 April 29th, 2013 So after wasted weeks of time and got no where close on the structural work, I have finally got a different contact from my contact for structural engineering – Ben Mashhadi of ABM Engineering Inc. Even from the first email, Ben sounded different. Ben indicated that he has reviewed the drawings and considered the extra load on the roof (My design calls for a partial green roof and partial paved roof deck.), the accumulation of snow, and additional snow drifts. They will design a steel frame and concrete footings. The total fee is $2500 which includes the city’s general review commitment, two site visits, and review of the steel shop drawing. Ben also indicated that they require 15 days to prepare for the structural drawing.
No compare this to what Ken Davis said in my “How not to hire a contractor” post. All Ken said was that they would charge $1400 + HST to provide structural markup for this type of project and site visits during construction are extra at $450 + HST. That’s it. Nothing about if he took a look at the drawings we sent to him on the drawing, nothing about about the extra load considerations, not even anything about what what his structural markup consists of, and no time frame required to get the work done. And you can see why I said that I think he tried to throw some fast/cheap quotes out and then later realized the complexity of my project and then decided to just hide.
Worst of all, if we compare the prices, we will see that K. H. Davis Consulting’s quote is not even that cheap. ABM Engineering’s quote of $2500 might sounded expensive, but it included the structural drawing, two site visits and a review of the steel shop drawing. If you use Ken Davis’ quotes, his price plus 2 site visits is already at $2300. So their difference is a mere $200. Had I know I wasted one week of my time for a $200 saving over an engineer who doesn’t really even do his homework, I would have never even considered K. H. Davis Consulting.
Well, good news is that structural engineering work is now underway and finally the Big Marshmallow House is moving forward.
April 24th, 2013 My house with it’s unusual lack of interior walls definitely requires some structural engineering work. My architect told me that he talked with a structural engineer close to where I live – K. H. Davis Consulting. I looked them up and they seemed fine. Apparently they did do some work on HGTV‘s “Leave it to Bryan” and “Income Property“, two shows that I have watched frequently in the past. My architect had a brief talk with Ken Davis of K. H. Davis Consulting, sent him the current draft drawing of the project and Ken replied very prompted, telling us that they would charge $1400 + HST to provide structural markup for this type of project and site visits during construction are extra at $450 + HST. He also indicated to my architect that they have done a lot of residents like this. Seeing how he so proudly put the “Leave it to Bryan” and “Income Property” badge on this email, I figure we’ll give him a try. That’s where things start to fall apart.
On April 11th, we said yes let’s go ahead with the structural engineering work. Ken of K. H. Davis indicated that he will send us the contract form so he can get the work started. We waited, then we called, Ken promised the form will be emailed out, then we emailed, we waited, we called, we emailed. And a full week later, on April 18th, we still did not get any forms from Ken. Maybe Ken is very busy? Sure. I would like to imagine there’s are good reasons for Ken to make us to wait for a week sitting there waiting for forms. But that’s not now a professional should work. I have my guesses at why Ken suddenly no longer replies to his emails. He never really took a look at the files my architect have sent him, and he just throw that $1400 out. By the time we said let’s go head, he finally took a look at the files and realized that $1400 is just not doable.
Now let me say this, please all engineers (I am a computer engineer), please NEVER be like Mr. Ken Davis here. Engineers should always:
- Look at all the materials on hand carefully and make accurate estimates.
- And if the estimates are incorrect, then you should admit that it is your fault.
- And to correct that mistake, you can either do the work as is, or tell your client your estimate is incorrect and here’s the revised number.
Mr. Ken Davis here is not doing either. He refuses to acknowledge that it is his fault that he didn’t correctly estimate the cost of doing the project, and he refuses to admit that to his client. Instead he chooses to bury his head in the sand and pretend he does not hear our calls or see our emails.
So lesson of the day is, never hire a contractor who likes to talk big about whatever his has done in the past, likes to tell you he has done a lot of similar things (even though my house design is clearly a rare breed here), and likes to give out quick cheap quotes.
