Home Under Construction Held Up for $75 Inspection Fee

Monday, February 20, 2006 08:00 PM

The only thing standing in the way of continued construction of what may end up being one of the most expensive new homes in Prince George, is a $75.00 inspection fee and the New Home Warranty guarantee. But a home being built at 9289 North Nechako Road doesn't have those things, so,
Prince George City Council has passed a resolution to put a charge against the title.

The decision was made after hearing from the Lawyer for the builders of the home under construction on North Nechako Road.    The City's Development Services says the home's construction is illegal as there was no building permit, other than one for the foundation.The City also alleges there is no new home warranty on the building or an application to have an exemption from that warranty plan. The City believes that while construction should have ceased November 30th, work continued on the site until Friday February 17th.

Although there were suggestions of a two week extension Councilor Don Basserman says the time line so far has been very generous as the problem first came to light in August.

The contractor, Norcan Construction, has taken responsibility for the mess.The lawyer for Norcan says the real problem holding up the process is the certification for the home warranty. The home is said to be worth about $400 thousand dollars and the lawyer argues the house meets all architectural and engineering requirements, he believes there was confusion about the building permit.

The General Contractor thought the original permit was for the whole house, and once notified of the error, continued to carry on with construction in order to protect the foundation from frost. The contractor normally builds commercial buildings, and this is his first residential project "I understand I dropped the ball here, and I apologize" Peter Crolow told Council " my client is in no way to blame here, this is totally my responsibility." Because Norcan is not recognized as a residential builder, there are bonding issues that have to be addressed in order to satisfy the Home Warranty office. A building permit cannot be issued until the City has confirmation of registration with Home Warranty.

Councilor Don Zurowski wants the stop work order enforced, otherwise, he fears small construction companies may ignore the rules without fear of enforcement. He says he is very uncomfortable with making this move, but "I am going to make it."

According to the City's Dan Milburn of Development Services, there were stop work orders issued, tickets issued, registered letters sent and putting a charge against the title of the property is the next step.  That isn't what Councilor Glenn Scott wants. He says he would like to see the City "work in good faith to find a resolution to this matter" and he would have liked to have seen a two week extension. "Let's not be judge and jury here, " says Scott but "if nothing is done within two weeks, then let the hammer fall."

When Councillor Sherry Sethen asked why nothing was done to comply, contractor Peter Crolow said "I should have had it in writing, I was communicating with the City and I asked others to communicate things as well, but I should have put everything in writing, you know the old Chinese proverb, if two men agree to feed a horse, the horse will die."

Council has approved a resolution fof a charge to be placed against the title of the property.   Councillor Scott was the only one to oppose the move.

That charge against title can be removed once the Building Inspector is comfortable that all the t's have been crossed, and i's dotted.
Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 08:00 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: owl on February 21 2006 12:36 AM

I think we are not being told the whole story.

An application for full permit was made but not granted.

It was not granted because the contractor, well known in town for building good quality commercial buildings, apparently cannot getr licensed under the Homeowner Protection Act. Under the Act, the Registrart ought to issue a license if all things are in order.

So, possibly there was no application, the application was late, or there is some other reason the license is not being issued.

So, whose fault is it? the contractor, the rigistrar, the City (for issuing a foundation permit, for instance, to a contractor without the proper license).

I just feel there is something, missing to the puzzle.

I do stand behind the comment I made on the previous note about this issue in front of council. If I had the money to build a home like that, I would not want a house contractor to build a house of the quality I assume the house to be. The Homeowner Protection Act does little to protect anyone other than the government, in my opinion. Another piece of bureaucracy at its finest, in this case stopping an owner from choosing a qualified contractor to build the house designed and supervised by professionals that the average homeowner cannot afford.

Posted by: owl on February 21 2006 1:03 AM

Here is how to apply for the Residential Builder License.

http://www.hpo.bc.ca/licensing/HowToApply.htm

Note that the key requirement is:

"A letter from your warranty insurance company verifying that you have been accepted for home warranty insurance."

