Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-36-88 DN: 36-88 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # Res. -- - _ By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, February 15, 1988 REPORT #: PD-36-88 FILE #: SUB,JECT: COUNCIL RESOLUTION #C-10-88 CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. R.E. PILKEY RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-36-88 be received; and 2. THAT Mr. Pilkey, acting as the spokesperson for the residents' group, be advised that the Town accepts his offer to submit a list of the specific property owners who have complaints with respect to lot grading and/or possible building code violations so that these individuals might be contacted by Town Staff to arrange for further inspections or respond directly to their individuals concerns. BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS: As Council may recall, in September of 1987, a presentation was made by Mr. Pilkey in respect of a number of concerns relative to the Courtice Heights North Subdivision Plan and home construction within said plan. The matter was referred to the Mayor and Councillor Ann Cowman as well as Town Staff for a report back. In that regard, Planning Staff contacted Mr. Pilkey to further ascertain his concerns and the Chief Building Official attended at Mr. Pilkey's residence to review any apparent deficiencies with the home covered by the Ontario Building Code. A copy . . .2 REPORT NO. : PD-36-88 PAGE 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of Mr. Wight's memorandum to myself and my memorandum to the Mayor in respect of this matter is attached herewith as well as the Mayor's response to Mr. Pilkey. Following same, on January 11, 1988, Council considered further correspondence from Mr. Pilkey (copy also attached) which was referred to Planning and Works for review of the various problems and a subsequent report to the General Purpose and Administration Committee. From my review of the situation, it would appear that Mr. Pilkey is dissatisfied with the options taken by the Town and was not amenable to our suggestion that, individual property owner experiencing specific problems contact the respective Staff for further investigation. It would appear that Mr. Pilkey prefers that the Town take the initiative and contact all residents in the area to determine what problems they might have. Given the fact that the Town carries out inspections of homes as they are being constructed and given the fact that lot grading is also subject to the Town's review and approval, Staff feel that it is not unreasonable to request individual property owners to contact us directly. However, Mr. Pilkey has indicated that he is willing to provide us with names and addresses of the individuals affected which would be of assistance to us. Individual property owners would then be contacted and arrangements made for the necessary inspections. With respect to the various issues identified by Mr. Pilkey, we note that many of the concerns related to house construction are of a workmanship nature and not contrary to the Ontario Building Code. Where issues of Building Code conformity have been identified, our Building Department is pursuing same with the Job Superintendent for the particular home builder. With respect to the issue of fencing, Staff are satisfied that the fencing installed complies with the Town's Subdivision Agreement with the developer and, given the location of the two different types of fencing, does not offend the aesthetics along Trulls Road. Care, of course, will have to be taken with respect to abutting developments to ensure compatible fencing styles. The reason why this was allowed to happen, as requested by Mr. Pilkey, is that the . . .3 REPORT 00. : PD-36-88 P&Q8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subdivision Agreement specified a type a fencing which can only be varied with the Agreement of both the developer and the Town. In the absence of a specific Council resolution to pursue such an amendment, Staff are obligated to accept a solution that complies with the existing Agreements as ratified by Council. In that regard, notice to residents of these lots is not required nor is it deemed necessary inasmuch as the terms of the Agreement are between the developer and the Town and a copy is registered on title of each lot and subject to review by each Ducobaaec'o Solicitor at the time they acquire the lands. Mc, 9iIkey'o final recommendation that no further Building Permits be issued to this Builder cannot be implemented ivao0unb as we have no legal justification for same and doing so, would, I believe, expose the Town to possible litigation. Accordingly, I would recommend that Mr. PiIkey , acting as the spokesperson for the residents' group, be advised that the Town accepts his offer to submit a list of the specific property owners who have complaints with respect to Lot Grading and/or possible Building Code violations so that these individuals might he contacted by Town Staff to arrange for foctboc inspections or respond directly to their individual concerns. ' Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee =~ / _ --------- -------------- T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Lawrenc Kotneff Director of Planning Chief ��m��iotcative Officer . �- TTQ*jip *Attach. January 37, 1988 � i THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE 40 TEMPERANCE STREET BOWMANVILLE,ONTARIO LIC3A6 r� TEL.