April 19th, 2013 Even though the Committee of Adjustment has approved my variance application. There is a appealing process where parties can still appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board with in 14 days. My application is approved on April 2, 2013, so the last day of appeal is April 16, 2013. And I have received a letter from the City Planning Division dated April 17, 2013 that no appeal was filed and the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is now final and binding.
Good news, now that the variances are all handled, we can finally get down to the business of getting this house designed and applies for building permit.
March 31st, 2013 We now have a name for our dream house project. What has so far been referred to as the 159 Chisholm Avenue project is now named “The Big Marshmallow House”. The reason for the name? Well, when we looked at the conceptual drawing of the house, with the house being a big rectangular block in light color, we thought it looked really like a marshmallow square.
Continue reading ‘The Big Marshmallow House’ »
March 27th, 2013 So today’s the day, my hearing at the committee of adjustment. Today’s session actually took place in the council chamber where all official meetings of Toronto City Council are held.
As I walk into the City Hall, the security was talking about how some media member had some run-ins with mayor Rob Ford on the second floor and they are called over. Then I tried to reach the council chamber on the 3rd floor but none of the main elevator allow me to go there. Then luckily I went into an elevator with a city worker who directed me to a side elevator which finally took me to council chamber. Good thing I was 30 minutes early, or else I might have been late.
Anyway I was lucky 13 on the agenda list. There was a few more applicants who have party of interest who object to their applications and therefore they are put to the bottom of the list. So even though the session is running at 30 minutes late, we didn’t wait for too long. The session was quick and simple. We tossed out a few requests related to the garage. And so we ended up with only the following:
- Section 7.4.3, East York By-law 6752. The minimum required north side yard setback is 0.6m. The two-storey dwelling will have a north side yard setback of 0.3m.
- Section 7.4.3, East York By-law 6752. The maximum permitted building height is 8.5m. The two-story dwelling will have a building height of 10m.
- Section 7.1.4, East York By-law 6752. A driveway that passes through the front lot line requires a minimum width of 2.6m. The driveway is 1.07m in width (portion of mutual right-of-way located on the subject property).
As posted previously, the Community Planning for Toronto and East York district also recommended the following conditions to be imposed
- The variance to building height of 10 metres apply only to the roof access portion of the building as whon in the drawings received by the Committee of Adjustment on January 23, 2013; and,
- The proposed utility/roof access be limited to 4.8 metres by 2.98 metres in size as shown on Roof Plan drawing received by the Committee of Adjustment on Janunary 23, 2013.
So together with those restriction, my variance application is now approved. The decision will be mailed out in about 3 days. Now I can work on getting the official drawings in place as well as putting out another Committee of Adjustment application for the double garage now moved over to 157 Chisholm Avenue.
March 25th, 2013 The Committee of Adjustment letters have went out, and then the Community Planning for Toronto and East York district recommended the following conditions to be imposed to my variance application:
- The variance to building height of 10 metres apply only to the roof access portion of the building as whon in the drawings received by the Committee of Adjustment on January 23, 2013; and,
- The proposed utility/roof access be limited to 4.8 metres by 2.98 metres in size as shown on Roof Plan drawing received by the Committee of Adjustment on Janunary 23, 2013.
Their comments are:
The subject property is located on the east side of Chisholm Avenue between Lumsden Avenue and Doncaster Avenue just west of Main Street. The property is designated “Neighbourhoods” in the Official Plan, which requires new development in the established residential areas to have regard for existing physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood, including sales and massing of the buildings. The property is zoned R1C Residential in Zoning By-law 6752 of the former Borough of East York. The purpose of the Zoning By-law is to respect and reinforce a stable built form and to limit the impact of new development on adjacent residential properties.
Planning Staff identified concerns with the height variance. A building with a height of 10 metres would not be in keeping with the buildings in the area where buildings have complied with the Zoning By-law.
