CITY OF COLWOOD MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING

Transcription

1 CITY OF COLWOOD MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, January 21, 2005 at 9:00 a.m Wishart Road, Colwood, B.C. - Council Chambers PRESENT Chair, Councillor Vice-Chair, Councillor Member Ernie Robertson Connie Harrigan Marcel Krywy Iain Hooey Staff Resources Chief Administrative Officer Deputy Clerk Bylaw Enforcement Officer Joseph Calenda Pat VanBuskirk Kevin Atkinson 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IAIN HOOEY That the agenda be approved as presented. 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES MARCEL KRYWY That the following minutes be adopted: A. Administration Committee November 5, 2004

2 Administration Committee Minutes January 21, 2005 Page #2 3. OLD BUSINESS A. Report Bylaw Enforcement Officer/Chief Administrative Officer RE: BLASTING CONCERNS FOR RAVENWOOD SUBDIVISION (A5.2.27/8.5.1(b) The Committee reviewed a report dated January 12, 2005, from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and Chief Administrative Officer regarding blasting concerns from the Ravenwood Subdivision, and other blasting concerns. The Bylaw Enforcement Officer provided an overview of his report, which addressed the four concerns the Administration Committee directed be researched following their September 12, 2004 meeting. a) Are proper blasting procedures being followed? Yes. WCB oversees blasting in British Columbia, and issues Blasting Tickets to qualified individuals; the Ministry of Natural Resources Canada regulates proper handling and storage of blasting materials. b) Is the 48 hour notification period sufficient? Yes. Suggested that we consider making the 48-hour notification apply to business days, not calendar days, to allow homeowners with a better chance to get a pre-blast survey done. c) Study blasting level in relation to the soil conditions. This is out of the City s scope and area of expertise. Consulted with Fieber Rock Engineering Services, which provided a written response entitled, Blast Vibration and Air-blast Control. (The letter will be attached to the end of these minutes for reference purposes.) d) Re-visit the report regarding blasting on Triangle Mountain. A report was prepared by the CAO (April 28, 2004). The review of this report concluded that the Triangle Mountain report on blasting is accurate and complete. The Bylaw Enforcement Officer suggested that the blasting bylaw be amended requiring the 48-hour notification period to be two clear business days prior to blasting. Mr. Larry Hagel, 693 Townview Terrace, spoke to the Bylaw Enforcement Officer s report and provided an overview of the issues residents near the Ravenwood Subdivision are dealing with. He wants to know if the blasting companies have been and are complying with the bylaw. (He was advised that we cannot answer that as it is regulated by WCB.) Dr. Anastasia Loumbardias-Kutzan, 684 Townview Terrace, asked if pre-blast survey requirements were met stating that she didn t get her notification on the most recent blasting until the day blasting started. She felt the notification should include a requirement to do a pre-blast survey. (City has already created a notification form for use by the blasting companies with this additional information on it to make homeowners aware of their rights and to provide them with the name and contact information of the companies insurance representatives.)

3 Administration Committee Minutes January 21, 2005 Page #3 Mr. Dave Purnell, representing HHS Drilling and Blasting Ltd., spoke to the blasting issue in the Ravenwood Subdivision area. He provided an overview of the process they follow, which includes hiring an independent surveyor, Excel Adjustco, to do pre-blast surveys; they deliver flyers with relevant information to the affected homes; before starting he meets with the insurance company advising which houses are to be surveyed. He advised that insurance company representatives work with homeowners for in-house surveys and advise when the work is complete. He further noted that flyers are delivered, and names and contact numbers are provided so anyone can call if they believe their survey wasn t done. Additionally, in his opinion, he commented that the 48- hour notification period is enough and provided an overview of that process. Mr. Osguthorpe commented that the company tries to work people affected by blasting; it is the insurers that are not working together, making things difficult for the companies and the neighbours. Dr. Loumbardias-Kutzan stated that insurance companies say they have to include start dates in order to ensure coverage by the insurance company. Mr. Dave Osguthorpe, representing Alpha Drilling and Blasting Ltd., agreed with Mr. Purnell s comments stating that the use of seismographs and pre-blast surveys are part of the job and what they do is a matter of course to protect the company. The company tells the insurer and surveyor which houses must be done. He further stated that they follow the rules as bylaws and seismographs are important to the business; the information is required to protect and insure themselves. Mr. Hagel asked if the insurance company went on his property without his permission, and asked if they took pictures. Mr. Purnell explained that the insurance company is responsible for contacting homeowners and making arrangements to do the survey; he personally does not go on anyone s property. Mr. Gerry Kelly, 816 Glassview Lane, says the current bylaw is quite good but could be improved. The source of safety standards and regulations should be incorporated into the blasting bylaw. He further suggested that the bylaw contain a reference to where the regulatory authority rests with the Province. Mr. Kelly felt that seismographs should be monitored by the contractor at the nearest structure to the blast and should be kept on record. Mr. Purnell replied that this is done; they will monitor a home and other houses close to the blast area if they receive a complaint from residents in the area. He stated that at least two seismographs will be used and they are set up at the closest structure, and they make out blasting reports. They can record 30 to 40 events per seismograph, which are then downloaded and stored on floppy disks which can be researched as needed and they provide information to insurance companies when requested. Mr. Osguthorpe commented that they use seismographs when the job first started and do a very small blast and test the measurement of the blast. This is both an art and a science and it is done to help guide the blaster to adjust those blasts if a reading is higher than half of what is permitted. Dr. Anastasia Loumbardias-Kutzan spoke to the ripple effect felt in her home, and that blasting has gone on for years. She believes constant shocking of the area affects the

