Jan 26, 2012


Photo: Central Frontenac's Chief Building Officer Jeremy Neven leads a public meeting re property standards at Arden's Kennebec hall on Jan. 18 standards in CF

On Jan. 18, Kennebec hall in Arden was the location of the first of two public meetings to be held by the Township of Central Frontenac on a proposed new property standards bylaw.

Chief Building Officer Jeremy Neven outlined what amounts to be the three possible options for council to consider regarding property standards.

The first option is to leave things just as the way they are. This option would leave in place the township’s current Safe Properties By-Law # 2000-81, which addresses issues of public safety and health through regulations that address primarily exterior property issues including, but not limited to: garbage, excessive grass and weed growth, timber and building materials, scrap metal including wrecked cars, appliances, trailers, as well as combustible, caustic, flammable and explosive materials.

The bylaw also addresses dangerous pits, precipices and excavations found on properties, along with dilapidated buildings, fences, retaining walls and/or potions thereof. This current bylaw is enforced by the municipality’s bylaw enforcement officer Ken Gilpin and it remains outside the jurisdiction of the authority of the Ontario Building Code.

Neven said that the township is in no way inundated with complaints regarding property standards at this time.

Neven then listed issues such as “roofing, siding”, and other “general maintenance issues”, as well as a plethora of issues pertaining to the interiors of buildings, which the current Safe Properties By-Law does not address.

One alternative that Neven said the township could consider would be to pass a Property Standards Bylaw that would be more comprehensive than the Safe Properties bylaw.

One slide in Neven's presentation highlighted a major difference that a Property Standards bylaw would bring. The current Safe Properties By-Law is established under the Municipal Act and allows for provisions relating primarily to exteriors of property and safety, whereas a Property Standards By-Law allows for provisions relating to maintenance and occupancy.

Neven explained that property standards by-laws provide standards for “the maintenance and occupancy of property within the municipality or within any defined area or areas” and have the power to “prohibit the occupancy or use of such a property that does not conform with the standards”.

In addition to this, they are enforced specifically under the Ontario Building Code Act 15.1 (3)(1). Neven described how the process of enforcement of a Property Standards By-Law would work.

“It would be a complaint-driven process, meaning that a complaint would come into the municipal office and be assessed by a specially appointed board or committee set up specifically for this purpose. The committee would then talk to the property owner and if an order needed to be issued it would be ordered from the building department of the township. The property owner could then either chose to comply with the order or could appeal it.”

Because a Property Standards By-Law would be building code related, Neven said that an appeal could effectively make its way all the way up to the Ontario Municipal Board.

One member of the audience then asked Neven, “If the owner refused to comply with an issued order, what are the municipality’s powers?”

Neven responded, “We would have the authority then to correct the situation ourselves...and charge the expense to the owner in back taxes.”

Neven brought with him two examples of how two different area municipalities have dealt with property standards.

One, from of the municipality of Bancroft, is a full-fledged Property Standards By Law, and the other, from Gananoque, is in essence an updated Safe Properties By-Law.

Some audience members at the meeting thought that a new property standards by-law could end up being a highly restrictive document, which could also prove to be both too difficult and too expensive for the township to enforce, and they felt this middle way might be the best way to go.

Arden resident Sarah Hale spoke in favor of the more moderate approach.

“It's not a good idea to have a lot of laws that you don't intend to enforce,” she said, “but on the other hand a lot of us are hoping and wanting to do what we want on our own property.

“That being said, there is that old familiar statement that says 'Your right to do what you want with your fist ends where my nose begins’. Often our noses are literally affected by what happens on the property next door to us. So for that reason, I'm in favor of looking at what we have now, looking at what other standards we really need and can enforce, and adding some new regulations to what we already have if we need them. The struggle here is finding the amount of enforcement we need and the amount of freedom that we would all like.”

A second meeting took place at the Oso Hall in Sharbot Lake last night (Wednesday January 25th – after this issue had gone to print)

At the Arden meeting Neven distributed a survey regarding the issue, which is also posted on the township’s website (Centralfrontenac.com). Interested parties can fill it out online. The site also contains detailed information about the current bylaw. (#2000-81)

Bancroft's Property Standards by-law can be found at www.town.bancroft.on.ca and Gananoque's Safe Buildings By-Law can be found at www.gananoque.ca

 

Support local
independant journalism by becoming a patron of the Frontenac News.