Norcan presented that information to the Administration and Council. However, they did not seem to understand the importance of this. I feel that Council was not not adequately informed of the process.

http://www.hpo.bc.ca/PublicationsForms/InformationSheets/0822%20How%20to%20become%20licensed.pdf

The other matter no one spoke about is that there is a framing inspection as well as electrcial, plumbing rough-in inspection which has to take place prior to covering up the structural framing, etc, with insulation and wall covering. No reasonable builder would go beyond that, knowing covering would have to be removed so that the City's inspectors could view it. Placing a lean on the property was a rally has little effect in this case.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on February 21 2006 8:11 AM

I've also had problems with two projects, each worth over one million dollars each.
A typical example was obtaining a burning permit. I went to the fire depatment for a permit, they told me to go to Land, Air etc. as they do ones of this size. I go to the Land Air and get an appointment to view site. They come out and walk around and say no problem. I didn't ask for their comment in writing.
I start burning, about a week later a city fire fighter shows up with the assistant fire chief and two other guys that I didn't remember immediately. I get yelled at and asked why I don't have a permit and to stop burning right now.
Standing in the mud and ashes I say, You would not give me one. And then I recognize the other two people, they were the ones that said it was OK, and they are standing right there behind the fireman!

Anyway, turns out I was supposed to get a permit to get a permit. I didn't understand that at the time. Lots of regulary bullshit and more gets loaded on the wagon everyday.
That is just one example, got lots more, but got to go make a living.
Cost lots of money to pay for the rules and the people who make more.

Posted by: chloe on February 21 2006 9:28 AM

I am sorry but there are rules in place for a reason. "What may end up being one of the most expensive new homes in prince george" who cares if it is what difference does that make; are the people higher up supposed to be concerned about the cost of the home. I don't think so. The question is why didn't the contractor get the permit? If he was denied the permit then building should have ceased until the problem was resolved, Period.

Posted by: camoose on February 21 2006 12:06 PM

Rules and bylaws are made for various reasons. It doesn't matter if the project is worth over 1 million or just 10,000, the rules are there for a reason. There should be no variance because of the size of the contracror, his reputation or the cost. if a bylaw isn't obeyed you should expect to face the consequences. If a variance is made for one it should be made for all or if the law is unjust, it should be stricken from the books. One law for all.

Posted by: owl on February 21 2006 12:14 PM

He was not denied a permit. He was given a foundation permit.

There is nothing in the bylaw which says that a contractor building a residence does not have to be a Licensed Residential Builder if he just builds the foundation.

The City is complicit.

From what I can tell, there is no information that tells me anyone did not act in good faith. The thing which frustrated the matter is that the Registrar did not issue a license. In order to issue a license, one has to have insurance. In order to have insurance one has to show that one can build a residence properly. But one cannot build a residence porperly if one cannot get a license ...

Is there a catch 22 here????

Posted by: owl on February 21 2006 12:19 PM

The rules are there for a reason and those are spelled out in the Act. They are there mainly to protect those who buy houses from speculative home builders who do not have the expertise to build such buildings.

Trust me, Norcan, the residentila desinger and the structural engineer are way beyond the standard of most if not all spec home builders. This owner has protected himself better thn most other home owners. The engineer is providing certificates which put the liability on him to the extent that any city building inspection is vitually redundant.

But it is the law, and the law is, in this case, and in my opinion, stupid.

Ever heard of stupid laws???? I am sure everyone has.

Posted by: lunarcom on February 21 2006 1:08 PM

If they were truly concerned about getting the proper permit before carrying on they could have easily tarped the foundation and put a construction heater in there to cure the cement. Once it is cured it will not be damaged by the elements even if the tarps are taken off. Just an example of a rich guy trying to circumvent the system so he could get his house built to his schedule.

I would wish he could be charged for the time / money that has been spent by the city to deal with this all because they didn't get the proper paperwork in place before starting the work after the foundation was done.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on February 21 2006 2:32 PM

Rules are rules blah blah...
Idiots are missing the point. If the permit is irrelavant, as in this case, then only idiots would carry on with the Rules are Rules blah blah.. trash talk.
City council has to back their adminstration, and the administration has to stop making council look like idiots.
Been there, done that, seen that, too often!

