DATE: June 9, 2014 REPORT NO. CD Gregory Dworak, General Manager, Community Services

Transcription

1 DATE: June 9, 2014 REPORT NO. CD TO: FROM: Chair and Members Committee of the Whole - Community Services Gregory Dworak, General Manager, Community Services 1.0 TYPE OF REPORT CONSENT ITEM [ ] ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION [X] 2.0 TOPIC Review of Vacant and Unoccupied Buildings 3.0 RECOMMENDATION A. That Staff Report CD dealing with vacant and unoccupied buildings BE RECEIVED, and B. THAT Option #2 Amendment to the Property Standards Bylaw Appearance, as outlined in Staff Report CD BE APPROVED; and C. THAT Option #3 Passage of Municipal Act Bylaw requiring Vacant Building Registry, as outlined in Staff Report CD BE APPROVED; and D. THAT staff BE DIRECTED to present the necessary bylaws to City Council for adoption. 4.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide Council with options on how to effectively deal with complaints received regarding the appearance of vacant and abandoned buildings within the City of Brantford and provide a staff recommendation for Council s consideration.

2 June 9, 2014 Page BACKGROUND City Council adopted the following resolution at its meeting held January 23, 2012: THAT staff BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review of the issue of vacant buildings and enforcement mechanisms available under the Property Standards Bylaw. 6.0 CORPORATE POLICY CONTEXT This report was reviewed within the context of the following goals of the City s Strategic Plan: Goal #2 Long Term Desired Outcomes where Brantford will be recognized as a safe, healthy community one that promotes and enables the well-being of its citizens. Goal #4 Long term Desired Outcomes where Brantford will be recognized as a fiscally responsible and well managed city that provides efficient and effective government services. 7.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES A best practices review of several Ontario Municipalities, including Ajax, Cambridge, Clarington, Collingwood, Hamilton, London, Niagara Falls, Norfolk County, Oshawa, Waterloo and Woodstock, was undertaken by the Building Department. Consultation was also held with the Planning, Economic Development, Fire Prevention, Police, Finance and Legal Departments as well as with the Bylaw Enforcement Review Team. 8.0 ANALYSIS Vacant and unoccupied buildings that are not maintained can contribute to the decline of neighbourhoods, have negative effects on property values, and detract from further investment. Vacant and derelict buildings are often referred to as blights in neighbourhoods because of their unkempt exteriors and their propensity to be accessed by trespassers. In the most dangerous examples of deteriorated vacant/derelict buildings, structural deficiencies can develop and progress to severe structural failures resulting in partial or full building collapses. These instances of severe deterioration, although relatively rare, can put in jeopardy the health and safety of the general public. In such instances, the (Ontario) Building Code Act, 1992 (the Building Code Act ) outlines the procedures that the Chief Building Official is authorized to take to demolish such

3 June 9, 2014 Page 3 unsafe structures. This process is separate and distinct from the Property Standards Bylaw Enforcement mechanism. 8.1 Current City Approach under the Property Standards Bylaw The Building Code Act is the prevailing legislation relative to property standards bylaw enforcement. Section 15.1(3) of the Building Code Act allows the Council of a municipality to pass a bylaw that prescribes standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property within a defined area. Those standards are established at the discretion of each municipal council, and can include the setting of standards for vacant and unoccupied buildings and properties. The City of Brantford has a Property Standards Bylaw, being Chapter 465 of the City of Brantford Municipal Code (the Property Standards Bylaw ). Currently, the Property Standards Bylaw regulates vacant properties in the following manner; Article 26 Vacant Properties Entry prevented owner-responsible-protection The owner of any vacant or unoccupied building shall protect such building against the risk of fire, accident, damage or other danger thereto or to adjoining premises by effectively preventing the entry thereto by all unauthorized persons Openings boarded up Without restricting the generality of Section , protection may include the boarding up of all openings to the building with: (a) tight fitting plywood; (b) rigid, composite panels; or (c) sheathing boards Boarding-maintained-weather-resistant All materials used for boarding up vacant or unoccupied buildings shall be covered and maintained with a preservative which is similar in colour to the exterior finish of the building and reasonably compatible in design with adjoining decorative finishing material. All such boarding shall be installed within the reveal of the exterior cladding and securely fastened to every doorway, window or wall opening that constitutes a means of access or hazard Disconnection-unnecessary utilities-90 days Where a building remains vacant or unoccupied for a period of more than ninety days, the owner shall ensure that all utilities serving the building, that are not required for the safety or security thereof, are properly disconnected or otherwise secured to prevent risk of fire, accident, damage or other danger to the property or adjoining premises. Currently, the Property Standards Bylaw is enforced reactively to complaints received by the Building Department. This practice is standard in most Ontario municipalities. Property standards enforcement practices include the issuance of