(4 16) 623-3379 JOHN WINTERS- MAYOR November 9th , 1987 Mr . Robert Pil key 27 Mossgrove Court Bowmanville, Ontario Ll C 4A9 Dear Mr . Pil key: At the Council Meeting of September 28th , 1987 , your presentation was referred to myself , Councillor Ann Cowman and Town staff for a report back to you . I am enclosing herewith a copy of a memorandum which I received from Mr . Terry Edwards , our Director of Planning . I believe that the contents of Mr . Edwards ' memo are self-explanatory . i Mr . Howard Wight , the Chief Building Official and Mr . Tony Cannella, Engineering Supervisor can be reached at the Hampton office at 263-2231 or 263-8505 . If you have any further questions , please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. Yours very truly, JO TERS Councillor Ann Cowman Mr , Lawrence Kotseff , Chief Administrative Officer � COMMUNICATIONS FOR DIRECTION D - 1 r I� MU ~ 27 Mossqrove Court /~ o« BOWMANVILLE, Ontario LiC 4A9 ' November 30, 1987 '-/ -, -- � Mayor John Winters and Members of Councii Corpora t i on of the Town of Newcast ie 40 Temperance %treet BOWMANVILLE, Ontario LiC 3A6 �}�����8 ``�-_ Dear Mayor Winters avid Members of Councii : Thank you for your letter- of November 9th ' 1987. The members of our group have reviewed your report and have the following observations. � It would appear that only part of our rg,jugst Was addressed by your staff. Our first indication of this is ttfat only one home was inspected on October- 13th . This would not appear to be sufficient . We also indicated in our s;ubmissioD to council that there were a number of issues regarding the grading of Land that required investigation by your inspectors. We had volunteered to provide the names and addresses of the people affected , but this was refused by your inspected Mr . Wight , who it seemed , preferred to have our group contact these people individually, and ask them to contact your off/ cgs. ( ` To expect its to contact aii residents concerned ,;eeNs a little ridiculous. It should be the responsibility of the Town to get directly involved , once a problem has been brought to the attention Of Council . In our view only part of a job was done, and it would be our recommendation that- the Town contact the residents by iett8r, to determine what problems / they may have. Our group does not have the resources to do this, but clearly, the Town dog.,;. The issue of the fence surrounding the sub-division, was never resoived properly, and presently, there are two different types of fencing on Truiis Road , which was the very thing that the Town had attempted to avoid in the Official Plan for the area . Someone should explain why this was allowed to happen~ There is aiso one particuiar hoNe o Goidpivie that is so radicaiiy different froN adjacent Proper tigs,� that it is very much an ' eye sore ' . Please expiain how this deviation was aiLowed to Occur , and inform its as to Nhether, the residents On eith8r side were ever notified of fhis change. Fi via iiy, our recoNNeDdatioD t Councii was that no further buiiding permits be \ ssued to thi -5 Buiider untii ALL problem areas had been deait with . Fro N a businoss perspectiYe this Wouid ODiy se e to Nake sense. May we know you)- T-% 77 intentions in this matter? ' Yours truL Robert E. Piikey Bu� 644-3453 Home: 434-3693 T�r"hCc'1�A�'t.' ' r + .: TOWN OF NEWCASTLE jf V ,j M1 T0. Mayor John Winters FROM; T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. , Director of Planning HATE October 27, 1987 MECT: ' DELEGATION OF MR. PILKEY RE: HOME CONSTRUCTION MOSSGROVE COURT, COURTICE URBAN AREA As you may recall, at the Council Meeting of September 28, 1987, Mr. Pilkey of Mossgrbve Court in Courtice attended at the Council meeting as a delegation and outlined a number of concerns he had with respect to the quality of home construction in addition to a number of other items related to the development of the Plan of Subdivision within which his home is located. Mr. Pilkey's delegation was referred to yourself and the Deputy Mayor along with Staff for appropriate action. ( In that regard, I noted Mr. Pilkey's concerns, particularly with respect to possible violations of the Ontario Building Code and immediately requested that the Chief Building Official undertake a review of the situation with Mr. Pilkey. A copy of Mr. Wight's report is attached herewith for your information. In addition, I spoke to Mr. Tony Cannella of the Public Works Department with respect to Mr. Pilkey's comments relative to changes to lot grading and Mr. Cannella advises that there have been no changes requested or approved in respect of the Master Grading and Drainage for this particular Plan of Subdivision. Accordingly, any changes that may be taking place may not have the approval of the Town and the various affected individuals should contact the Public Works Department to advise them of the Lot Number and the nature of change being made so that the Department can conduct a further investigation. With respect to the issue of fencing along Trull's Road, I reviewed the Subdivision Agreement and note that the terms of this Agreement simply require the developer to construct, at their expense, a u foot chainlink fence along the Trull's Road