A District of North Vancouver couple is on the hook for the cost of demolishing their garage and remediating the badly eroded slope it sits on - even though 95 per cent of the eroded area is on municipal property.
Peter Twist and Julie Rogers say they are being unfairly held responsible when it was the district that spent decades aware that the slope along 500-block of Alpine Court and Mosquito Creek was deteriorating, but not taking any steps to remediate it.
The council vote will force him to remove the garage and restore the slope to a condition deemed satisfactory by the district's chief building inspector. However, Twist charges that the district failed to follow its own landslide hazard risk reduction tips posted on the municipal website. "It says do no undercut the bottoms of steep slopes, which was done to put the road in.
"It says if there's steep slopes, reinforce and revegetate them especially where bare soil is exposed, and that wasn't done by the district over the last 30 years," he said.
Even those who voted in favour of putting the obligation on Twist and Rogers, did so with some reluctance.
"It's an unfortunate situation, and while I empathize entirely with the homeowners, it is the appropriate action for the district to take," said Coun. Roger Bassam. "We investigated the threat and unfortunately, it's the responsibility of the homeowners to remediate this."
Coun. Alan Nixon added that a third-party consultant hired by the district came to the conclusion that none of the actions taken by the district put the slope at risk.
"Their report. .. unequivocally states that works the District of North Vancouver performed on the Mosquito Creek embankment and the reinforcement at the toe has not contributed to the erosion of the slope to the point where it was today," he said.
Nixon went on to suggest that the couple appeal their $1.4-million tax assessment to reflect the market value, given that the home has been labelled as high risk, due to slope instability.
Twist found only one ally in Coun. Mike Little, who argued that the district should have resolved the problem before it ballooned into the fiasco before council Monday night.
"It doesn't mean we don't have a stake foreseeing problems and addressing them while it's a whole lot cheaper to remediate, particularly on our property before it spreads throughout the community. Had this been five of six or seven homes that were affected, you better believe the district would have been there to remediate the slope," he said.
Outside the council chamber, Twist remained defiant. When asked how much council's decision was going to cost him, Twist responded: "All it's going to cost is the cost of a lawyer," he said. "We're very polite, respectful people but we don't get screwed quietly. ... There's been slope erosion for over 30 years on district land below our property that they've known about and had ample opportunity to remediate."
Though he agrees it is in a precarious position, Twist said he will talk to his lawyer before he decides whether to bring the garage down, as ordered by council. Other things the couple may consider in taking legal action is the loss of the use of their property, the loss of value in their property and the time they've spent dealing with the district on the issue.
As for the consultants' report exonerating the district, Twist said he did not believe it was impartial. Twist told council he consulted with several geotechnical engineers all of whom agreed verbally that the slope should have been solidified from the bottom, not the top. The district's geotechnical consultant was not impartial in its report, he alleged.
His case should be worrying for anyone who lives on property next to a district-owned slope, Twist added.
"The district is obviously defining a precedent or a statement here. They will be inactive to remediate their lands without care for the private citizens that own land adjacent," he said.
The final vote was 4-1 in favour of the order with Coun. Lisa Muri absent and Coun. Doug MacKay-Dunn arriving late.
