The District of Summerland is taking more aggressive action against the property owners of a cherry farm operation, who have failed to abide by numerous orders relating to buildings they own dating back almost 20 years.
The District of Summerland is moving forward with three different enforcement actions against the cherry farm operation, located on Hillborn Street.
The names of the property owner were not mentioned once during lengthy council discussion Tuesday evening.
Brad Dollevoet, Summerland's director of development services, detailed the issues the district has had with the property owner and his family over the past 18 years.
The district is taking aggressive action "due to the continued issue of unapproved occupancy without final inspection of a permitted building that has since expired, and to address the ongoing safety and structural issues with an existing non-permitted building that has been on the property," said Dollevoet.
The building in question was built with a proper permit dating back to 2007, however, it never received a final occupancy permit from the district, said Tristan Hamersley senior building official.
"Further additions were constructed without permit and without requisite inspections," he said. "The building as a whole is not to be occupied and the structure deemed not safe for its intended use."
The district has been unable to gain compliance on this property for almost 18 years.
"The property owners have not followed their compliance agreement, dated March 18, 2022, or the do not occupy order dated May 24, 2024," he said. "The landowners have not maintained clear and open dialogue with the building department."
Council previously discussed ongoing issues with this property at a meeting in late November of 2023, he said.
At that time, staff was seeking council's support for action against an unpermitted building on the same property, that being a storage and farm worker accommodation building, he said.
Council eventually proceeded with a "remedial action order" to lock up this portion of the building with the closing of entrances and disconnection of electrical power, which was completed willingly by the property owner in early November of 2023, said Dollevoet.
In late November of 2023, council passed a resolution deferring a decision of notice on title on the subject property until April of 2025, he said.
"Because that date is approaching, that's one reason why staff is bringing forward this item for council's consideration today and to provide time of notice to the owner if council wishes to proceed" with title notice direction at this time.
For the cherry storage facility, building permits were issued in March and May of 2022 and those permits have now expired and not been renewed, he said.
"Despite this, the owner has proceeded with unapproved occupancy of a new cherry sorting facility the past two sorting seasons, the first in 2023 and the second, last year," he said.
The district started enforcing its rules and regulations relating to this property more stringently in 2024, firstly, by issuing 'do not occupy' notices in March, followed by a letter to the owner in May, he said.
This was followed by bylaw infraction fines from June until late August in 2024, he said.
"Today, the total balance of these unpaid fines ... is $25,500," he said. "In a recent conversation with district staff last week, the land owner offered to pay the outstanding fines over a scheduled repayment period, but these fines still currently remain outstanding."
Continued on . . . Page A4
A recent site investigation in late February confirmed that the new cherry sorting facility is still being occupied without the required inspections and the necessary occupancy approval from the District of Summerland, said Dellevoet.
Tristan Hamersley, senior building official for the district, told council staff is seeking a remedial action order on the cherry sorting building.
"This remedial action order is to disconnect water and electrical services within 30 days of notice and if the building has not been brought into compliance, this measure is to enforce the do not occupy order until such time as the district can issue final occupancy," he said.
The land owners have operated the unpermitted buildings for two seasons directly contravening building officials orders, he said.
"There has been no observable progression on the now expired permits in the last year, no updates from the co-ordinating registered professional and district concerns have not been addressed," he said.
The permits were properly issued and the district can not issue final occupancy permits until there is assurance by qualified professionals that the occupancy permit requirements are complete, he said.
"Further, district and fire officials have noted items of concern, including, but not limited to the fire separations in exiting," he said. "These are life safety concerns."
He's asking for council's support to issue further remedial action notices relating to "hazardous conditions" that contravene local bylaws and the community charter, he said.
In order to bring the facility into compliance, staff is recommending the property owner be given "steps" to take the necessary actions to bring the unpermitted facilities into compliance.
The first order will be to bring the building into compliance and gain occupancy by completing all outstanding work required within 30 days of written notice.
The request to remove water and power be disconnected in an attempt to eliminate illegal occupancy and use of the building.
Finally, if the move to disconnect water and power moves ahead, and the owners still continue to occupy the facility, the order allows staff to seek remedy through the courts through a consent order or injunction.
Proceeding with a consent order could cost the district between $5,000 and $10,000 and those funds are not generally recoverable, said bylaw enforcement officer Darren Krell.
If the property owner breached the consent order, then the district would apply to the court for contempt of court orders, the district would likely recover 100 per cent of its legal costs, he said.
If a trial was needed, it would likely cost the district between $20,000 and $25,000, said Krell.
A summary trial likely would not last long and would be the quickest way to get an enforceable resolution, he said.
Once again, if a judge's order was breached or ignored, the district would go after the property owner for costs, he said.
The property owners do respond when district staff do engage with them, but have refused to abide by numerous orders against them, he said.
Coun. Richard Barkwill asked what leverage does the district have to receive the money owed through fines.
Hamersley said they can go to collections and the land owners have discussed a payment plan.
"The payment plan is contingent on them operating this year though," he said.
Coun. Marty Van Alphen asked if the outstanding fines could be applied against their annual property taxes.
Dellevoet said these types of fines are not recoverable through taxation as directed in the community charter.
"Otherwise, we probably would have been doing that by now," he said.
From his many years working for different municipalities, the most likely outcome in getting back money from fines is through a collection agency, he said.
Hamersley said the property owners have had discussions about demolishing the cherry sorting building following the 2026 cherry harvest.
"That would be the unpermitted structure," he said. "They have come up with a proposal to address some of the issues for the sorting facility, but we haven't heard anything from the registered co-ordinating professional."
An engineering report states the "whole structure is in question," even though portions of the building is still being used as part of the cherry farm operation, said Hamersley.
Coun. Adrienne Betts said while she agrees with the actions taken by the district, she wanted it on the record that the family in question has been "slammed" by last year's record low cherry production, where most local farmers only attained 20 per cent yield on their crops.
The family is attempting to hand down the farm to their children, but two consecutive summers of poor cherry production have certainly made things difficult for them, she said.
"For me, I've got a little bit of a concern on how to approach that," she said.
Council has been quite lenient in giving ample opportunity for the owners to abide by rules and regulations, she said.
"This is a really complex case and I would strongly like to see the building obviously brought into compliance for the safety of the workers who are there," she said. "Of course, that's our primary goal, but still understanding that the capital they would have been banking on in 2024 and 2024 was probably lacking."
"At some point, enough is enough," said Barkwill. "Nothing is going to change until push comes to shove on this. It's obvious."
Peake agreed saying the district has been more than lenient dealing with these property owners.
Council voted unanimously in favour of moving ahead of the remedial action order, completing construction upgrades within 30 days and council consider a resolution to direct the filing of a notice of title against the property owners if remedial work isn't completed on the storage and farm worker accommodation building.
The property owners will be given one final opportunity to speak about plans on the storage and farm worker building at a meeting set for May 6.
The names of the property owners were not mentioned during Tuesday's meeting.