Posted by: camoose on February 21 2006 3:09 PM

Sorry Pol Cat this "Idiot" has to be reminded regularly just how intelligent you are. Guess you know everything and have done everything. I wait with bated breath for your next pearl of wisdom.

Posted by: chloe on February 21 2006 3:46 PM

To YAMADOOPOLCAT hiding behind a fake name and calling people idiots is funny i'd like to see if you would have said what you said using your real name. It's obvious that no one has all the facts. So what else can be said.

Posted by: owl on February 22 2006 12:03 AM

Lunar ... it is not about protecting the concrete, you are right as well as that goes ... it is about protecting the foundation from the lifting effect of any water which collects under the footing, freezes, and lifts the foundations. It is the very reason why foundations in this part of the world have to go four feet plus under ground in order to avoid that in the case of a building which has heat loss and 6 o 8 feet in the case where that is not the case, such as a pier for a carport post. In the latter it is actually worse, since thee driveway and carport area are typically not snow covered, such as a lawn is, thus there is no snow which acts as insulation. That is why water pipes are typically burried about 8 feet.

Of course, these days it appears we do not have many 40 below zero nights .....

And, yes, one could have tarped the area and used the heaters for 3 months or so. .....

And yes, if there is gravel or porous soil which the foundation ists on, the whole thing is really moot since there is little chance of water collecting and thus little chance of frost heaving.

So, a convenient excuse? Quite possibly.

As I said, in my opinion we do not know the whole story.

There appears to be something missing here. Is someone covering something up and, if so, why?

Posted by: owl on February 22 2006 12:16 AM

forgot to add .... why is the owner just not saying he is building the building, which, in essence, he is?

He has hired a few experts to help him, but he is the owner/builder and that gives him expemption under the Act. He just cannot sell the house and build another one for 18 months.

There is nothing wrong if the owner becomes the "builder of record" similar to the general contractor. There is nothing under the act which prevents the owner from subcontracting the various components. There is nothing in the Act which expects the owner to excavate himself, set the footing forms, pour the concrete, etc. etc.

This is not a case of Norcan building the house and then selling it to the owners. This is a matter of the owners owning the property and building a house on it with the help of experts. They are the owner/builders.

Posted by: owl on February 22 2006 12:26 AM

Here is one interpretation of owner/builder

"Owner-builders must sign a sworn Owner-Builder Declaration and Disclosure Notice which must be provided to the municipality at the time of the building permit application. All persons ordinarily resident in the same dwelling unit are deemed to be the same owner-builder; consequently, only one owner-builder exemption is allowed per household. They must also provide a list of sub-contractors they plan to hire on the Declaration. Legitimate owner-builders are those who build their home or directly manage the construction of the new home - otherwise they do not qualify for owner-builder status and must get a licensed residential builder to build the home who will provide the required warranty insurance."

Two thirds down the page:

http://www.hpo.bc.ca/Overview/Barrett2/HPO%20Presentation.htm

Posted by: Marty on February 22 2006 8:33 AM

I was the general contractor for the building of my house.
Yes it was a learning experience, and i did some stuff wrong.
But i always managed to correct it and in the end it was all ok.

I hired many people to do the work.
And while i found out at one point i had not completed an inspection process that was required, a few calls and the inspector showed up and passed it fine.

So i am baffled why they wil not just go inspect whatever and pass this place now.

He is likely a regular Joe, like myself and we want our home built the way we like.
So we do it, and yes make a mistake or two.
But really who cares....they are usually simple mistakes like in this case a piece of paper.
its not like the guy has hurt anyone or tried to cause some major scam.

Yeesh council lighten up.

Seems to me a councilor recently droe for many many months without insurance on her vehicle.
that to me is a thousand times more serious than some permit for something.
its not like he was trying to hide the fact he was building a house, which is proven since he had a permit for the foundation already.

My 2 cents