HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD-53-98
'"
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose & Administration Committee
File # '
Date: October 19, 1998
Res. #69(1 - 503 - C;<6'
Report No: CD-53-98
By-law # _
Subject:
Delegation of Sam Gust
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectively recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1 . THAT Report CD 53-98 be received; and
2. THAT a copy of Report CD-53-98 be forwarded to Mr. Gust.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 14, 1998 meeting of Council, Mr. Sam Gust appeared as a delegation
and spoke about his concerns over the actions of the By-law Enforcement Division in
relation to his properties. Staff were directed to review his concerns and prepare a report
for Committee's consideration.
The absence of a written list of concerns makes it difficult for staff to know exactly what
Mr. Gust was referring to at the time that he spoke to Council. Mr. Gust owns several
properties within the Municipality. In the last nine years, eight separate investigations
involving lands owned by Mr. Gust either in his own name or through Gust Holdings Inc.
have been undertaken. Three of these were property standards, two fencing, one zoning
and a noise matter. In each case Mr. Gust was given the opportunity to comply with the
requirements of the respective By-laws. As each matter was resolved the file was closed.
The By-law Enforcement Division operates strictly on a complaint basis. In each incident
staff action was precipitated by a complaint involving some form of deficiency or non-
compliance on the part of Mr. Gust. For example, one of the fence complaints required a
Fence Viewing under the Line Fences Act in order to resolve it.
It appears there was one matter in particular which prompted Mr. Gust's appearance before
Council. Mr. Gust owns a vacant piece of industrial land on the east side of Simpson
Avenue south of Baseline Road. In 1997 a Property Standards Notice under the Planning
Act was sent to Mr. Gust advising him of the deficiencies and instructing him to remove all
the derelict vehicles and waste material.
IUl
""
CD-53-98
- 2 -
October 19, 1998
In August of this year, a Property Standards Order pursuant to the Municipality's new
Property Standards By-law and the Building Code Act was issued against the property. This
Order required compliance by September 30, 1998. To date the Order has not been
complied with. It is the intention of staff to enforce the Order against the property and a
report will be forthcoming dealing with this matter.
Mr. Gust's presentation to Council may in fact have been his attempt to circumvent the
requirements of the By-law and the Building Code Act. The Building Code Act provides a
specific method and form of appeal from the Order. Section 15.3(1) states that an owner or
occupant who has been served with an Order and who is not satisfied with the terms or
conditions of the Order may appeal to the Property Standards Committee by sending
Notice of Appeal by registered mail to the Secretary within fourteen days of service of the
Order.
The deadline for Mr. Gust to appeal to the Committee was September 18, 1998. This
requirement for method and form of appeal is very clearly described in the Order. No
appeal was received nor has there been any indication that he disagreed with the
requirements of the Order. In the absence of any appeal, the Order is now deemed to be
confirmed and enforceable.
The only other issue currently under investigation involving Mr. Gust deals with a Zoning
infraction on a piece of land at Baseline Road and Liberty Street. The land is being used to
store a large construction type trailer. The owner, a numbered company of which Mr. Gust
is one of the principles, has been instructed to remove the trailer and has failed to do so.
That matter is currently before the courts.
To the best of staff's recollection, Mr. Gust has never spoken to staff or responded directly
to any of the complaints involving him. The two latest incidents have come to a head
because of his failure to address these matters directly at the staff level. In the final
analysis, Mr. Gust has been treated no differently from any other citizen of the
Municipality. Staff's attention has only been drawn to Mr. Gust's properties as a result of
public complaints.
Respectfully submitted:
Reviewed by:
~ .H. Stockwell
/u - Chief Administrative Officer
/u2