The proposed plans show that the height is only for the roof access room and is set back from the front of the house. This should mitigate the impact of the increased height from the street.
As such, should the Committee of Adjustment approve this application, Planning Staff recommend that the variance for building height only apply to the roof access portion of the building as shown in the plans that have been submitted to the Committee of Adjustment dated January 22, 2013. The roof access room should also be limited to 4.8 metres by 2.98 metres in size as shown on the Roof Plan drawing in the above set of drawings.
So I am hoping that this means that planning division has no issue with my roof top access room and now it’s really up to the Committee of Adjustment to approve my variance request with the added conditions. Wednesday, March 27, 2013 is the date of my hearing, and I’m hoping for the best.
March 15th, 2013 As part of the committee of adjustment application, it is required that the applicant post a sign about the application for at least 10 days prior to the hearing. My hearing date is March 27, 2013. So I have all the way till March 17 to post the sign, but since I have picked up the sign already, I figure I would just post the sign. So this is the sign that city has provided to me to be posted.
Continue reading ‘Committee of Adjustment – Sign posted’ »
March 10th, 2013 Over the weekend, I was walking around the neighbourhood and trying to talk to all the close by property owners around 159 Chisholm so that I can explain my committee of adjustment application to them and trying to gather their support. I wasn’t able to get to any of the neighbours to the east of my property (there are 4 of them behind 159 Chisholm and 157 Chisholm). However I was able to talk to neighbours on north and south side of the property as well as to the west side. Thank you Leslie, owner of of 160 Chisholm Avenue and the owner of 162 Chisholm Avenue. Your signature in support of my application is very much appreciated. I still have not heard anything from 161 Chisholm Avenue on whether they have any objection to my application. So hopefully everything will be fine by my hearing date of March 27.
January 31st, 2013 I thought I am well versed with most of the building code and zoning bylaws before I designed my dream home. However that’s one thing that I seriously did not research. Urban forestry requirement. So today the bad news simply crashed down on me. I have two large tree and several small tree in the rear of the property. One large tree shared between 159 Chisholm and 157 Chisholm is deemed imminently hazardous and can be removed without a permit. The rest of the smaller trees are smaller than 30cm diameter and therefore not protected by Toronto’s Private Tree By-law. However there is one large (Oak?) tree shared between 159 Chisholm and 161 Chisholm that’s around 120 cm in diameter. And this one is causing me a huge headache.
Continue reading ‘Big problem with the tree’ »
January 25th, 2013 Today I have Dan Moldovan from Davey Tree Expert came over to give me an estimate to remove some of the trees on the property. There’s one large tree (a Manitoba Maple) between 159 Chisholm And 157 Chisholm. That tree had one of it’s branch fell dowon in 2006 crashing right into the house at 157 Chisholm. I think it is an hazardous tree and must be removed no matter what. I also want the rest of the smaller trees removed to clear up space for construction. Don has confirmed that just like what I thought, that Manitoba maple should be deemed imminently hazardous and so no permit is required for removal. Then Don presented me with a very good quote for it. Back in 2006 when the tree branch fell on our house at 157 Chisholm, the insurance company said that it costed $6000 for simply clearing out that fallen branch. Davey in 2012 has quoted me the removal of the tree, removal of the 11 or so smaller trees from both 159 Chisholm and 157 Chisholm, and grinding the stump of the large Manitoba maple to 8-10″ below grade, for a total of just over $3000 + tax. Yes that’s complete removal of a very large tree plus a bunch of smaller trees for about 50% of the cost for simply clear out one of the already fallen branch by an insurance company’s, and the price is quoted more than 6 years later. I don’t know about you, but to me the operation insurance company (Meloche Monnex) is carrying out almost seemed like a scam to me. I guess it is smart of me to never use the body shop recommended by an insurance company for auto insurance claims.
Page 6 of 8« First«...45678»
|
|
Categories: 
Tags: