Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[Traum]

Seems like a fairly straightfoward issue for West Van to deal with -- the mayor has already quite clearly indicated that the building is in violation of the OCP -- no new development is permitted within five metres of top of bank as per watercourse protection guidelines. The OCP is pretty much black and white, so any permit applications to build will be denied.

Black and white, end of story. What else is there for the home owner to dispute on?

The home owner's contract with the builder included a provision that the owners shall provide the building permit. They didn't even apply for it. Again, everything is in black and white here. You signed the contract -- you're bound by the terms of the contract.

What is there to dispute about?

[Badhobz]

knock knock!

who is it?

CITY OF WEST VANCOUVER HAMAS!!!!

*explodes*

[Gumby]

The builder walked away because the owners failed to obtain permits. Who finished the construction?

[bcrdukes]

Originally Posted by Gumby

The builder walked away because the owners failed to obtain permits. Who finished the construction?

I am curious who even had the guts to continue this project? Did the City even provide a stop work order?

I speculate that whoever finished the construction may not have cared as long as they were paid and saw a reasonable cashflow.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by Traum

Seems like a fairly straightfoward issue for West Van to deal with -- the mayor has already quite clearly indicated that the building is in violation of the OCP -- no new development is permitted within five metres of top of bank as per watercourse protection guidelines. The OCP is pretty much black and white, so any permit applications to build will be denied.

Actually, my comment about the OCP being pretty black and white is incorrect. They are only guidelines, and city council is generally pretty reluctant to allow individual cases to violate them because a LOT of work -- community consultations, in particular -- is done to come up with those guidelines. Allowing for exceptions would also be the equivalent of City Council eating their own words, rendering the OCP meaningless, and compromising City Council's credibility. But people and developers can apply for exemptions to meet those OCP guidelines, and the municipal gov has the authority to grant those exceptions. In the cases of big, influential developers, they can (and will) lobby the municipal gov to either give them the exemption, or to amend those gudielines to allow for the build that they are seeking.

Case in point -- CoV under Mayor Sim has amended our municipal view cone guidelines to allow for high rises that would block some of our North Shore mountain views. People in the neighbourhood are up in arms about it, but Sim has gone ahead with it anyway.

But in the case of the Global News story, West Van has every legal argument and authority on their side to tell the home owner to pound sand (and tear the addition down). Or they can come up with whatever BS reasons they want to grant the exception / waive the requirement to meet the OCP watercourse protection guidelines.

[Eff-1]

I've been following this case closely and here's what stands out most to me.

Naib Gerami is the head of Kirkstone Heating Ltd. If there's anyone on the planet who should know about permits, and read a contract where it says the homeowner secures the permits, it's the head of a heating company.

He acknowledges that in his letter to council:

As a former shareholder of a licensed home-service company, we find this situation especially
frustrating. In our industry, obtaining the proper permits for gas appliance installations is not
just standard, it is mandatory.

We are accountable to both homeowners and municipal
authorities to adhere to strict protocols before and throughout the course of any installation.
We uphold these practices at all times, and it is shocking to me that a licensed builder would
bypass such basic legal obligations during a year-long construction project.

The fact that this structure was built so deliberately, over a lengthy timeline, under full control
of the builder, and without any municipal oversight, is incredibly concerning. As professionals,
we are expected to act in the best interest of homeowners. That trust was violated here

I gotta think that a businessman knows how to read a contract, especially the part about who gets the permits.

On the flip side, if there's anyone else on the planet who should know what the status of a permit is, it's a general contractor who worked on something for a full EIGHT months without a permit in hand before choosing to walk away from the project. Didn't they question the fact there were no inspectors coming by?

If you ask me, they both smell funny. I'm really curious to see how the court case unfolds.

If anyone wants to really geek out on it like I did, you can see the owner's submission to Council here (https://westvancouver.ca/media/7092)

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by Gumby

The builder walked away because the owners failed to obtain permits. Who finished the construction?

This part isn't entirely clear.

From my reading of the documents, the owners are suggesting the builder did finish the construction (or they are choosing to omit mentioning that another builder finished it).

In the lawsuit, the builder is saying he walked away, someone else must have finished it, and is now suing for unpaid fees.

[Harvey Specter]

Gulp, I almost started WW3 on RS

Anyhow, back on topic. I’m looking for flooring for my new house and visited Global Carpets in Vancouver. They have a massive selection, good prices, and solid reviews online but has anyone here actually dealt with them?

