had an agreement began subletting space to others without his knowledge; damage caused to the residence by tenants at the property; and inability to get an order of possession.

It was clarified that "Do Not Occupy" still allowed for professionals to go in with personal protective equipment to effect remediation of the building.

R. Batchelor reviewed options listed in the May 19, 2015 staff report and noted the property owner had to deal with the issue of the tenants before he could deal with the building. D. Goodfellow stated that this observation is incorrect and cited court cases as examples of tenancies being legally terminated where the agreement has been frustrated or remedial action requirements have been invoked. R. Batchelor stated that this was an evidentiary issue if it proceeds further though D. Goodfellow indicated that the information provided is in direct response to R. Batchelor's information including reference to emails that P. Alcock has referred to already. D. Goodfellow stated that the facts and evidence show the building was in a hazardous condition on September 25, 2014 and has only worsened. The property owners were given a full copy of the Safe Premises Bylaw at that time and if they had questions as to what to do to effect clean-up, they should have asked.

The issue of right of access by the property owner vis a vis two separate time periods — September 25, 2014 to December 24, 2014 and then post December 24, 2014 — was discussed. D. Goodfellow noted that the property owner only contacted the hygienist on December 24, 2014. R. Batchelor stated that he had only been retained by the property owners in October 2014 to deal with the issue of the tenants and only became counsel for the property owners with respect to the condition of the building in January 2015. He noted that the property owners did not understand how to proceed with what they were required to do. R. Batchelor reiterated that the property owners would like the option of seeing if the building is worth saving despite having many of its systems broken or removed altogether. P. Alcock reconfirmed his intention of having a commercial use at the site.

Council discussed the ability of the property owner to ask for reconsideration under the legislation; that the building is uninhabitable and hazardous; and their concern for the safety of the community and residents in the area.

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers

C-66-15 THAT the remedial action process outlined in sections 72 through 80 as well as sections 17, 80 and 258 of the Community Charter, SBC 2003, c. 26 be initiated, and:

• the building on the property with a civic address of 14A Helmcken Road, Victoria, British Columbia and with a legal description of Lot A, Section 9, Esquimalt District, Plan 35416, Parcel Identifier: 000-345-342 (the "Property") is so dilapidated and unclean as to be offensive to the community, is hazardous to those persons who may enter or occupy the building, and a nuisance;
• the building on the Property (the "Building") is in or creates an unsafe condition in that the building fails to comply with the Town of View Royal (the "Town")'s Safe Premises Bylaw No. 652, 2007 ("Safe Premises Bylaw"), Town's Property Maintenance Bylaw No. 512, 2013 ("Property Maintenance Bylaw"), and British Columbia Building Code, which contraventions relate to the construction or safety of the building on the Property ("Building");
• Phillip and Janice Alcock, the registered owners of the Property, are ordered to pull down and demolish the Building, remove all debris from the Property and thereafter construct/install a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the Property, within 30 days of the resolution being served in accordance with section 77 of the Community Charter;
• in the event that the owners fail to comply with the order of Council, Council further orders and thereby authorizes the Town's Building Inspector or his designate, to pull down and demolish the Building, remove all demolition debris from the site and thereafter construct/install a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the Property in accordance with section 17, as well as section 80, if applicable, of the Community Charter, and at the owners' expense; and
• if the owners fail to comply with the order of Council, and the Town fulfills the requirements of the order of the Council, the costs that the Town incurs in so doing will be at the expense of the owners, and in the event of the owners' default of paying the costs by December 31 in the year in which the Town fulfills the requirements of the order of Council, the costs will be added to the owners' property taxes and deemed to be taxes in arrears, in accordance with sections 17 and 258 of the Community Charter. CARRIED Councillor Mattson voted in the negative

The motion was read into the record. The property owners and their lawyer left during the reading of the motion into the record.

b) Form and Character and Environmental Development Permit No. 2014/10 – 2429 Chilco Road Lot 20 (Thetis Vale Phase 6 – 16 Duplex Residential Units)

1. Report dated May 27, 2015 from the Planner

The Planner noted that since the May 12, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting there has been a requirement added for FireSmart measures on site which include items such as the use of fireproof roofing materials and closed soffits.

