ARICHAT: After rescinding a motion last month, council decided to proceed with a demolition order.
During its regular monthly meeting of Richmond Municipal Council on March 22 in Arichat, councillors voted to proceed with the demolition of a former residence in Whiteside.
Eastern District Planning Commission director John Bain told council they have been working on this since last April when they first received a complaint. After they did a site visit in May, Bain said letters were sent to the owners at the time, and no response was received until September when the EDPC was told by one of the owners that the property was being sold.
Last October, Bain said they again did a site visit to the property, and as a result, the EDPC determined it should be demolished.
“There was some COVID and election delays, and all of that, which got us into December,” he recalled.
During the regular monthly meeting on Feb. 22, councillors voted 3-1 to rescind a motion approved in January to order that the demolition process begin.
During the regular monthly meeting on Jan. 25, council accepted a recommendation from the EDPC to issue a 10-day demolition order.
At the time, Bain explained that after council approved a 30-day demolition order in December, the property still did not meet full compliance of the remedy and repair order since there was no fence erected around the chimney and the oil tank was not removed.
Bain said in January that he wasn’t prepared to move ahead with demolition because some conditions were followed, so the EDPC issued a pre-demolition order which allowed the owner to attend the council meeting, and present an engineer’s report, which includes a plan for repairing and reconstructing the building, as well as a timeline and estimates.
Back in January, co-owner Lester Morgan told council he was in discussions about signing over the land to master carpenter Terrance Graham, in return for tearing down his former residence, but he has been unable to contact co-owner Elizabeth Morgan. After consulting with a lawyer, Morgan said he was informed he could not sign over the property without the co-owner’s consent.
After receiving the demolition order from the EDPC on Jan. 8, Morgan told council he was unable to secure a letter from an engineer.
Despite expressing their sympathy with Morgan’s situation, council decided to proceed with the demolition of the property.
The notice to rescind the motion was made at the Feb. 9 committee of the whole meeting, then introduced during the regular session by District 3 Councillor Melanie Sampson.
She told council she received information after the motion was passed in January, including a memo from an engineer that gave her “some pause.”
The district 3 councillor said although the engineer’s letter was “vague,” it did open the door to other possibilities, and council wasn’t clear about what they were looking for from the engineer.
Sampson said after talking to Lester Morgan, he reported there was contact with his co-owner, and she believes the letter indicates the property is salvageable.
According to the engineer’s letter, Deputy Warden Michael Diggdon said the foundation was solid and the structure was damaged but could be repaired.
As a result of the rescinded motion, Bain told council at the time that the EDPC would send the property owners a notice requesting they appear at the next council meeting to present a plan to repair the residence, signed-off by an engineer, along with quotes and timelines for construction. He said the correspondence would clearly outline what information they require at the next meeting.
“Basically the motion to rescind started us all over again,” Bain said on March 22. “The instruction that I received from council is that we were to be very clear with the property owners as to what was expected from them at this meeting.”
Bain concluded his presentation last Monday night by noting that no building permits have been issued or applied for, and the EDPC’s recommendation for demolition has not changed.
Lester Morgan said he thought the letter he sent to council and the EDPC in the winter provided enough information. He also told council he was unaware the motion was rescinded and only received the letter from the EDPC on March 5.
“It pretty much says that I have to do this, I have to do this, I have to do that but it doesn’t say anything about options like selling it to a younger person who can get a grant,” Morgan said during the March 22 meeting. “It doesn’t seem to allow for me to pass the property on to a younger person who’s eligible to get a mortgage and a loan. I’m not able to in my senior years.”
Noting his limited financial capabilities, Morgan said it is unfair that the EDPC is forcing him to do everything. Because of the pandemic, and because they live outside Nova Scotia, Morgan said none of his family have been able to help him.
“It’s harassment that I see that’s been going on,” he said. “It was a very embarrassing thing, I better add that too; embarrassing to my family, to everything to what we divulged here.”
Graham said he did reach co-owner Elizabeth Morgan and took issue with some of Bain’s statements, as well as indications he did not respond to calls from the EDPC.
“We’ve done everything that was on the list. We secured that window, we closed-in all the basement windows; we weren’t even asked to,” he stated.
Graham said the oil tank could not be removed from the property because it is an expensive, time-consuming task and an engineer’s letter said the house was not in danger of collapse and was reparable. He said there simply isn’t enough time to complete the repairs in the timelines mandated.
In response to a statement by Morgan, Warden Amanda Mombourquette said the co-owners are free to sell the property.
District 1 Councillor Shawn Samson agreed that if the co-owner agrees, selling the property might be the best option.
Diggdon said council has done everything it can to be fair to Morgan, by extending him extra time because of his illness and the holidays.
“Any building is reparable, however, I guess that’s not what we’re here to discuss tonight,” he responded. “I believe ample time was given.”
The councillor district 3, said while she supported rescinding the motion based on a letter from engineer Joe Janega, it’s time to move on. “We’ve given a sufficient amount of time,” Sampson said. “If you had documentation from Mr. Janega that talked about being hired for the job, and not having enough time, something, anything, or some communication between yourselves and EDPC about those pieces as well, I think those are all considerations. But that’s not where we are today. Where we are today is back at the beginning, still with a home that meets the conditions that aren’t acceptable under the dangerous and unsightly premises, and unfortunately, I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t proceed here.”