4 June 9, 2014 Page 4 a preliminary letter to the owner detailing the bylaw deficient requirements. Should compliance not be forthcoming, a Property Standards Order is issued, and copied to all those having a legal interest registered on title. As per the Building Code Act, a Property Standards Order is subject to appeal to the local Property Standards Committee, who has the authority to confirm, modify or rescind such Orders. A second appeal process to Superior Court is also provided for in the legislation. Once an Order is confirmed, either by the Committee or by not being further appealed to Superior Court, the City then has the authority to remediate the property to the bylaw standards, and/or pursue legal action in the local Provincial Offences Court. Section 15.4(1) of the Building Code Act provides as follows; If an order of an officer under subsection 15.2(2) is not complied with in accordance with the order as deemed confirmed or as confirmed or modified by the committee or a judge, the municipality may cause the property to be repaired or demolished accordingly. The option to repair or demolish in accordance with the Order is therefore available to the municipality, but only where an Order has not been complied with. 8.2 Fire Prevention and Ontario Fire Code The City of Brantford also currently relies on Chapter 533 Fire Prevention of the Brantford Municipal Code to regulate unoccupied buildings. It firstly defines a building as: means a structure which is entirely or partially unoccupied or unused or, in the case of a structure which is under construction means a structure on which work has been suspended or abandoned in the opinion of a Property Standards Officer for the City of Brantford. This Bylaw further stipulates; Satisfaction-of Property Standards Officer The owner of a building shall board up the building to the satisfaction of the Property Standards Officer by covering all openings through which entry can be obtained. Such covering shall be securely fastened by screws or nails and shall be maintained and replaced as required in order to secure the building against entry Unsatisfactory-notice-compliance-time limit When a building is not boarded up pursuant to Section of this Chapter, the Property Standards Officer shall send a notice by registered mail to the registered owner of the building at his last known address requiring him or her to board up the building within seven days after the mailing of such notice.

5 June 9, 2014 Page Non-compliance-owner expense Where a notice has been sent by the Property Standards Officer pursuant to Section of this Chapter and the requirements of the notice have not been complied with, the Property Standards Officer shall cause the building to be boarded up at the expense of the owner and may maintain and replace any coverings as required without further notice to the owner and the Corporation may recover any and all expenses incurred by action or in like manner as municipal taxes Removal-building-part-boarding not possible The Property Standards Officer may cause to be removed any parts of the building which because of their condition, cannot be satisfactorily boarded up. This bylaw is also enforced reactively on a complaint basis by Building Department staff. There is no appeal mechanism to this bylaw and all associated costs are submitted for recovery on municipal taxes. The Ontario Fire Code requires vacant buildings to be secured against unauthorized entry. When a vacant building that is not secured is brought to the attention of the Fire Department, it is their policy to notify the Building Department. The Ontario Fire Code is primarily a Life Safety Code. If a building is vacant, with all services disconnected, then there is no source of ignition. With no source of ignition and no persons living on site, a life safety issue is deemed not to exist. The Fire Department has advised that the laying of charges in Provincial Offences Court remains an enforcement option, however this practice has proven to be both lengthy and at times unsuccessful. A court conviction does not necessarily bring compliance, which remains the ultimate goal. 8.3 Current Practice With Respect to Unoccupied Properties Currently, the Building Department responds to complaints regarding vacant and unoccupied buildings. Should this investigation reveal evidence of unauthorized entry by persons or vandalism, the Building Department initiates correspondence with the owner to require compliance with the bylaw. Should compliance not be gained pursuant to an Order, the Building Department retains the services of a private contractor to board the property in accordance with the Property Standards Bylaw. Utility services, including hydro, gas and water, are then notified to disconnect service. All associated costs, plus an additional 25% administration fee, is then added to the tax roll. Periodic monthly inspections are then made to ensure the subject property remains secured against such unauthorized entry.