2. Comments from the Applicant n/a

3. Comments from the Public n/a

4. Correspondence n/a

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber

C-67-15 THAT Development Permit No. 2014/10 be approved as per the report from the Planner dated May 27, 2015;

AND THAT Development Permit No. 2014/10 include a variance to the height of a retaining wall from 1.5m to 3.3m;

AND FURTHER THAT Development Permit No. 2014/10 include the following conditions:

• that an updated Landscape cost estimate be provided which addresses Lot 20 landscaping costs;
• that 125% of the landscape cost estimate be provided as security against landscaping deficiencies, 75% to be released upon successful inspection after 2 years from the issuance of the Development Permit and the remaining 25% released upon successful inspection after 5 years from the date of the issuance of the Development Permit;
• that the fence surrounding Lot 20 be 1.2m in height;
• that tile, steel or other non-combustible material be used for roofing on all buildings; and
• that enclosed soffits be provided on all buildings. CARRIED

c) Mixed Residential Form and Character Development Permit No. 2014/12 – 2429 Chilco Road Lot 21 (Thetis Vale Phase 6 – 6 Duplex Residential Units)

1. Report dated May 28, 2015 from the Planner

2. Comments from the Applicant n/a

3. Comments from the Public n/a

4. Correspondence n/a

MOVED BY: Councillor Mattson SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber

C-68-15 THAT Development Permit No. 2014/12 be approved as per the report from the Planner dated May 28, 2015;

AND THAT Development Permit No. 2014/12 include a variance to the height of a retaining wall from 1.5m to 4.4m;

AND FURTHER THAT Development Permit No. 2014/12 include the following conditions:

• that an updated landscape cost estimate be provided which addresses Lot 21 landscaping costs;
• that 125% of the landscape cost estimate be provided as security against landscaping deficiencies, 75% to be released upon successful inspection after 2 years from the issuance of the Development Permit and the remaining 25% released upon successful inspection after 5 years from the date of the issuance of the Development Permit;
• that tile, steel or other non-combustible material be used for roofing on all buildings; and
• that enclosed soffits be provided on all buildings. CARRIED

d) E&N Rail Trail Project Storm Sewer Upgrades

1. Report dated May 28, 2015 from the Director of Engineering

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers

C-69-15 THAT an increase in funding for the storm sewer works for the E&N Rail Trail Project be authorized to $160,000. CARRIED

8.3 OTHER REPORTS

a) Minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Environment Advisory Committee meeting held May 26, 2015

MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber

THAT the minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Environment Advisory Committee held May 26, 2015 be received. CARRIED

MOVED BY: Councillor Rogers SECONDED: Councillor Rast

C-70-15 THAT pod style fitness equipment, rather than linear style equipment, be supported for View Royal Park;

AND THAT two groups of pod style equipment be installed in View Royal Park. CARRIED

MOVED BY: Councillor Weisgerber SECONDED: Councillor Rast

THAT the minutes of the Planning and Development Advisory Committee meeting held May 26, 2015 be received. CARRIED

9. CORRESPONDENCE

9.1 FOR ACTION

a) Letter dated May 14, 2015 from I. Bourhill, Director of Planning, City of Colwood, Re: Development Variance Permit DVP-15-006

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber

THAT the letter dated May 14, 2015 from I. Bourhill, Director of Planning, City of Colwood, Re: Development Variance Permit DVP-15-006 be received. CARRIED

9.2 FOR INFORMATION

10. BYLAWS

a) Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 811, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 917, 2015 A Bylaw to Amend the Official Community Plan with Respect to the Designation of 102 Atkins Road

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber

THAT the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 811, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 917, 2015 be adopted. CARRIED

b) Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 918, 2015 A Bylaw to Amend the Zoning Bylaw with Respect to the Zoning of 102 Atkins Road to the CD-21 Zone

MOVED BY: Councillor Rast SECONDED: Councillor Rogers

THAT Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 918, 2015 be adopted. CARRIED

11. NEW BUSINESS

12. QUESTION PERIOD

13. MOTIONS & NOTICES OF MOTION

14. CLOSED MEETING RESOLUTION

MOVED BY: Councillor Mattson SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber

THAT there is a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of Council, officers and employees of the Town, and those identified under Section 91 (2) of the Community Charter shall be excluded on the basis of Section 90 (1)(d) – municipal property; and (k) – discussion of a municipal service. CARRIED

15. TERMINATION

MOVED BY: Councillor Mattson SECONDED: Councillor Weisgerber

THAT this meeting now terminate. Time: 10:18 pm CARRIED