[bcedhk]

Originally Posted by Traum

Actually, my comment about the OCP being pretty black and white is incorrect. They are only guidelines, and city council is generally pretty reluctant to allow individual cases to violate them because a LOT of work -- community consultations, in particular -- is done to come up with those guidelines. Allowing for exceptions would also be the equivalent of City Council eating their own words, rendering the OCP meaningless, and compromising City Council's credibility. But people and developers can apply for exemptions to meet those OCP guidelines, and the municipal gov has the authority to grant those exceptions. In the cases of big, influential developers, they can (and will) lobby the municipal gov to either give them the exemption, or to amend those gudielines to allow for the build that they are seeking.

Case in point -- CoV under Mayor Sim has amended our municipal view cone guidelines to allow for high rises that would block some of our North Shore mountain views. People in the neighbourhood are up in arms about it, but Sim has gone ahead with it anyway.

But in the case of the Global News story, West Van has every legal argument and authority on their side to tell the home owner to pound sand (and tear the addition down). Or they can come up with whatever BS reasons they want to grant the exception / waive the requirement to meet the OCP watercourse protection guidelines.

The area in question is subject to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation (RAPR), which falls under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, the City would note the Watercourse or Environmental Development Permit in their OCP to ensure that the property owner has obtained provincial approval based on the recommendations of a qualified environmental professional.
Most City's would only require a building permit for a laneway house.

In this case, no Watercourse DP = No Building Permit.

MY guess is the City would register a lien on Title to their property if they continue to not comply with the orders.

[bcrdukes]

RAPR - What a terrible acronym.

[Scotsman]

West Van has to make them tear it down.

Lots of media attention so they have to make an example of them (FAFO) and precedent for others. The build was so egregiously illegal that if that doesn't warrant a "tear it down" then others will think "yay I can do this or that and W Van won't care since it's barely illegal compared to that place".

Interesting to see the outcome here just like Gumby's neighbour LOL (https://www.revscene.net/forums/6747...ml#post9191367)

[unit]

they say they're going to keep appealing and try to get the permits themselves which makes no sense... it clearly says in the video that that a dwelling there would never be permitted anyway due to the proximity to the creek...

[CivicBlues]

they also claimed people were being racist to them because some anonymous note was left telling them to "go back home"

[bcedhk]

This guy clearly has the money and finding ways to drag a few more months until they have to demolish the house. They even hired a lawyer to attend the council meeting. That said, the lawyer's remarks were pretty weak.

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by bcedhk

The area in question is subject to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation (RAPR), which falls under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, the City would note the Watercourse or Environmental Development Permit in their OCP to ensure that the property owner has obtained provincial approval based on the recommendations of a qualified environmental professional.
Most City's would only require a building permit for a laneway house.

In this case, no Watercourse DP = No Building Permit.

MY guess is the City would register a lien on Title to their property if they continue to not comply with the orders.

City registered a lien. They have 60 days to tear it down as of last week.

From how I read it, the owners are trying to focus their argument on the environmental side, since originally this was flagged as an issue by the city's environmental protection dept for the reasons you mentioned .

If you ignore the building permit violation and look at it only from the environmental side, the owners are asking the city to allow them to modify the building so it no longer goes past the 5m setback from the top of the bank, and then getting the proper variance permits.

But the staff are saying look: forget about the environment stuff, it was built without a development or building permit to begin with (which they likely never would have received due to the creek), and therefore should be torn down.

Owner's lawyer is arguing there's no proof as of yet that it's not safe, and that people build without permits all the time and the city usually works with people to allow for inspections after the fact, so they want the same approach here too.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Interesting to see the outcome here just like Gumby's neighbour LOL (https://www.revscene.net/forums/6747...ml#post9191367)

LOL my neighbour's not on a hill next to a creek, so he won't have to demolish his LWH. I guess after paying a fine and some delays, he will get his additional suite eventually...

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by bcedhk

This guy clearly has the money and finding ways to drag a few more months until they have to demolish the house. They even hired a lawyer to attend the council meeting. That said, the lawyer's remarks were pretty weak.

The other part that was interesting is they say they are a family who works hard and does everything by the book.

But I couldn't help but notice they lived in BC Housing, and then suddently a 6 million dollar house?? A cardiologist and the dad who is the head of a heating company living in gov't subsidized housing??

“Everything we have done, everything we have achieved until now has been by the book,” Kamran Gerami told councillors at Monday’s meeting.

In making his plea for council to reconsider its July 21 decision ordering the backyard structure be torn down, Gerami said he is part of a hard working family who immigrated to Canada in 1989.

