Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD-25-92 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File `A o , Date: NOVEMBER 2, 1992 Res. #CA _z Report#: CD-25-92 File#: By-Law# Subject: REQUEST FOR PAYMENT - LINE FENCE DISPUTE MRS. K. COKE Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CD-25-92 be received; 2 . THAT the request of Mrs . K. Coke for payment by the treasurer of the town of $1, 146 . 06 to settle a line fences dispute be denied; 3 . THAT, because of the impact on all taxpayers of the municipality, a by-law not be passed under Section 12 ( 6) of the Line Fences Act to provide for the treasurer of the municipality to pay to the owner awards granted under said Act; and 4 . THAT Kathleen Coke and Richard Murphy be advised of Council's decision. BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: At the Council Meeting held on September 14, 1992, Mrs. Kathleen Coke appeared before Council with respect to a fence dispute between herself and her adjoining neighbour. Mrs . Coke advised that she wanted to construct a fence to separate the two properties and requested her neighbour's assistance. The neighbour replied that he was not interested in having a fence built and, therefore, he would not contribute to its cost. Mrs . Coke then contacted the Town to commence proceedings under the Line Fences Act. In June 1991, the "Clerk's Notice to Parties (•Dispute) " was mailed to the property owners, advising that three fence viewers would be viewing and arbitrating on the fence line between the properties . Report CD-25-92 - 2 - November 2, 1992 In July, 1991, a "Fence Viewer's Award (Dispute) " was sent to both parties ordering a fence to be constructed and maintained. It also stated which portion was the responsibility of each party and a starting and completion date (July 31 and August 31, 1991, respectively) . As of November, 1991, construction of her neighbour's portion of the fence had not been commenced and Mrs. Coke had the fence constructed at her cost. A "Clerk's Notice to Parties (Certification) " stating that the three fence viewers would re-attend the lands on December 20, 1991 to verify the value of work done was completed. Following this inspection a "Fence Viewer's Certificate of Default" was completed which stated that her neighbour had failed to obey the award made July 15, 1991. This documentation quoted the value of work done and paid for by the Cokes at $1, 146 . 06 plus the fence viewers ' expense of $77 .40. In accordance with Section 12 (6) of the Act, Mrs. Coke is now requesting that the treasurer of the municipality pay the outstanding amount of $1, 146 . 06 to her and then place this amount on her neighbour's tax account. Section 12 (5) of the Line Fences Act states that, upon receiving a certificate of default and an application in writing by the owner entitled to receive the amount certified, the total amount shall be placed on the collector's roll and may be collected in the same manner as taxes, together with interest. Once collected, the outstanding amount is then paid over to the owner. This has happened in Mrs. Coke's case. Section 12 (6 ) of the Act states that a local municipality may by by-law, provide that where a certificate and an award are deposited with the clerk, the treasurer may, upon written application, pay "up front" to the owner, the amount certified. This amount is then placed on the collector's roll and collected in the same manner as taxes, together with interest. Mrs . Coke is now requesting payment by this method. The Town of Newcastle presently has three outstanding fence disputes totalling an amount of $1,993 . 14 . In each case, the amount of the award has been placed on the collector's roll, in accordance with Section 12 (5) of the Act. The tax collector has advised that interest in the amount of 1.25 percent per month is charged to these accounts . The Municipal Law Enforcement Officer has advised that there are several other instances such as Mrs . Coke's whereby the owner is awaiting the outcome of the Coke dispute to determine whether they too will request "up front" payment of the award by the town. As more residents are requesting fence viewings, an estimate of funds required to cover the costs is $3,500 . 6 � 4 Report CD-25-92 - 3 - November 2, 1992 Should Council pass a by-law to provide for the payment of the award by the municipality, this amount will need to be added to the town's budget each and every year. In so doing, all taxpayers of the town will be subjected to helping to offset these costs through their tax dollars . The Line Fences Act states, in Section 12 (9) that rather than applying the award to the collector's roll or applying for the award under a by-law passed under Section 12 (6 ) , the owner may file a copy of the certificate and the award with the clerk of the small claims court and the amount may be levied against the goods and chattels and land of the adjoining owner. Because the passage of a by-law under Section 12 (6) of the Line Fences Act will require additional funds to be allocated in the town's annual budget each year, thereby further burdening all taxpayers of the municipality, and the option an owner has of filing a claim with small claims court, it is respectfully recommended that Mrs . Coke's request for payment of $1, 146 . 06 by the treasurer of the municipality, be denied and that a by-law not be passed under Section 12 (6) of the Line Fences Act. Respec ul submitted Recommended for Approval to Crmittee tat,t arr'e, A.M.C.T. Lawrence E,. Kotse f; M.C. I.P. Clerk Chief Administra iv .` Officer PLB/ms I Individuals to be Notified of Council's Decision: Mrs . K. Coke Mr. R. Murphy 14 Darlington Blvd. 210 Andrew Street Courtice, Ontario Newcastle, Ontario L1E 2J7 L1B 1J9 I i