Enough is enough when it comes to a house that’s been unsafe and unsightly since a fire destroyed it nearly four years ago, city council members said at their regular meeting last Tuesday.

The house at 1590 Garcia St. was gutted by a fire — which was determined to be an arson — back in October of 2010. Despite multiple attempts by the city to assist the Lower Mainland-based property owners in addressing deficiency and nuisance issues, the owner continues to dodge requests of compliance and remediation, a report from planning and development manager Sean O’Flaherty stated.

In those four years, the city has sent the property owners six orders to comply for unsightliness and safety issues.

Council unanimously approved a motion to have the owners of the house restore or demolish the building, but shortened their deadline from three months to 30 days.

“This is just some people taking advantage of a small town, and thinks they’re not going to do anything,” Coun. Dave Baker said.

In August of 2013, city council issued a notice on title against the property’s land title in accordance with section 57 of the Community
Charter.

Then in April of this year, the city issued the property owners another order to comply for unsightliness and safety issues — also informing them the city was considering remedial action.

Still, the site remains in its dilapidated and uninhabitable condition.

If the property owners don’t demolish the fire-damaged building or restore the property so it’s not a nuisance, the city will have it demolished and the property restored.

The city would then recoup their demolition costs from the owners as a debt in a similar manner to having taxes against the property.

The initial deadline to comply with the remedial action recommended by city staff was Oct. 22, 2014. However, council decided to move the date to the minimum notice of 30 days after Baker recommended it.

“If we don’t enforce our bylaws, then we have a problem,” Baker said.

City chief administrative officer Allan Chabot advised against scaling back the timeline in case any legal ramifications arise, saying the owners could argue they were lulled into a false sense of security that no serious action was going to be taken given repeated warnings.

“I think the section 57 a year ago was quite clear on where we were going with this, so if anybody wants to play stupid they can go right ahead and play stupid,” Coun. Mike Goetz said.

Between Jan. 6, 2011 and May 17, 2012, the owner was issued four orders to comply for unsightliness. The fourth notice also included an order to remedy safety issues.

On July 31, 2012 the owner was issued a letter from the building inspector about the structure’s condition, persuading the owner to take action or risk having the house demolished.

The owners responded through a lawyer, saying they needed until August 30 of that year to remedy the situation.

Remedial action was never taken and the owner was contacted by phone twice: once on Aug. 24, 2012 and again on June 15, 2013 to discuss remedial action on the property.

On June 11, 2013 the owner was issued another order to comply for unsightliness and safety issues before the notice on title was finally issued in August.

O’Flaherty told council the orders to comply were executed in their entirety.

“The windows were boarded up, the garbage was removed, the grass was cut — done by the city and city contractors and charged back to the
property owners,” O’Flaherty said.

Fire Chief Dave Tomkinson has said the building in question poses a safety risk as anyone who enters it could be at risk of injury or exposure to mould or noxious gases. He said the building is also at risk of being the target of another arson.