Should Richmond Hill developers keep up appearances?

Yorkregion.com
Aug. 23, 2016
By Kim Zarzour

Are they slumlords - landlords reaping profits from decaying buildings - or community-builders, hands tied by restrictive town policy?

It depends whom you ask.

A couple of houses on Church Street South in Richmond Hill made the news recently, as neighbours complain they’ve been left to decay by the owner who hopes to develop the land.

The complaints got some action last week, as the owner-developer reported he had “cleaned up” the roof on one of the rented homes that had a patched roof - but the issue raises a bigger concern for some residents and politicians in Richmond Hill.

Should owners be required to keep up appearances while they await approval for development? Or should they be encouraged to tear the homes down?

Resident Glen Wedlock emailed photos to members of town council and media outlets last week, showing the dilapidated roof at 119 Church St. S., and asking for help.

“This place has been run down for years. I’ve had a continuing battle and the town has let me down completely,” Wedlock said.

This time, his appeal for help seems to have succeeded. Shortly after an article was published in The Liberal, owner Dean Artenosi sent the newsroom photos of the newly repaired roof.

In an email, Artenosi, president of Arten Development Group, said he had “cleaned up the roof irrespective of the fact that there were no complaints from our tenant, who happens to be our maintenance person for our properties”.

As far as Mayor Dave Barrow is concerned, the matter has been dealt with.

“Once the neighbor complained, the owner responded… This type of thing would be dealt with under Property Standards [bylaws] if the owner was not cooperative.”

But Wedlock, and others in the community, say there are still problems with the Church Street homes and others slated for development in the municipality.

Wedlock says he has watched the property on Church Street decay over the years, from falling eavestroughs and broken windows, to disintegrating chimneys and tenants living with four inches of water in the basement.

“I have videos of squirrels running in and out of the attics - they’ve been doing that for at least 15 years, old knob and tube wiring, raccoons used to live in there until we got that boarded up, there are a couple of large dead trees and an old garage barely standing.”

Neighbouring resident Scott Thomspon is also concerned. He believes problems occur when developers push for density and scale beyond the town's official plan, zoning bylaws and neighbourhood compatibility.

“Sadly, this article should serve as a reminder of how the very fabric of our neighbourhood is being eroded away by over-zealous developers.”

“Developers cannot just run down heritage homes in order to further their mission of redevelopment,” adds another local resident, Andrea Kettle.

“Making any tenant live in those conditions is unacceptable and provides no confidence in the landowner/developer's interest in the community and its actual residents. He should be ashamed of the condition of the houses.”

Ward 1 Councillor Greg Beros puts the blame on town policy that requires developers pay development charges (at least $60,000) when they demolish a home and don’t build on it within three years.

As long as the home is still standing, they don’t have to pay those charges. It’s a way, he says, for the town to avoid the “missing tooth in the community”, but it also presents challenges.

“Right now, in Oak Ridges ... there is so much development and tons of dilapidated homes because they don’t want to have to pay the development charges,” he said.

“They’re not slumlords. Renting out is not a viable business plan. For them it’s a pain in the neck. Why would [owners] fix it up if they know they’re just going to tear it down anyway? So the place is in worse and worse shape, and the amount of rent they can charge gets lower and lower.”

Alternatively, owners may simply board the house up, but that leads to other dangers.

Beros tells of a teen who died in a house on Bond Crescent years ago when kids broke in, lit a fire for warmth and suffocated.

“Let’s let them tear the place down. Let’s get rid of that rule. It doesn’t make any sense. Wouldn’t people rather have a grass lot in their neighbourhood, rather than a place filled with animals, raccoons, people breaking in for shelter?”

It’s an issue that Richmond Hill will have to grapple with increasingly in coming years, as the town runs out of greenfield space and developers turn to infill existing residential areas, said Ward 4 Councillor David West.

West believes there is a joint responsibility for the town to enforce its property standard bylaw, but also, a moral obligation for the landlord to keep the property looking acceptable.

“While there are examples where this is not the case, there are many landlords and tenants who do take pride in the look of their property.

“A good case in point is the house across from where I live. I am pretty sure the house will eventually be torn down and it is being rented in the short term, but the owner and especially the tenant have invested a good deal of time, money, and sweat, to make the gardens a beautiful addition to our community.”