The township is refusing to provide funds for a new peak roof installed at the Moorefield Optimist meeting hall without a building permit or township approval, and the new structure will have to undergo a full inspection.
The township gave the Moorefield Optimist Club a 20-year lease on the building, formerly a fire hall, for $1 back in 2012. The arrangement calls for the Optimists to be responsible for general cleaning and maintenance and paying for utilities. The agreement also calls for the township to set aside $5,000 per year in a fund for repairs to the building.
Mapleton public works director Brad McRoberts reported at the March 10 meeting the Optimists had requested access to funds in the hall reserve for some repairs and upgrades. The work included repair and replacement of some windows, and the addition of some insulation and repairs to some drywall and soffit on the south peak.
McRoberts also noted the club has installed a three-foot peak roof with eavestrough along the entire north side, with about a six-foot extension along the east side of the building.
“This roof covers the sidewalk leading to both the front and side doors of the building as well as the walk beside the designated wheelchair parking. The club has reported significant ice build-up during the winter months, which was creating a slip and fall hazard,” the report said. Since the peak was installed, “The club reports that the roof has eliminated the ice build-up on the sidewalk.”
McRoberts pointed out the club proceeded with the work without requesting written permission from the township, despite a clause in the agreement that states the club,“shall not alter the premises in any way without the express written approval of the township.”
The club requested the township provide just over $3,600 to cover repairs and taxes, including about $2,500 for the peak project.
McRoberts’ report recommended council authorize staff to proceed with repairs to the Moorefield Optimist Hall, drawing the funds from the hall reserves, up to a maximum of $1,000.
“Did you have any conversations with the Optimists at all? I know permission was not granted, but were conversations held at least?” asked councillor Michael Martin.
McRoberts explained Mayor Neil Driscoll, who is also an Optimist, made him aware of the peak extension. He stressed the terms of the agreement call for a “written” request to the township.
Driscoll suggested “an email may have been sent” but the situation was the result of “lack of communication” because club members weren’t sure, “about the right people from the township to contact.
“It was just a matter of timing and how things were going. I think sometimes you just assume, ‘we didn’t hear anything back, so let’s go ahead.’”
Councillor Dennis Craven asked if it would have made any difference if the club had requested permission to add the peak roof?
“I would have brought that request to this council,” said McRoberts.
“I like that approach, Mr. McRoberts, that you are taking and I think we need to apply it across the township,” said Martin. However, he added, “I am struggling with, if things were run a bit differently in the past, perhaps the expectations were a little bit different. I really think we need to … just remind people what the expectations are from the township.”
McRoberts replied, “One of the concerns we have to think about is that any decision outside the terms of the agreement will set a precedent … ‘Go ahead and do what you need to do and they’ll figure it out.’”
He added, “If these organizations are not going to be aware of what’s in their agreements, then that’s not our fault.”
“It’s still $2,500 that’s not going to go to the community,” said Craven.
Councillor Lori Woodham asked if a building permit would have been required for the peak.
“Good question,” said Driscoll.
Chief building official Patty Wright said, “I would have wanted a building permit application to be made.”
Even though fees could have been waived, Wright said she would have liked to check truss construction, snow loads and other elements of the addition.
“I would like to see where they got the structure underneath … was it engineered? To build something like that without a permit wasn’t wise. It would have been a minimal expense,” said Wright, who also pointed out, “This is a public assembly building. Engineering is required.”
“It’s quite a can of worms,” Driscoll commented.
Stating he was “not inclined to play hardball right now,” Martin moved an amendment to the resolution calling for council to pay the entire amount requested, but also for the structure to be inspected.
Martin’s amendment was defeated, with only Martin and Craven in favour and Driscoll, Woodham and councillor Marlene Ottens opposed.
The original motion to pay up to $1,000 for the rest of the repairs passed unopposed.
Even though resolution, as passed, did not call for a building inspection, Wright pointed out, “I think I have to do one whether there’s a motion or not. I am now legally obligated to under the Building Code Act.”
McRoberts explained “in the worst case scenario” the peak addition might have to be removed and rebuilt.
“If she finds everything is okay, except for the absence of the building permit, we could still introduce a motion to cover the rest of the cost,” suggested Craven.
“Yes, you can,” replied Driscoll.