6 June 9, 2014 Page 6 For the most part, these protocols have been effective in dealing with these concerns. However, these actions taken to secure a building against access do not provide protection against possible continued deterioration. The City of Brantford Police Department was also consulted. Their concerns relate to ensuring the property is kept secure from unauthorized entry, and thus negate a possible trespass issue. Property damage is a further concern, which is presently referred to the Building Department for follow-up. 8.4 Research - Best Practices Review of Other Municipalities A best practices review was undertaken by the Building Department to compare other municipal enforcement practices for vacant and unoccupied building in their respective property standards bylaws. The municipalities surveyed included Ajax, Brampton, Cambridge, Clarington, Collingwood, Hamilton, Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Oshawa, Toronto, Waterloo and Woodstock. These municipalities utilize similar enforcement policies and bylaws as undertaken here in Brantford. The practice is to ensure the vacant building is secured from entry and the utilities are disconnected to remove the threat of fire or ignition from within Ajax, Oshawa and Collingwood Property Standards Bylaw Regulation Three municipalities, namely Ajax, Oshawa and Collingwood, use somewhat different strategies in their Property Standards Bylaw. The Town of Ajax and the City of Oshawa amended their respective Property Standards Bylaws to require buildings that have been boarded up for a period exceeding 2 years to be demolished. This section of their Property Standards Bylaw only applies to residential properties, and when contacted, they advised that they have only issued a few such Orders and have chosen to pursue legal action in the courts by laying charges. In each case, once that process commenced the owner demolished the site. They advise that no such Order has been appealed or challenged. The Town of Collingwood amended their Property Standards Bylaw to require partially or completely vacant buildings to be made fit for occupancy as permitted in their Zoning Bylaw within 60 days of being initially boarded up. When contacted, the Town of Collingwood Bylaw Enforcement Department advised that only one (1) such action has been pursued, and the owners demolished voluntarily. The Town has only a few vacant buildings and they require property owners to either remediate the building for occupancy or demolish it. The Town itself has not demolished a building as per this section. The afore-mentioned approaches undertaken by Ajax, Oshawa, and Collingwood are different from the approach used by most Ontario municipalities. These three municipalities require demolition of buildings that are merely vacant, and may not

7 June 9, 2014 Page 7 necessarily be structurally unsound. Structural integrity issues remain the primary reasons outlined in the Building Code Act for the required demolition of buildings, not simply a lack of occupancy. The structural integrity test is the approach used by most municipalities in Ontario Brampton Property Standards Bylaw Regulation The City of Brampton further requires property owners to maintain liability insurance on vacant buildings, provide a Professional Engineers report commenting on the building s structural integrity, and ensures that all combustible materials are removed and to further install security measures or devices Hamilton and London: Municipal Act Vacant Buildings Registry On October 13 th, 2010, the City of Hamilton enacted a bylaw pursuant to the Municipal Act dealing with the issue of vacant building in their municipality. When the bylaw was initiated, the City of Hamilton had approximately 80 identified vacant buildings, and today has identified approximately 430. Vacant Buildings are defined as: Means a building that is not completely or not substantially completely occupied by the owner or a person authorized by the owner for more than 90 consecutive days, but does not include a building; (a) Containing 1, 2 or 3 dwelling units provided that each dwelling unit is fit for an individual or individuals to live in, in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws; (b) Occupied by the owner or a person authorized by the owner on a seasonal basis; (c) A building, except a dwelling unit, on property used as a farm; or (d) That is City owned. Hamilton undertook proactive enforcement to gain information to form an inventory of vacant buildings. Assistance from other regulatory enforcement agents including staff from Police, Fire and Ministry of the Environment was gained to assist with this inventory. This initial phase created a substantial burden on staff resources, which would need to be taken into consideration. Once a building is determined to be vacant, the owners are required to register their property with the City. This applies to all buildings, including industrial, commercial and residentially zoned buildings. A detailed application process then ensues resulting in annual inspections to ensure each registered property remains in compliance with all applicable laws and bylaws. Floor plans and

8 June 9, 2014 Page 8 inventories relative to toxic materials can also be required to be submitted to assist the Fire Department should they be required to attend on a fire suppression incident. Fees to register include a one-time administrative fee of $ and yearly registration fees of $614 are then required. Administrative fees/penalties are then assessed should a building be found in violation of any applicable law. Fees collected in 2012 totaled $419,000, resulting in a 100 per cent cost recovery. Hamilton has found that this approach has been successful, as it has resulted in safer neighbourhoods and has further motivated property owners to maintain their buildings and seek new tenants/users more quickly. In 2009, the City of London passed a similar bylaw to the one passed by Hamilton. London requires that the owner of every vacant building ensure that the building is secure from unauthorized entry, maintains liability insurance, and protects the building from risk of fire, accident or other danger. In addition, the City may also require property owners to provide floor plans to the Chief Building Official and the Fire Chief and to remove all combustible materials. 8.5 Options for Consideration Option #1 - Amendment of Property Standards Bylaw - Demolition This option would require the amending of the Property Standards Bylaw to further require property owners of derelict vacant and abandoned properties to repair the properties within a set period of time or clear the land. If the property owners fail to comply with the Property Standards Order, the City may move forward with the demolition of such buildings. The issuance of such Property Standards Orders is however subject to appeal, both to the local Property Standards Committee, and further to the local Superior Court. Should such an Order be confirmed at these appeal levels, the City of Brantford can then undertake a demolition of these properties for failing to comply with a Property Standards Order contrary to the Building Code Act. The laying of charges for failing to comply with an Order contrary to the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 always remains an option Option #2 - Amendment of Property Standards Bylaw - Appearance The prevailing issue raised by complainants related to abandoned and boarded up buildings relate to the aesthetic appearance and resultant loss of property value. As outlined earlier, the City s current Property Standards Bylaw requires vacant buildings to be boarded up to prevent access. With a view to lessening

9 June 9, 2014 Page 9 the aesthetic impact of boarding windows and doors, the Property Standards Bylaw could be amended to require boarding as a temporary repair remedy (i.e. one year), but further requiring that the damaged windows and doors be repaired with windows and doors as prescribed in the Ontario Building Code Act. This requirement would then mitigate the need for continued boarding of entry points, thereby returning the property to its original appearance. Article 26 of the Property Standards Bylaw would therefore be amended by adding Section stating; Where a building remains vacant or unoccupied for a period of more than 1 calendar year, the owner shall ensure that all previously installed boarding be removed from all windows and doors and that all windows and doors be repaired to the standards prescribed in the Property Standards Bylaw and the Ontario Building Code Option #3 - Passage of Municipal Act Bylaw requiring Vacant Building Registry The Municipal Act, 2001 provides municipalities with broad authority to pass bylaws for, among other things, the health, safety, and well-being of the public, and for the protection or persons and property. It also provides municipalities with the power to regulate public nuisances or things that, in Council s opinion, could become or cause public nuisances. This option allows Council to pass a bylaw under the Municipal Act, 2001 requiring identified vacant buildings to be registered with the City and provide detailed information as to condition and content of buildings. This bylaw would apply to residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial properties. A building audit or inventory would be required to be undertaken and a fee structure established to ensure cost recovery for this initiative. Consultation would be held with the Legal Department on the development of such a bylaw. It is recommended that this bylaw be administered by the Building Department Option #4 - Maintain current enforcement practices This option would result in no change to current practices and no amending bylaw. The Building Department would therefore continue to respond to concerns relative to vacant and unoccupied properties on a complaint basis. The action taken would continue to require the appropriate boarding and disconnection or utility services. Building Department staff would continue to monitor boarding security of identified buildings to ensure access continues to be denied. This action would not require a funding source and is therefore in line with current Council direction.

