When the walls come tumbling down

A downtown building in long time disrepair and deemed a serious fire risk to neighbouring homes has been ordered to face demolition by Prince Rupert City Council.

Council last week passed the motion seeking the removal of the apartments at 1021 Second Avenue West (besides Raffles Inn); the required demolition must take place within 30 days. The building which is owned by a resident of Terrace was originally zoned as duplex, but now holds 11 electrical meters in the building. Fire and building inspectors cited a number of problems with the structure such in their recommendation that the building be destroyed before a fire breaks out and spread to those buildings located close by.

The owner has thirty days to take action, failure to do so will see the city destroy the property and bill the cost back to the absentee land owner.

The Daily News featured the story as its front page story in Thursday’s paper.

CITY DEMANDS OWNER TAKES WRECKING BALL TO BUILDING
Councillors, the fire chief and city hall staff say apartment is a serious fire risk
By Leanne Ritchie
The Daily News
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Pages one and two

A derelict apartment building next door to the Raffles Inn is a huge fire hazard to neighbouring homes and needs to be torn down, according to Prince Rupert city council.

“It poses an unsafe hazard to the community and the public,” said Douglas Jay, the city’s corporate administrator.

Acting on the advice of its staff, council decided last week to pass a motion seeking the removal of the apartment at 1021 Second Avenue West within 30 days.

“It’s the large grey structure that has been in disrepair for some time,” said Prince Rupert Mayor Herb Pond.

According to the city’s building inspector and fire chief, the apartment building has broken doors and locks and a lack of windows, which increases the potential for a fire to spread to neighbouring buildings.

The building’s owner lives in Terrace. Despite having attempted to have the situation remedied for the past year, staff say they have gotten nowhere.

“It is perceived there may still be an occupant in the building which causes the fire chief great concern,” said Jay.

The building was built as a duplex but there are now at least 11 electrical metres in the building.

“There was never a permit taken out for the add-on of these additional units, yet our property records indicate it was built as a single or duplex,” said Jay.

“There’s no way the municipality can say this complies with code. When you look at the photos taken by the inspector when he poked his head through windows, you can see some of the walls have never been properly filled in with any drywall or approved fire separation,” said Jay.

“The concern is you have a wooden hull here and should there be any vandalism, even petty mischief, an accidental spark… would easily go through that building quite quickly and because of the size of that building, the volume of the fire would be so intense, it would easily jump to the property next to it as it is not really fully set back five feet as according to the bylaw.”

If the owner does nothing and the city has to destroy the property, the cost of the destruction will be billed back to the property owner.

It is expected to cost between $10,000 and $15,000 to remove.

This is not the first property the city has asked owners to remove. In recent months, the city has approached a number of owners about removing derelict buildings including homes at 511 Cotton Street and 701-5th Avenue East.

However, the city has yet to take any action in regards to the Inlander apartments, despite the fact that councilors have gone on the record with their concerns about fire safety in the building after the fire chief raised a number of issues back in 2005.

Two years ago, council insisted the owner repair the front of the building because of the influx of cruise ship passengers.