A 20-year history of non-compliance with property maintenance clean-up orders is one reason city council refused to give any more support to a property owner at 560 Stadacona Street West.
During the May 10 regular meeting, council denied a request from resident Linda Cooney for a refund of $2,500 that she paid to city hall as a non-refundable deposit, which was necessary to meet the requirements of a one-month extension to a demolition order that council gave on Oct. 19, 2020.
Background
Cooney had to submit an engineer’s report about an existing basement foundation — a fire destroyed the home in 2015 — and acquire a building permit by Nov. 19, 2020, to construct a new home to receive the refund, a council report explained.
However, she did not include information in the application about the proposed home’s energy efficiency, which forced a building official to send two letters and contact Cooney and an energy designer asking for the data. The designer — the second one hired — did not start drafting plans until mid-January and had complications due to Cooney’s delays.
While Cooney applied for the building permit before Nov. 19, city hall did not issue the document until March 30, 2021, because of the missing data, the report added.
Presentation
Cooney spoke to council in person about some of her actions to clean up her property. She argued that she should receive back her $2,500 deposit since she had provided a satisfactory engineer’s report about the foundation.
“As you know, everything is extremely expensive. The price of wood has tripled in the past year. It’s just incredibly expensive (to build a home),” she said.
The conflict with the energy designer was because he wanted to install argon gas windows while she didn’t, since the seals crack easily and they are not energy efficient, Cooney continued. She spoke to a building inspector in Regina and Moose Jaw about the type of windows she wanted; both agreed that her choice was acceptable.
“I don’t have money to buy those (argon gas) windows and then 10 years down the road buy other windows,” she said, adding it cost her almost $700 for the services of the energy designer.
Council discussion
“This is so difficult because I feel like I’m Judge Judy trying to figure these things out. But given what we know, there has been adequate time given for the resident to (address this issue),” said Coun. Heather Eby.
While there were many hoops through which Cooney had to jump, these tasks need to be done, she continued. Council cannot keep extending clean-up orders, especially since it laid out in October how Cooney could receive her deposit back.
This property has a history, it has affected the neighbourhood, and it has been before council at least five times previously, said Coun. Crystal Froese. She was glad to see Cooney finally building on the lot.
“This worries me because of the history of non-compliance. We keep coming back to this,” said Coun. Jamey Logan. “… the city doesn’t like to take $2,500 from people, but I’m not sure what else to do. Perhaps we look at keeping this deposit until substantial completion and occupancy (occurs).”
This council and previous councils have told city administration to address derelict properties and run-down buildings and increase standards, said city manager Jim Puffalt. While city hall sympathizes with the Cooneys, there is a list of properties throughout the city that need addressing.
“Some of these have gone on for quite an extended time,” he added. “We have expectations that the work gets done and we hold people to the bylaws.”
The next regular council meeting is Tuesday, May 25.
