The City of Surrey decided on Monday to have notices on title filed on two residential properties – one in Newton, the other in Cloverdale – because of illegal construction there.
The notices serve to alert potential buyers, lenders, and insurers about sites of illegal construction and the potential risks associated with the properties, pursuant to Section 57 of the Community Charter. On April 27, 2022, the City of Surrey launched its Illegal Construction Enforcement Team (ICET) to crack down on unpermitted residential construction in Surrey.
A special council hearing on Monday, February 2 at City Hall considered the cases involving 13148 – 66A Avenue and 16962 – 60 Avenue, with assistant city solicitor Guillermo Flores arguing for Surrey in both cases.
A numbered company – 1165051 B.C Ltd. – bought the Newton property in April 2020. Arjun Chopra and Karan Chopra are the company’s directors and this company remains the registered owner of 13148-66A Avenue.
According to city hall, the illegal construction there includes an additional storey built above an existing workshop at the rear which includes a self-contained dwelling; an illegal addition to the house at its rear west side also with a self-contained dwelling; and a third self-contained dwelling within the house, encompassing part of a former garage on the main floor.
The City of Surrey issued the owners a bylaw enforcement notice that’s unpaid and also issued four site visit fees to a total of $912 that remains outstanding.
Arjun Chopra told council he didn’t intend to renovate or add to the property when they bought it.
“May I ask then what motivated the renovations attached to the house?” Councillor Rob Stutt inquired.
“When we bought the house we were told there were plumbing issues but once we started moving in there were a lot of plumbing issues throughout the house and that’s what really motivated us to do the renovations in the house,” Chopra replied.
Because of a flooding issue, he said quick decisions had to be made. “I do apologize for my mistake; I understand where I was wrong. I should have applied for the permit first before I did any of the work but it was just in the circumstances I had to make quick decisions to prevent any more damage to the house.”
Flores said in closing that at the time of the last city staff inspection all the dwelling units were occupied except for the unit in the accessory building “and work here did continue after a stop-work order was posted on the property.”
“The owners have only now recently applied for a building permit,” he said, but this was done “well after the construction was completed and it has been rejected at this point. Staff don’t see a realistic path for the owners to obtain a building permit to retain the unpermitted works at this time.”
Flores noted the permitting and inspection process is designed to ensure sufficient standards are satisfied “both before a project is commenced and incrementally as a building is constructed.
“That process was not followed here by the owners,” he said.
Councillor Gordon Hepner remarked that “part of the tragedy when you have a stop-work order on a property like that is frankly the tenants, if they are dislodged out of their residence I think that’s really a shame as I know rental units are hard to come by, and certainly at a cost to the said parties.”
The second case before council was 16962 – 60 Avenue in Cloverdale, owned by Rachhpal Singh Sivia and Virpal Kaur Sivia. According to city hall the property contains an illegal single-storey detached accessory building, for which it issued a $500 bylaw contravention fine. The City also imposed a $288 site visit fee, both of which have been paid.
The Sivias did not attend the hearing.
Flores said the owners constructed a “substantial” accessory building. “There’s been a very recent effort on the part of the owners to address the unpermitted work by submitting a demolition permit but again this is still very early on in the process and they have yet to pay the fees,” Flores said, “and we’ll have to see if the owners actually carry out the demolition.”
If they are able to bring the property into compliance by demolishing the accessory building then the notice on title can be removed at that time, Flores told council, “but at least in the interim I submit that the notice should be filed so that the public is made aware of the unpermitted construction here.”