The mining engineer said his father, cardiologist brother, and janitor mother lived in BC Housing until 2020.

All their success has been through hard work, Gerami said, and in 2021 they were able to purchase 1145 Chartwell Crescent.

[bcedhk]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

City registered a lien. They have 60 days to tear it down as of last week.

From how I read it, the owners are trying to focus their argument on the environmental side, since originally this was flagged as an issue by the city's environmental protection dept for the reasons you mentioned .

If you ignore the building permit violation and look at it only from the environmental side, the owners are asking the city to allow them to modify the building so it no longer goes past the 5m setback from the top of the bank, and then getting the proper variance permits.

But the staff are saying look: forget about the environment stuff, it was built without a development or building permit to begin with (which they likely never would have received due to the creek), and therefore should be torn down.

Owner's lawyer is arguing there's no proof as of yet that it's not safe, and that people build without permits all the time and the city usually works with people to allow for inspections after the fact, so they want the same approach here too.

The only way a variance could be considered is through a QEP’s sign-off. However, it’s highly unlikely any firm would be willing to take that risk, as it could jeopardize their credibility and license given how much spotlight this site has nowadays

Originally Posted by Eff-1

The other part that was interesting is they say they are a family who works hard and does everything by the book.

But I couldn't help but notice they lived in BC Housing, and then suddently a 6 million dollar house?? A cardiologist and the dad who is the head of a heating company living in gov't subsidized housing??

I am wondering if global tv or cbc are doing their investigation to see if they can find out whether or not the owners were milking the BC Housing system for their own financial gains.

[bcrdukes]

Originally Posted by Gumby

LOL my neighbour's not on a hill next to a creek, so he won't have to demolish his LWH. I guess after paying a fine and some delays, he will get his additional suite eventually...

Wait, didn't you narc on your neighbour?

Or did I misread the situation?

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by bcrdukes

Wait, didn't you narc on your neighbour?

Or did I misread the situation?

Despite my complaints, no I did not narc on my neighbour - I just thought it was hilarious that somebody did!

[JDMDreams]

I'm more interested to see what happens to the Indians vs bc gov thing, the courts ruled the Indians won? So they own the land that Richmond ports, airport is on? Also some private land too.

[unit]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

The other part that was interesting is they say they are a family who works hard and does everything by the book.

But I couldn't help but notice they lived in BC Housing, and then suddently a 6 million dollar house?? A cardiologist and the dad who is the head of a heating company living in gov't subsidized housing??

i thought that was really weird too.. its weird to even brag about because it brings up so many questions.

[68style]

I knew a guy who was a high up manager at the fuckin City of Vancouver like $200k+ back in the early 2000’s and he lived in subsidized housing near Commercisl Dr. It was unreal.

[Badhobz]

^see ! now thats scamming the system. makes my costco sprees look like nothing.

[is350]

Originally Posted by Harvey Specter

Ok, but what are the Chinese famous for? Flooding Canada with illegal money and making it impossible for locals to buy real estate? Flooding NA with fentanyl? Running foreign interference in every election and university? Popping out kids, getting a passport, then running back to China without paying hospital bills? Claiming low income while living in multi million-dollar homes and leeching off free services while taxpayers are stuck with the bill?

I think most would argue that the Chinese have done more harm than good for Canada, and I’m sure if you ran a poll asking Canadians how they view Chinese Canadians, it would come out similar to Indians.

How many claims you made here you can back up with proof or statistics? We discussed this long long time ago, the majority of west van, van west house owners are not chinese, home or 2nd home investors are not majority chinese either, so chinese did not make it impossible for locals to buy real estate.

Do you think rich indians won't claim low income when they don't work here and also live in multi million mansions? If you wanna talk about leeching off free services, check how many indians are doing false WCB claims, check how many have leeched off the old ICBC system by claiming they are in pain and how they can't work whenever involved in a MVA. Check how many take fake sick days off at each workplace.

There are tons of proof for what I said in my original post in the news, I'm sure Chinese isn't as heavily involved in gangs and shooting obviously.. lol, The medal counts and how many athletes represent their countries in each olympics speak for themselves. how about the majority of serious and fatal car accidents that are reported in the news that are results from reckless driving? Drive on Hwy 91, 99, 17, and look who the left lane hoggers and blatant cut-offs are from.

Running foreign interference in every election and university? If anything, CCP and the ppl there focus on building their own society and not get involved in other countries' issues unless other countries get involved in their own diplomatic matters. If you believe in western propaganda, and you can't use own brain, that's your own fault