10 June 9, 2014 Page 10 The laying of charges for failing to comply with an Order contrary to the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 always remains an option. 9.0 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS Option #1 Amendment of Property Standards Bylaw Demolition In this option, as outlined in Section 8.1, the Ontario Building Code Act does allow for the opportunity to demolish buildings that are not in compliance with a confirmed Property Standards Order. In researching this option, the municipalities that have adopted this amendment have not actually undertaken a demolition nor have they been effectively legally challenged on its merit. After extensive consultation with our Legal Department, staff is not recommending this particular option. The ability to demolish buildings pursuant to the Ontario Building Code Act should be restricted to those situations where there is a property standards violation with respect to the repair and maintenance of a building, not relative to its occupancy. This option is therefore not recommended by staff. Option #2 Amendment of Property Standards Bylaw Appearance This option would support an amendment to the Property Standards Bylaw by requiring vacant buildings to be returned to their original appearance by having windows and doors reinstalled as required as minimum standards in the Ontario Building Code. This is currently being pursued in both Cambridge and Kitchener as a mid-level step removed from demolition that would mitigate the negative appearance of vacant properties brought on by a continued lack of occupancy. Staff are recommending this option and enforcement will remain within the Building Department. Option #3 Passage of Municipal Act Bylaw requiring Vacant Building Registry As outlined in Section of this report, Council has the authority to pass a Municipal Act regulatory bylaw requiring owners of vacant buildings to register their properties with the City. In lieu of the success of this initiative with the City of Hamilton, and with a view of recovering costs of enforcement, staff is recommending approval of this option. The creation of this Bylaw can require property owners to provide important details of the content and structural condition of their property should emergency services be required to attend. Such requirements could include providing floor plans, content of toxic materials, maintaining the buildings structural integrity, security measures and property insurance. Exterior yard offences such as long grass and waste/garbage accumulation can also be made to be ensured are maintained to local bylaw

11 June 9, 2014 Page 11 standards. Consultation will be held with the Legal Department in the drafting of such a bylaw for Council s consideration. Option #4 Maintain current enforcement practices This option would allow the Building Department to continue to enforce the current provisions of the Property Standards Bylaw by requiring vacant buildings to be secure from unauthorized entry and that utilities be shut off. This action is consistent with the practices of most Ontario municipalities. The use of the stand- alone Fire Protection Bylaw also allows Building Department staff to board up buildings for emergency purposes. This option does not however serve as a deterrent to eliminate the continuing blight caused by vacant unused property FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Should staff be directed to prepare a bylaw to implement a vacant building registry program, costs with respect to the management and enforcement of the program established will be offset by fees collected for the implementation of the program CONCLUSION This Report provides information, analysis and options to deal with the issue of vacant and unoccupied buildings within the City. Option #2 recommends an amendment be made to the Property Standards Bylaw requiring all affixed boarding to be removed after a period of one (1) year and that all windows and doors be repaired to current standards. Staff recommends this option as a midlevel approach to removing the appearance of boarded up buildings and further require property owners to be more diligent and responsible in the appearance of their non-occupied properties. In researching this issue, the City of Hamilton has experienced great success with the implementation of a Vacant Building Registry Bylaw. With a view to creating a Building Registry Bylaw, it is recommended that Building Department staff be further directed to consult with the Legal Department in the development of such a bylaw to include required documentation relative to building contact information, condition, floor plan, insurance, security measures and content of toxic materials. A fee structure is also to be established to ensure a cost recovery model is developed to administer this bylaw. _ Garry J. Anderson CPSO, CMMIII Gregory Dworak MCIP, RPP Manager, Property Standards & Bylaws General Manager, Community Services

12 June 9, 2014 Page 12 In adopting this report, is a bylaw or agreement required? If so, it should be referenced in the recommendation section. Bylaw required [ X ] yes [ ] no Agreement(s) or other documents to be signed by Mayor and/or City Clerk [ ] yes [ X ] no Is the necessary bylaw or agreement being sent concurrently to Council? [ ] yes [ X ] no