Bnranews December 2021

bnranews@chebucto.ns.ca

4 participants
3 discussions

by lavellcampbell

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Cliff White <cliffwhiteonblack(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:11 PM Subject: 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St To: <rodgerv(a)halifax.ca> Dear Ms Rodger, Thanks for your reply. But I remain puzzled and has several questions. First why is the case closed. The site is still easily accessible and it remains dangerous. Also given the pass action of the owner and the likelihood that the same conditions will arise again why wouldn't there be ongoing monitoring of the site? In addition the many open windows in the building means that they will continue to deteriorate in which case the area will become even more unsafe and unsightly. Is part of the problem that your department is underfunded and under resourced so that it's not possible to effectively enforce the by-laws. It seems ridiculous that you can or do only respond after a public complaint. While waiting for those complaints someone could seriously be injured. We're fortunate that didn't happen at Bloomfield but it very well could have and might yet. Obvious this situation falls far short of what is need ensure that unsightly and dangerous properties are dealt with in a timely manner. Cliff White 5563 Black St. Mr. White Your complaint was attached to my open case for debris on that property. I have now closed that case, as I inspected the property yesterday and found that the waste and debris have been removed. As for “why this has been allowed to be this way for so long”, our department only responds to complaints in these matters. We have addressed the complaints we received in a timely manner. *Valerie RODGER* *Compliance Officer II* PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | Buildings and Compliance

2 years, 4 months

HRM determines that falling bricks and broken windows at Bloomfield are 'not deemed unsafe'

by Ronald Skibbens

Hi BNRA folks, I’m resending this to you all as the PDF I attached to the original was too big for our mail server. That file had this letter to Mayor Savage, plus the By Law email saying Bloomfield is ’not deemed unsafe this time’, and pictures of construction debris, broken windows, derelict fencing, graffiti, etc, etc. Dear Mayor Savage, Over the past month, me and a number of other concerned citizens have complained to our Councillor and to By Law enforcement about the dangerous and unsightly property at the Bloomfield school site. Some of that correspondence has been cc’ed to you. Now I am writing directly to you as the responses (and lack thereof) have proven quite unsatisfactory. The basic issue is that I believe the Bloomfield school site is both dangerous and unsightly. Less than 2 days ago, By Law Enforcement wrote to me that it is not dangerous. I respectfully submit that the Enforcement Officer confuses recently cleaning up syringes, broken glass and some of the trash with the dual issues of dangerous and unsightly premises. 1. The site is dangerous a. The site and all three buildings contravene HRM’s website describing a dangerous property as “dangerous or likely to cause danger to health, life or property” and is a “building or structure which presents an allurement or has open access to the public”. b. There are signs on the buildings warning of falling bricks. Corners of some of the buildings are literally crumbling, with bricks falling to the ground. I would suggest that falling bricks present danger. c. The site is not secure enough to prevent falling bricks from falling on someone. Waist high fencing on Agricola and Robie streets do not secure the site, and there is effectively no barrier to entering the site from Almon Street. d. The buildings present an allurement as evidenced by the amount of graffiti on all of the buildings, and windows obviously broken from the inside of the buildings. 2. The site is unsightly. a. Broken glass, syringes, furniture and some garbage have recently been cleaned up. However again quoting from HRM’s website, the property is unsightly in that it is a “property which has items that are decayed, deteriorated, demolished or in a state of disrepair… overgrown grass… lack of exterior maintenance to buildings/structures… graffiti on private property”. b. There is no evident exterior maintenance to the buildings other than attempts to close off ground level access points. Most of the windows in all three buildings are broken and provide relatively easy access to the interiors. c. The landscaping has been ignored completely. d. Graffiti is obvious on all three buildings. e. All of this unsightliness is particularly galling as By Law Enforcement recently posted a notice of dangerous or unsightly premises on a property on Creighton Street (near Buddy Daye). It noted that the owner is “hereby ordered to remedy the condition of the property by cutting or mowing all overgrown grass, weeds or shrubs, so as to leave the Property in a neat, tidy, environmentally compliant and safe condition.” Under threat of daily fines, the owner was given 7 days to remedy the matter. Why shouldn’t Bloomfield be subject to at least these same conditions? I’d be happy to do a walk about on the Bloomfield site with you to determine whether you agree that it is dangerous and unsightly. In the meantime, here are some pictures I took after receiving the Compliance Officer’s email, posted below. I suggest that the pictures reinforce my opinion that it is still both dangerous and unsightly. Your reply would be appreciated, Ron Skibbens

2 years, 4 months

Bloomfield follow up

by lavellcampbell

Hi, Jane, Cliff and i all have received follow up contact from the city about Bloomfield. Mine was in the form of a voicemail (i called my complaint in). Relevant points in that communication were: the owners did the clean up of debris, there are no longer open access points, they will start dealing with the graffitti, but, with weather being bad, that may not occur until spring and broken windows at the 2nd floor level are acceptable to the city. Below, in case you missed them, are Cliff's and Jane's communications. Pete Mr. White Your complaint was attached to my open case for debris on that property. I have now closed that case, as I inspected the property yesterday and found that the waste and debris have been removed. As for “why this has been allowed to be this way for so long”, our department only responds to complaints in these matters. We have addressed the complaints we received in a timely manner. *Valerie RODGER* *Compliance Officer II* PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | Buildings and Compliance *H?LIF?X* PO BOX 1749 HALIFAX NS B3J 3A5 C. 902.476.1708 *Date:* 11/30/2021 (05:35:47 PM AST) *From:* Jane Finlay-Young <janefingers(a)gmail.com <https://webmail.chebucto.ns.ca/dynamic.php?page=mailbox>> *To:* lavellcampbell <plavell(a)gmail.com <https://webmail.chebucto.ns.ca/dynamic.php?page=mailbox>> *Cc:* bnranews(a)chebucto.ns.ca <https://webmail.chebucto.ns.ca/dynamic.php?page=mailbox> *Subject:* Re: service request 7750539 - 2786 Agricola St Text (1 KB) I received a similar email from Valerie today, too. Jane [Hide Quoted Text] On

2 years, 4 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

Bnranews December 2021