Some residents of Sechelt’s Seawatch neighbourhood say several of their key questions were not answered in a report presented to council Nov. 15.
Sinkholes started appearing in the area several years ago, and some have been serious enough to close a road and make two homes unsafe to live in.
Several residents have launched legal action against the district, and council held a special committee meeting Sept. 20 to hear their concerns.
The Nov. 15 report from Sechelt’s chief administrative officer, Andrew Yeates, was in response to a series of questions put to council at the September meeting.
Yeates said staff did their best to cover all the questions, and while some specific questions may not have been included, they were considered in some of the general answers.
There were 17 questions in Yeates’ report and the answers include a listing of geotechnical and engineering reports and a summary of the recommendations from those reports. They also include an itemized list of the 38 reports done by Thurber Engineering, at a total cost of $681,097, since a sinkhole appeared in August 2015.
To some questions, however, there were no answers offered.
On the question, “Did the District continue to issue building permits and occupancy permits after the sinkholes were discovered? If so why?” Sechelt is promising “further information will be provided.” Yeates said there’s no timeline on getting that information, but staff is working to provide it as soon as possible.
The report says other questions can’t be answered because of ongoing litigation. These include questions on an expert hired by the Municipal Insurance Association to review the issues at Seawatch; whether the district was “aware of issues during the construction of the subdivision including poor engineering practices, poor construction practices, inadequate materials, etc.;” and an indemnity from developer Concordia Seawatch as part of a covenant.
Seawatch resident Rod Goy, who was one of the key presenters at the Sept. 20 meeting, said he didn’t see most of the 18 questions he raised reflected in the report.
In a follow-up letter to council, Goy said, “Very few of the questions were answered in a specific manner, some questions were answered indirectly, and in those answers – some of the answers were non-answers or deferrals, and many of the questions were not answered at all, directly, or indirectly. Of the 19 questions asked in the PowerPoint presentation, only five were answered in some form.”
Among the questions Goy claims were not answered are: Why does the district continue to ignore or refuse to act upon the recommendations of the district’s engineers with regard to the Seawatch Development? Will this council authorize district staff and the district engineering department to carry out the recommendations, repairs and completion of the remedial works referred to in the Thurber July 11, 2017 report? Why was the 2013 Thurber report not made public until after the 2015 sinkhole event? Why did the district continue to issue building and occupancy permits allowing new residents to move here long after this report was written?
