Protocol not followed

Dear sir:
I wish to comment on the headline, “F.F. residents will have to adhere to new hedge regulations,” which appeared in another district newspaper.
This statement is incorrect. Bylaw 1301 regarding fences and hedges was passed by town council in March of 2001.
The bylaw has imposed on it, by the courts, common law restrictions which state municipalities cannot enact bylaws:
(iii). which do not adhere to principles of procedural fairness;
(v.) which operate retroactively;
(vi). which are uncertain or vague; and
(vii). which are unreasonable.
To insist that these are new regulations is wrong.
If residents’ hedges and/or fences existed before the passing of the bylaw, they are “grandfathered” and “are not subject to the restrictions set out by the bylaw” (i.e., the bylaw cannot act retroactively).
Furthermore, to waste time and resources enforcing a bylaw for strictly aesthetic reasons seems “unreasonable”; as does insisting that a four-foot high fence will keep deer out.
The issue of fences and hedges on corner lots does deal with a safety issue. But the diagrams provided by the town are “vague” and illegible.
It appears that the nine-metre restriction is taken from the centre of the intersection of the two streets abutting a corner lot. The triangle thus formed would affect far less of private property owners’ hedges than they have been led to believe by the bylaw enforcement officers.
The word intersection is not defined as uncontrolled or controlled by four-way stops, yields, or traffic lights.
Surely it makes a difference which it is!
There are far more important bylaws which should be attended to. For instance, according to the Ontario Municipal Act, permits for fencing around pools should be issued to ensure that the fences and gates around pools are secure and are not “an invitation to disaster.”
Permits are the only way to ensure safety.
I do not believe this is being done in Fort Frances. There are many pools that have no fencing, especially the self-standing ones which are 20, 30, and 48 inches deep.
This is a safety issue. The bylaw enforcement officers need to get their priorities straight.
Procedural fairness would mean that all residents would be treated equally. This, again, is not the case as some [bylaws] are being enforced and others are not.
There also is the issue of properties that are breeding grounds for rats. Nothing is being done about them. The town has the power to go in and clean up these properties, but do not seem to be able to enforce this.
As for the deer issue, the Town of Fort Frances is liable for the deer damage. The deer are living on town-owned property (Erin Crescent for just one example).
The city of London, Ont. owns “Sifton Bog,” which the deer live in. The attorney general of Ontario, Chris Bentley, ruled that London was liable for the deer damage.
Residents should be sending their bills to the town for their losses (the loss of mature trees and shrubs can devalue a property by thousands of dollars).
This may be the only way that the town will make an effort to find a solution to the deer problem.
The town met with Mellissa Molsely, the town biologist, on July 20 to discuss options. The most humane option to the deer problem is to deny them access to everyone’s gardens and yards by allowing residents to fence, as in Pinawa, Man. and Dryden.
Should this meeting not have been announced to the public? Again, a breach in municipal procedures.
The parking ban was incorrectly enforced (by a new employee) on those attending a funeral here earlier this year. In the past, exceptions were made for funerals.
The head of planning had the option of rescinding those tickets and “making it right” to out-of-province vehicles. He did not! He flatly refused. We can say goodbye to those visitors/tourists because of the shabby way that they were treated.
The bylaw group needs some lessons in “public relations.”
The mayor, town council, and town employees have forgotten they are servants of the people. They push through decisions, such as moving the Hallett and lookout tower, despite great opposition from most of the taxpayers.
They do not adhere to the “Property Standards Officers Municipal Act Bylaws.” They refuse to look at petitions which clearly are in opposition to them.
This is illegal! All petitions, when presented, must by recorded and noted.
Citizens have rights, too, but they are being denied.
It seems the bylaw officers are not following protocol in order to accomplish their goals which, I might add, I do not see as in the best interest of the residents. If they had done their job eight years ago, when the fence bylaw was first enacted, we would not be in this mess now.
Property owners should not have to pay for their mistakes.
Hedges and fences provide privacy, noise barriers, prevent deer damage, and filter the dust from the streets.
Sincerely,
Marie L. Anderson
Fort Frances, Ont.