lsca by lawletter012013

7/29/2019 LSCA by LawLetter012013

1/5

Lambton Shores Community AssociationP.O. Box 1016,

47 Hill St.Grand Bend, ONN0M 1T0

Jan. 2, 2013

To the Mayor and all members of Council:

At the Lambton Shores Community Association (LSCA) Annual meeting on July, 7,2012, the Chair of the Plan 24 Committee submitted her report. Among other thingsthe Report details the failure of by-law enforcement to follow through on two

Committee of Adjustment meetings that required compliance by the owners of 11 and13 Woodward Avenue.

A re-cap of activities to date includes:

November 10, 2011- neighbours received the Committee of Adjustment notice of thehearing to be held.

Thursday, November 24, 2011- At least twelve letters were sent objecting to theminor variance application and six of those people were in attendance at the hearing.

November 25, 2011 -The report given to Council was that "The Committee deferredthis application in order for the Applicant to work with the neighbours who opposedthe application to come up with a solution that would be suitable to all concerned. TheApplicant was granted 60 days to submit a new proposal and should that 60 dayslapse, the fence must be brought into compliance with the requirements of Fence By-law 80 of 2008."

February 10, 2012- a re-notification letter was sent to neighbours, indicating thatanother Committee of Adjustment hearing was being held on Thursday, February 23,2012.

February 29, 2012 -The report submitted to Council by the Committee stated "TheCommittee refused this application as, in the opinion of the Committee, the varianceswere not minor in nature, the intent of the fence by-law was not maintained, and thevariances were not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land."

P . O B O X 1 0 1 6 , 4 7 H I L L S T . , G R A N D B E N D , O N , N 0 M 1 T 0

E M A I L L S C o m m u n i t y A s s o c @ g m a i l . c o m

L A M B T O N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I A T I O N


2/5

2

Neighbours were all sent a copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment,restating that an application requesting a variance from the provisions of the FenceBy-law to permit:

a) A maximum fence height of 3.66 metres in the interior side and rear yards,whereas the maximum height permitted is 2 meters; and

b) A maximum fence height of 2.74 metres in the front yard, whereas the maximumheight permitted is 0.91 metres; was refused.

The reasons were stated and the information regarding appealing the decision to theOntario Municipal Board was given with the last date for an appeal being March 14th,2012. There was no appeal made to the O.M.B.An inquiry by the Lambton Shores Community Association (LSCA) elicited thefollowing information: Carol McKenzie confirmed that a letter has been sent to theMisselbrooks requiring them to bring the fences and gates at 11 and 13 Woodward

St. into compliance with the Committee of Adjustment ruling this past winter.

They have been given a timeline to comply that is usually prescribed by the courtsbefore action is taken (around two weeks) and have been notified that if the fencesand gates are not in compliance by the demand date then by-law enforcement willcharge them.

The letter was sent out about July 9th.

According to the Clerk, on August 1st, 2012, an inspection was done and the propertyand its fences were found to comply with the building code and all areas at 2 metres

high as per Bylaw.It was understood by the LSCA prior to this, that front fences could not exceed aheight of 0.91 metres.

The Clerk explained that the definition of front yard was the distance from theproperty line to the foundation of the building and all of the outer fences at thisproperty are even with the buildings, so they are technically not in the front yard.Since they are not in the front yard, they could be considered to be in an inner sideyard and could therefore, be six and a half feet high.

We question:1) The Municipality using this premise that the 6' fences were okay at the front; theCommittee of Adjustment did not use this distinction as part of their decision.




3/5

3

2) After review of the bylaw by the LSCA, it details that a property on a corner, likethe one in question, is required that both the front and the side exterior fences be nomore than 3' high.

3) LSCA has now been told by the Clerk that everything complies, with no change tothe height of the outer fences, because they are in not in the "yard" as described in

the Bylaw.

4) The Fence Bylaw states under "8. b) Conflicts - other bylaws: In the event of anyconflict between provisions of this bylaw and any provisions of any other Municipalityof Lambton Shores Bylaws, relating to fencing, the provisions of this bylaw shallprevail.