frontage. Mr. Pilkey 2 Mayor Winters Page 2 indicated that the builder, in this case, Halminen Homes, had approached the various property owners with respect to upgrading the fence from chainlink to a 6 foot board fence. Based upon this comment, I contacted Mr. Bill Manson, the consultant for the developer, who advised me that, as part of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Halminen Homes and the developer, Halminen Homes had assumed responsibility for erection of this fence. Although he refused to provide me with a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, he did allow me to review it and I would note that the Agreement does not specify type of fence to be erected, simply that Halminen Homes would erect a fence to the satisfaction of the Town of Newcastle. In exchange for same, there was a reduction in the cost of these lots abutting Trull's Road which, I believe, would have been in the area of $600.00 per lot. I note that many of Mr. Pilkey's concerns were related directly to issues of workmanship which go beyond the municipality's authority under the Ontario Building Code and accordingly, we are unable to deal with same. In summary, I would suggest the following course of action: - that Mr. Pilkey be advised that we have reviewed the situation - that the issues of Building Code conformity are being addressed, in his particular instance, by our Building Department and Job Foreman - that any other property owners that he is aware of that have known infractions of the Ontario Building Code be requested to contact the Building Department for further investigation. With respect to the issue of Lot Grading, I would suggest that Mr. Pilkey also be advised that the Town is willing to investigate any unauthorized changes to Lot Grading subject to first being advised of the Lot Numbers and nature of changes that have been made. These should be directed to Mr. T. Cannella. With respect to the issue of fencing, I believe that the flexibility may exist within the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Halminen Homes and the Developer, for the Town to require Halminen Homes to construct, at no cost to the abutting residences, a 6 foot board fence, to the satisfaction of the Town of Newcastle, along the Trull's Road frontage. This, however, would require a Council resolution inasmuch as the current. Agreement with the developer specifies the nature of fence to be installed and inasmuch as we are not in possession of a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Halminen Homes and the developer. .3 Mayor Winters Pat3e 3 I trust t o ing is of assistance. T. wards *jip CC: Councillor Ann Cowman CC: L. Kotseff, Chief Administrative Officer t II i •. Y — f�'d. TEfi! Y TOWN OF NEWCASTLE TO: T. T. Edwards, Director of Planning FRCP'I: H. G. Wight, Chief Building Official DATE October 23, 1987 S&ECT: PILKEY, ROBERT - 27 Mossgrove Court On Tuesday, October 13, 1987 I met with Mr. Pilkey at his residence regarding deficiencies with his home. Mr. Pilkey indicated a number of areas of concern, some addressed in the building code and some not, such as manner in which doors have been hun=„ location of a light switch. Some of the code related items are: 1) a broken 2" x 4" stud in the exterior wall of the garage 2) lighting of the basement stairs 3) joist hangers on first floor joists 4) floor behind the dishwasher where cold air enters when the furnace starts He had some concerns about copper pipe and a galvanized exhaust pipe on the gas water heater being in contact with each other. I advised him the building code does not address this matter. I expressed surprise the gas company would turn on the gas if it was a concern. The kitchen and bath rooms fans had been corrected to exhaust to the exterior as required in the building code. On Friday, October 16, 1987 I met with Neil Vivian, project supervisor for Halminen Homes. He agreed to correct the code items, but would not move the dishwasher. Mr. Pilkey would have to take responsibility for that and replacing as well. I phoned Mr. Pilkey on Tuesday, October 20, 1987 and answered some questions to some of has concerns. T further advised him I had spoken with Neil Vivian and he (Mr. Pilkey) said he did not want to have anything to do with Vivian. He said he would talk to anybody else and I said he was our contact person on site. 2 T. T. Edwards Page ? ( Mr. Pilkey further stated an inspector from the gas comp my h;:j his residence and advised that concern of galvanized pipe amj copy, r pipe jri contact with each other is not regulated by their installation code. The gas company inspector thought it should be covered by the building code. When I told Mr. Pilkey the Ontario Building Code does not address this matter he became even more frustrated and perhaps annoyed because it was not regulated. I then told Mr. Pilkey I would speak to the plumbing inspector on the matter. The plumbing code only makes reference to the use of copper or brass pipe and materials of other than copper or brass in contact with each other only with respect to hangers or supports. I spoke with a Plumbing Code advisor at the Building Code Branch and he said there is no provision to cover situations such as described. He further advised that the present reference to electroylsis may not be in the next revised plumbing code. r G. fight *bb