Council Orders Westmount Drive Project Demolished

Tuesday, November 03, 2009 03:50 AM

Prince George, B.C.- It has been more than three months since the City ordered the owners of a townhouse development on Westmount Drive to either complete the building, or demolish the structure. The building’s concrete foundation had not been protected last winter and cracks were visible this spring. The City has issued numerous orders on the project, but the work has not been done.

The Chief Building Inspector visited the site on October 8, 2009. He noted that the walls and floor of one of the four units have already collapsed due to considerable amount of moisture absorbed by the wood structure. The owner has also neglected to prevent unauthorized access to the building site by not securing the door of the barracade.

Further complicating matters, the City has been advised there is a new owner, however, a title and corporate search conducted on the 23^rd of October failed to show there has been any change in the directors of the numbered company which is listed as owning the project. Development Services Manager Grant Bain says with various players now stepping forward as owners, "This is a bit of moving target."

According to City staff, it appears the wood structure is rapidly deteriorating and may not be salvageable. No efforts have been made to fix the foundation and backfill to prevent further damage from another winter. Given the current conditions of the structure, it is questionable if it will survive another winter.

The engineer of record, Simon Yu was to have a report submitted to the City yesterday but that didn't happen.

Councilor Murry Krause says the site is not secure, "The fence is held up with two nails, a child could tear it down. I think we have been more than accommodating, and one more deadline has been missed."

Council has declared the site a nuisance and given the owner a time frame to demolish the structure and fill the excavation within 30 days from November 3rd 2009. Council has also given the owner 14 days to appeal the decision.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 03:50 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Loki on November 3 2009 11:05 AM

Good job city council.

Posted by: metalman on November 3 2009 11:40 AM

What's to appeal? It is not like they have not had adequate warning, and the site is a hazard. It should have been torn down before now, we are lucky that no kids have been injured yet.
metalman.

Posted by: gus on November 3 2009 2:28 PM

What is to appeal?

To make it perfectly clear from the start, I have not seen the building. I suspect several others commenting here have also not seen the building. I am only using the info that is here, which is not very much.

Let me see ....

It says: "It has been more than three months since the City ordered the owners of a townhouse development on Westmount Drive to either complete the building, or demolish the structure."

So, three months ago the City was not condemning the building. Instead, they were allowing the builder to secure the site and complete the building.

Now they are proposing to tear it down because the floor in one of the 4 units has collapsed. So what about the other 3 units? What is their condition?

Cracks in concrete are not unusual. Just ask people who have concrete basements in expansive clay areas of the city such as pineview and college heights. How many have basement leaks where rain is deposited via rain water leaders in poorly built concrete basements? How many have a crack at around the centre span of a wall when the wall is adjacent to a carport and is not strong enough to carry the load of the soil and car parked adjacent to the house?

Whether the concrete remains structurally sound or not is up to an engineer to determine. The engineer has not reported to the City, possibly due to him not getting paid.

Then it states: "According to City staff, it APPEARS the wood structure is rapidly deteriorating and MAY not be salvageable."

Far too many conditional weasle statements for my liking that a good lawyer will make hay out of. For the City to win this in a court they would have to have engineering reports to back them up.

Someone will have to place a value on the residual, intact part of the structure in place and the cost of bringing that part up to standard versus the cost of bulldozing and starting from scratch. If there is a differential in favour of the owner, a good lawyer will be able to get the court to agree to require the city to pay that difference to the builder/owner.

This is a poker game. Who will blink first? The City has upped the ante. But will the builder/owner fold or meet the bet and possbily up the ante with a letter from a lawyer?

Posted by: Eagleone on November 4 2009 5:28 AM

Wasn't Simon Yu the liberal candidate in the last federal election?

IMO for fungus reasons botched construction sites like this should be demolished after adiquate warnings. I would almost classify the decade long Sandman construction with the same fate. That building hasn't had siding on it now for five years and looks like they are aiming for a 2015 opening....

Posted by: greta on November 4 2009 12:31 PM

This "developed" and I use that term loosely, has been taunting City Hall for too long now - let's get on with it. Unlike some of you I have seen the site and am appalled. If the fence he erected around the site is an indication of his building skills I would say there is a big problem here. Tear it down, fill the hole and move on......this guy should not be given a building permit for future projects - oh I almost forgot - he doesn't believe in building permits. As for Simon Yu, he is probably in the same boat as the city with this developer so let's not be too quick to judge him.