It appears the Municipality is allowing non compliance in spite of the existing by-lawand despite all the people who have objected.

It is the opinion of LSCA that at times the discretion given to the Bylaw Officer has

been excessively and inappropriately applied.

Lambton Shores Community Association is highly concerned that the Committee ofAdjustment decision has been so completely undermined.Before reviewing our other concerns, the Lambton Shores Community Associationwould like to commend Council for initiating and supporting the efforts of the ShortTerm Rental Accommodation Committee.

Other outstanding Issues:

Illegal Parking:

The Short Term Rental Accommodations Committee surveyed a couple of properties inPlan 24 in the fall of 2011 to establish Municipal property lines and then informedowners that there would be no parking on Municipal property in those instances.

In the spring, instead of vehicles parked illegally in front of 11 & 13 Woodward Avenueand on Centre Street (a fire route with no parking allowed on either side), one car wasparked on Centre and one on Woodward. Permission to do this was given by the BylawOfficer, contrary to the Councilors instructions.

This situation proved to be confusing to visitors as in one disturbing incident; a carwhich parked beside the allowed car on Centre was ticketed and then towed by theBylaw Officer, while leaving the illegally parked car there, without a ticket. Thissituation continued all summer even though Councilors Bonesteel and Maguire weremade aware of it at the LSCA AGM in early July.




4/5

4

It should be noted that the gates and fences at the front and sides of those propertieshave made the parking problem worse. In the past with no fences, cars could pull uponto the property from the street between the buildings when the need arose. Nowthey are completely blocked out. This is because the owner chooses to use theproperty for excessive people instead of parking. Therefore, his parking problems areof his own making.

Noise:Council made it a priority to make the village a place to be enjoyed by all not just bythose who make a profit from rentals. They formed a committee and increased the bylaw budget by $5000.00 this year; despite this there is still a problem at severalproperties.

According to 20 written LSCA members Calls for Service reports from this summersactivities, there was a lot of noise at several addresses in Plan 24 plus propertydamage at Sams Playing Field, Village Green Mini Putt and Pizza Place & Dairy Dip, in

May and June during prom parties and on the May 24 weekend.

Even though there was improvement in July and August, there were also reports thatother areas and cottages such as Shady Lane and Lakeside Circle in Gibbs Park weremore noisy and disruptive than previous summers. On the Labour Day weekend thingsseemed to ramp up again and we got reports that the noise at the corner ofWoodward and Centre was the worst it had been all summer.

There were also reports that other areas and cottages such as Shady Lane andLakeside Circle in Gibbs Park were more noisy and disruptive.On the Labour Dayweekend a LSCA member got a report that the noise at the corner of Woodward andCentre was the worst it had been all summer. Other complaints were lodged with theOPP. There were also reports of disturbances in other parts of the village such asSouthcott and Beach of Pines.

Because this is a village wide issue, LSCA requests that the Short Term RentalAccommodations Committee also send their letter regarding noise /disturbances andconsequences to ALL Lambton Shores residents.

Although Councils Short Term Rental Accommodations Committee has made a goodeffort to educate and encourage cooperation from property owners who rent to toomany disrespectful tenants, the lack of consistent by-law enforcement is underminingall their good intentions.

If Council fails to ensure that by-laws are being enforced it is our determination thatthe Municipality may have liability issues.




5/5

5

Certainly, if any resulting fines are not a large enough deterrent Council needs torethink its approach to all by-law enforcement issues. Council may also find itself withmore by-law battles if enforcement does not follow through.

If actions set in motion by the Short Term Rental Accommodations Committee and

Council have no follow through, there can be no confidence that Council or By-lawshave any teeth.

The LSCA is asking Council to enforce its by-laws as requested by the Plan 24Committee and the Lambton Shores Community Association. The LSCA has noconfidence in the current contracted By Law enforcementfirm and believes Councilneeds to rethink their service provider.

I trust we will hear back from the Municipality on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Sharon Weitzel per

Lambton Shores Community Association

Attachments:

Exhibits 1-6



lsca by lawletter012013

Documents