4 Administration Committee Minutes January 21, 2005 Page #4 soil, which is going to shift creating the types of problems they face; windows won t shut, doors won t close homeowners shouldn t have to bear the brunt of the cost to repair problems. Mr. Rick Morton, 3478 Fulton Road, suggested a requirement for smaller blast holes, etc., rather than changing the bylaw. He suggested that limitations or restrictions be placed on blasting that allows contractors to follow the rules and regulations, but requires a smaller blast if close to a house. Mr. Hagel stated the city should be protecting homeowners from the types of blast (Ravenwood Subdivision) that affected him and his neighbours, and further commented that they wouldn t be here if the insurance companies would cover the damage, but they won t. His home was built properly, was fully inspected by the CRD and met all the requirements of the day. An engineer now tells him that it is hollow below ground it wasn t before. He is upset that he ll likely never recover his costs for a matter he is not responsible for. Mr. Kelly referred to two articles regarding blasting: one by Leeds University Goodquarry Article, which suggested good practices to avoid unnecessary problems. For example, reducing the public s reaction to blasting and addressing concerns about the effect on their homes; the second article, written by the National Research Council, (NCR) addressed blasting and building damage, particularly to homes very close to the blasting area. The NRC articles states that blasting within a certain distance less than 100 feet can in fact move the structure of the home off its foundation. They have established conservative safe standards for blasting, which requires a pre-blast that include a foundation survey. Mr. Kelly suggested the city consider including similar wording in its bylaw as seismographs don t pick up this kind of movement. He concluded by saying that people need assurances and should not have to fight for their rights after the fact. Mr. Purnell and Mr. Osguthorpe provided an overview of the many processes they follow and surveyor/insurance company representative s responsibilities with respect to preblast surveys. Committee members discussed the public s concerns and the blasting issues referred to them by Council, and additional issues brought up by members of the public. This included considering separate criteria if a large volume of rock us to be moved; educating property owners so they know what to expect when blasting takes place in their area; significant increases in fines for blasting without permits; withholding permits for non-compliance; and staff continuing to suggest improvements to the notification and other practices to improve the process. Mr. Hagel thanked the committee and city hall staff recognizing their attempts to resolve issues faced by the homeowners and commenting that he appreciates what is being done to help. IAIN HOOEY That it be recommended to Council: That Section 7 of the City of Colwood Blasting Bylaw, 1993 No. 272 be amended to require that at least 48 clear hours or 2 business day notice

5 Administration Committee Minutes January 21, 2005 Page #5 (Monday to Friday) shall be given for any project or similar wording be added; and that the rest of the November 16, 2004 report from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer on blasting procedures and blasting bylaw review be received for information. (The 48 clear hours of notice does not start until the day after notice is issued.) COUNCILLOR HARRIGAN That it be recommended to Council: That the Municipal Ticket Bylaw be amended to provide for a $750 fine for blasting without a permit; That a land survey be provided when the blasting is above a certain volume; and That some form of educational document be prepared to make clear to residents what is taking place, how it may affect them, and what they should do or make sure the blasting company has done prior to the start of blasting. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Report Chief Administrative Officer RE: CITY OF COLWOOD MILEAGE RATES (A5.1.1) The Committee reviewed a report from the Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Joseph Calenda, regarding the City of Colwood Mileage Rates. IAIN HOOEY That it be recommended to Council: That Policy P be amended by changing the mileage expense rate of $0.45 effective January 1, NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Administration Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, February 4, 2005 at Colwood City Hall, 3300 Wishart Road.

6 Administration Committee Minutes January 21, 2005 Page #6 7. ADJOURNMENT MARCEL KRYWY That Committee rise at 11:08 a.m. and report progress to the Regular Meeting of Council scheduled for 7:00 p.m. Monday, February 14 th, CERTIFIED CORRECT APPROVED AND CONFIRMED Administration_Committee_Minutes doc