Town reviewing compliancy with fencing bylaw

Whether it’s fences or hedges, shrubs or trees, the town is reviewing which properties in Fort Frances with these features are compliant with Bylaw 13/01—the fence bylaw.
The bylaw department currently is creating a list of properties with non-compliant fences, hedges, shrubs, and trees, with the focus on non-compliance cases in front yards and corner lots.

Wherever fences, hedges, shrubs and trees are found to be not in compliance with the bylaw, the property owner or occupant will be asked to correct the situation.
“Fencing has become a high-profile issue in town, particularly with respect to deer, and so the requirements of the fence bylaw, which includes not only fences but hedges, trees, and shrubbery, has come under review by council,” noted Planning and Development superintendent Rick Hallam.
“And they’ve asked us to look into the enforcement of the bylaw as it stands,” he added.
Hallam noted copies of Bylaw 13/01 are available at the reception desk at the Civic Centre, but the “meat and potatoes” of it are as follows:
•Fences and hedges in front yards can be no greater than four feet high if it is a lot that is an “infill” lot (i.e., not located on the corner of the block); and
•If it is a corner lot, it cannot impede a “sight triangle” around a corner, as per the Highway Traffic Safety Act.
This means that nothing in a certain area—a triangle that is nine metres by nine metres measured along your property lines—can be greater than two feet high.
In the case of trees, they can be de-limbed up to a certain height so as to not impede sight (this way they do not have to be removed or cut down to two feet in height).
“We know that there are a lot of fences out there that were constructed prior to the bylaw coming into existence. The bylaw was actually struck in 2001, so there is a number of fences that are going to be deemed to be compliant because of ‘grandfathering,’” explained Hallam, citing that article 32 of Bylaw 13/01 states: “Except for barbed-wire fences, razor wire fences, electrified fences, and fences which pose a threat to public safety, the height regulations contained in this bylaw do not apply to any fence constructed prior to its passage.”
“So there’s a number of fences in town that, even though they do not comply with the height requirements of the bylaw, are deemed to comply because of their tenure,” he said.
“But certainly, wherever there’s an issue of safety, and this is council giving us their direction, we will have to take those issues to task, particularly on corner lots where we have fences that do not comply with the requirements for sight triangles.
“That’s a Highway Traffic Safety Act concern, where you’re blocking a sight triangle on corner,” he stressed. “There’s a number of fences and a number of hedges in town we are going to have to deal with.
“Unfortunately, the owners of those properties have had their hedge or their fence for some length of time, and it’s a difficult thing for them to accept.”
Hallam said there’s been a fair amount of public interest in the compliance review since it was first advertised in the June 29 edition of the Daily Bulletin.
“We have certainly received a lot of contact here at the town,” he noted. “People picking up a copy of the bylaw, people seeking direction or clarification on certain points.
“The bylaw officers have been really busy, with people phoning in or dropping in.
“I think this is going to result in a fair amount of compliance,” Hallam added. “Unfortunately, it is going to result in some people having to lower the height of their fence or their hedge or their growth of trees.”
Hallam said the bylaw department is scouting out properties in town and currently compiling a list of non-compliant properties. Residents who feel they have non-compliant fences, hedges, shrubs, or trees, but want verification from the town, they should call the Civic Centre at 274-5323 and ask for the bylaw department.
Hallam noted the bylaw department wants “to be as sensitive as possible” when dealing with the public regarding fence bylaw compliance.
“We will speak to the owners of the properties in person, if possible. We will write them a letter. And we will be affording reasonable amounts of time to comply with the bylaw,” he remarked.
“For those persons who decide not to comply, then we will have to, I guess, ratchet it up to whatever level we deem appropriate to get compliance.
“This is for the safety of everybody in Fort Frances,” Hallam reiterated. “If we ask one person to comply with the bylaw, it’s fair for that person to say, ‘Well, I want everybody to comply.’
“If we have an issue with two or three properties, and those property owners say, ‘Well, if I have to do it, what about the other people who have offending or non-compliant fences or hedges, it’s fair for them to say, ‘I want them dealt with, too.’
“I agree with that and so does council. That’s what we’re doing.”
But the response from the town isn’t enough for Marie Anderson, whose deer fence has been at the centre of the controversy. Although over the height limit, Anderson’s fence originally was erected in the winter with permission from the town as a temporary measure against damage caused by deer.
While the Andersons requested that their fence stay up, council voted at its June 22 meeting to uphold the bylaw, which means the fence would have to come down.
Not only does the “grandfather” clause mean many people will not have to take down their fences, noted Anderson, the town’s action still doesn’t address the problem she is having with deer destroying her property.
“The Charter of Rights supersedes any municipal law, and the right to protect your property from the dangers of Lyme disease and damage from deer supersedes any municipal law,” Anderson argued.
“And the town is not saying anything about that.”
When the council voted to uphold the fencing bylaw, Anderson stated she would be taking the case up with the Human Rights Tribunal.
“I had permission to put up that fence,” she noted. “[The town] superseded their own bylaw by allowing a temporary fence until the deer problem went away.
“Well, it hasn’t gone away, we all know that.”