LETTERS:We need to hear candidates vision

I am one of over 80 condo owners in Cherry Lane Towers who, through our strata council, have been in conflict with the city staff for nearly four years about roll shutters installed to provide some relief against the Okanagan sun.

The hundreds of unpaid hours dedicated  by strata council members to meetings, inspections, studies and correspondence will have been matched by city staff hours paid through our taxes.

In 2003, when owners chose to explore the idea of these roll shutters, the city administration then in place advised that building permits were not required for “retractable” installations and had no interest. With this determination, I and other owners invested more than $500,000 in various combinations of roll shutters and screens that enhance the seasonal use of our balconies. All installations were carried out by a local licensed company with a solid reputation using factory-trained personnel with extensive experience.

We now have a new city administration that takes the position that permits must be obtained retroactively for installations made up to 11 years ago (a cash grab?) These shutters and screens have been installed throughout B.C., North America and the Caribbean and the manufacturer, a continent-wide enterprise based in B.C., states that Penticton is the only jurisdiction in their market area requesting building permits and the first to raise any safety-related issues.  We are owners caught between two generations of conflicting city staff.

A study paid for by the strata in mid-2011 made clear that there was no relevant legislation then in place in respect to balconies and the author took the initiative to construct possible guidelines based on the 2010 National Fire Protection Act, a version that was not in effect when the installations were made.

Whatever their merit, these were only suggestions by a single consultant which have not been reviewed by the governing bodies and have no apparent legislative authority. Despite this, city staff is using this report to demand possible removal of all roll shutters, their replacement with screens, or the costly and unsightly installation of sprinklers on concrete balconies with a fire resistant finish.

Compliance could cost the owners involved, many of whom are senior widows or widowers on fixed incomes, as much as another $500,000. The alternative, city staff say, would be consideration of individual resolutions to put notice on title. This lengthy process would surely divert the attention of city council from other more important matters.

I do not know why city staff is focusing on a modern concrete and steel development, fully sprinklered and rated as fire resistant. It is clear that the restrictions and compliance actions they are proposing could be applied to most or all other apartment and strata developments in the city including those with glassed-in balconies.

Be wary Penticton. City staff may soon be staging an event near you.  The potential resulting costs to citizens and the tax-paid legal and financial consequences are frightening.

I am disappointed that, notwithstanding the more than $500,000 spent by us owners in good faith and the threat of arbitrary compliance actions that could cost a group of senior property owners another $500,000, no member of city council other than former mayor Dan Ashton took the time to make a personal inspection of these installations or review the impact of the staff proposals.

Brian Remus

Unit owner, Cherry Lane Towers

Penticton

Problem doesn’t exist

Recently we moved from Osoyoos to Penticton to be closer to the hospital due to health concerns.

We spent hours researching the Cherry Lane Towers location as it is a solidly built steel and concrete building and in excellent condition.

We purchased a unit containing balcony roll shutters. We were confident and assured by everything we researched on these roll shutters that the city would accept all the hours of correspondence strata and Talius Industries provided city staff and councillors, confirming the structural integrity of these installations that have been in place for up to 11 years and have survived exceptional local storm conditions without incident.

$500,000 have been invested in these roll shutters with Penticton city staff approval and the approval of former mayor Dan Ashton, also acknowledging that no permits were needed.

We were surprised and disappointed to receive a letter on Aug. 20 from the current building and permitting manager stating the city wanted to bring our unit’s balcony into safety compliance (totally disregarding all the correspondence proving these roll shutters are structurally safe).

On Sept. 24 we received another letter from the current building and permitting manager stating that if we do not comply by Oct. 4 the city may have no other recourse but to recommend to city council that it consider a resolution directing the corporate officer of the city to file a notice in the Kamloops Land Title Office against our property.

How is it that current city officials can just ignore and reverse approval given by former mayor Dan Ashton and the city officials serving with him and demand retroactive city permits or they will file a notice on our property in the land title office?

Why is it that city staff has refused to respond to the various requests from owners to provide us with regulations and bylaws governing balconies on non-combustible buildings in effect at the time the installations were made? The owners have not received any statements of specific violations we are being accused of. The owners with roll shutters are seniors on a fixed budget.

To pay out thousands or more dollars to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, would be a hardship. Does certain city staff not have enough work to do that they would waste tax dollars pursuing a problem that doesn’t exist and keep them from conducting genuine business in Penticton?

Bob and Sandy Bell

Unit owner, Cherry Lane Towers

Penticton

Changing the Rules

I am another of the large group of senior owners in Cherry Lane Towers who made a major investment in a combination of shutters and blinds to allow summer use of a large attractive balcony.

This installation was made at a time when the city planning department had no interest and did not require a building permit for retractable installations of this nature.

I now face demands from a new generation of staff to apply for a retroactive building permit, remove or replace two small shutters at substantial additional cost or pay the even higher costs of extending my building sprinkler system onto the balcony. The alternative is reportedly notice on title that could significantly affect the value of my property.

It is disturbing that this new generation of staff says they have the right to override the policy decisions of the previous administration. Even more disturbing is their claimed authority to demand compliance actions that would cost me thousands of dollars and all of the owners involved, hundreds of dollars.

These demands are based on guidelines proposed by a single consultant in a report that the city did not commission and that was prepared long after the shutter installations. These guidelines are not reflected in the current codes, have not been seen or vetted by the relevant provincial authorities, and have not been incorporated in any municipal bylaw.

Does city staff really have the power to independently make and enforce arbitrary additions to the building and fire codes that appear to lack any legislative authority? If so, where does this end and how does anyone launch an effective appeal? It is difficult to fight city hall. When staff does not respond to your arguments, does not provide needed answers, and will not quote relevant legislation, there is nothing you can do.

Threats of a legal confrontation mean little since the staff has lawyers and potential case cost paid for through the city budget. Property owners on the other hand must engage legal counsel at their own expense, making an objective review by a third party or the court virtually impossible.

The only alternative might be increased public pressure on this and future city councils to take a closer look at some of the staff initiatives, the justification and the impact these can and are having on local businesses and individual property owners. If you agree, please speak out.

C.F. Armstrong

Penticton