Read
this News Leader article. Then, if you have
the same reaction I did, read it again to make sure you’re reading it
right. Basically, the city is asking
demanding owners of certain properties grant a statutory right-of-way for a
potential back lane before issuing a building permit.
“In the past we certainly have missed
opportunities to obtain statutory rights of ways. In terms of getting it, we
try to do it more opportunistically, we’re not trying to disturb a home,” said
Wat. “It minimizes the impact on the owner’s ability to build, it doesn’t
affect square footage. They still retain the ability to build, they just cannot
build on that part.”
One: they don’t retain the ability to build
anything unless they agree to the city’s demands since the city won’t issue a
permit. Two: they do not retain the
ability to build if their building plans require the use of that land.
This just pisses me off. The city is not taking your property, not
paying you for it (in fact you’ll still need to pay property tax on it) or
negotiating it’s use, just preventing you from doing anything on it on the
chance they may or may not build a lane at some unspecified time in the
future.
All that said, I understand and appreciate
the goal. This is just an absolute
garbage way to go about it. The city has
mechanisms to claim land for building roads, lanes, civic centres, etc. If they want to claim the land to build a
lane, use them – don’t blackmail owners into submission by preventing them from
using their property. It's not fair or just to hold people hostage now for the city's lack of foresight or planning in the past.
What’s not clear is if any of the
applications were going to build in the claimed right-of-way. I can see people getting pissed off if they
built a shed at the back of their property only to have it demolished for a
lane a year later. But this is solved
through openness and communication, not blackmail. Responding “we are happy to grant your
permit, but be aware the city intends to expropriate some of that land for a
lane in the next year or two, proceed at your own risk,” is the polite way to
do this. Asking affected property owners
nicely for them to grant a right-of-way, whether they are building something or
not, is appropriate. Bonus points for
offering compensation for the loss of use of their land.
What is wrong is to prevent them from
building on their property, whether in the affected area or not, unless they
agree to grant said right-of-way. And in
addition to being wrong, it may well be illegal. See: Bylaw, Building, No. 6897.
Specifically, see section 14.
14.1 A
building official shall issue the permit for which the application is made,
when:
Note that shall is government
speak for must – if all the requirements specified are met, the city cannot
withhold a building permit. What are the
requirements?
14.1.1
a completed application including all required supporting documentation has
been submitted;
14.1.2
the proposed work set out in the application conforms with the Building Code,
this bylaw and all other applicable bylaws and enactments;
14.1.3
the owner or their representative has paid all applicable fees prescribed by
this bylaw;
14.1.4
the owner or their representative has paid all charges and met all requirements
imposed by any other enactment or bylaw;
14.1.5
no enactment, covenant, agreement, or regulation in favour of the City
authorizes the permit to be withheld;
14.1.6
the owner has retained a professional engineer or geoscientist if required by
the provisions of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act;
14.1.7
the owner has retained an architect if required by the provisions of the Architects
Act; and
14.1.8
the owner or signing officer if the owner is a corporation and the coordinating
professional, if applicable, have signed the permit.
14.1.2 does refer to any other enactments
or bylaws, so there could be a bylaw sitting somewhere allowing the city to
withhold a permit unless the owners grant a right-of-way, but I have my doubts
something like that exists. Most of the
provisions I found for withholding a building permit were related to Heritage
buildings. I have asked a Councillor
what authority they are using to withhold the permits.
As mentioned in the article, builder Brian
Lowka intends to address city council on this issue in February – I intend to
see what comes of this and my requests for information from council. If you are interested in hearing the outcome
from the meeting or my discussions, watch the meeting in February or sign up
for my email newsletter on the right. The
newsletter is where I put all my little ditties and follow-ups that don’t
warrant a full blog post, and I don't send them out that often. If the city is
going to expropriate land or rights of way from property owners, let's make sure they
do it properly.
No comments:
Post a Comment