Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEGD-056-04 REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES Meeting: COUNCIL Date: Monday, November 22, 2004 Report #: EGD-56-04 File#: By-law #: Subject: REQUEST TO DELETE FENCING ON AUBURN LANE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that Council recommend the following: 1. THAT Report EGD-56-04 be received; and 2. THAT the fencing behind addresses 70 to 106 Auburn Lane and along the public access between 90 and 94 Auburn Lane be installed in accordance with the sub- division agreement; and 3. THAT all interested parties and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. .~ C !.e~tJ"~ C,,-h"t Submitted by: AS. Cannella, C.E.T. Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer November 16, 2004 ASC/PW/jo CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOW MANVILLE, ONTARIO L lC 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-9282 . REPORT NO.: EGD.56-Q4 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 In June 2002 council approved the rezoning of a parcel of land adjacent to the Farewell Creek Valley on Auburn Lane from Environmental Protection (EP) to Residential Type One (R1) to allow for the construction of 10 single detached dwellings. Due to the environmental sensitivity of the area an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was prepared for the rezoning application. The purpose of the EIS was to determine if the proposed development should be permitted and to establish what mitigation methods or conditions of approval would be required. The ten lots back onto the Farewell Creek which is well used by residents through a network of worn paths. A portion of the valley wall has experienced significant erosion and contains a steep slope. The existing worn path is located along this steep slope and continued erosion will eventually make it impassable. Pedestrians will eventually have to walk higher up the bank, closer to the rear of the lots. In April 2002 an Open House was held to present the findings of the EIS and receive feedback from the area residents. Approximately 40 residents attended. Generally the residents were concerned that should the proposed 10 lots be permitted, the rear lot line of the new lots should be fenced and that sufficient area for a walking trail be maintained between the rear lot line and the top of bank, and that access to the valley be maintained through the proposed lots. Houses have now been constructed on 8 of the 10 lots. All of the owners were aware of the fencing requirements and were given a Homeowners Environmental Guide to highlight the significance of maintaining the natural environment and the steps taken to minimize any negative impacts on the site. The Guide states "leave the fence that was installed along the back of your lot standing. It was installed to limit intrusion and the spread of unofficial foot paths through the area, please enter through designated access points and stay on the trails." . REPORT NO.: EGD-56-Q4 PAGE 3 At the November 8,2004 meeting of Council Mr. Gary Hammett, 74 Auburn Lane, Courtice presented a petition signed by the owners of the 8 houses (Attachment #1) opposing the installation of open spacing fencing behind no.'s 70 to 106 Auburn Lane. Additionally Mr. Hammett presented a document that proposes to delete the fencing requirement along the edges of the public walkway from Auburn Lane to the open space lands. The houses in question back onto the Farewell Creek Valley. The houses are recently constructed and are situated between existing houses constructed approximately 8-10 years ago. The adjacent developments were constructed before the open space fencing requirement was part of the Municipality's standard site plan agreement. The developer of the ten lots is required by the subdivision agreement to install a 1.2 meter, galvanized chain link fence to separate the private properties from the valley land. In June 2000 Council approved report PD-060-00, Fencing of Open Space Lands (Attachment #2). The report was prepared to establish a consistent procedure of fencing open space lands from private lands. The report "recommended that it be standard municipal policy to require developers to install fencing along the boundaries of lots abutting open space lands. This would apply equally to residential, commercial and industrial lots. This requirement would be incorporated into all subdivision and site plan agreements. Where subdivision agreements have been executed it would be applicable to all future phases." 2.0 CONCERNS RESULTING FROM CHOOSING NOT TO FENCE 2.1 Between 1990 and 2000 fencing was installed on a case by case basis but due to the concerns listed below a consistent policy to deal with this issue was adopted. -fencing provides a clear delineation of private and public property -prevents encroachment on public lands -discourages trespassing on private property -discourages trespassing on public property by heavy equipment used for rear yard construction including pools REPORT NO.: EGD-56-04 PAGE 4 -limits municipal liability -limits problems of enforcement of by-laws on municipal lands -limits exposure to future fencing obligations to resolve problems The types of encroachments that occur in open space areas vary in scope and severity. Past inspections have discovered vegetable gardens, swing sets, storage sheds and boats located on public land. In several locations homeowners have removed vegetation from the open space area either to extend their rear yards or because they don't like the appearance of un-maintained open space. The removal of vegetation results in valleys slopes more susceptible to erosion. In other instances trees and shrubs have been planted that block public access and introduce non-native species that will negatively affect the ecosystem. Another common problem is yard waste dumped in the open space which smothers the regeneration of natural vegetation and blocks public access. The perception of the backyards extending into the open space with no visible delineation discourages the public from using the open space as intended. The walking trails that exist tend to be located close to the edge of the valley rather than on the top of bank as the public will be reluctant to intrude on what may be perceived as private property. 3.0 CONCLUSION 3.1 Requests to delete or modify the fencing requirements in new residential developments are common. When dealing with such requests staff has cited the existing municipal procedure. Once the reasons are explained most homeowners understand the need and benefits for fencing open space from residential. It is also important to fence both sides of the pedestrian walkway block into the open space. The walkway will have a sodded surface. Fencing will clearly define the block as a public access route. With no fencing it would appear to be the side yard of the adjacent lot and the public may be reluctant to enter. , REPORT NO.: EGD-56-04 PAGE 5 Dealing with fencing requirements on a case by case basis will result in inconstancies in application of the fencing requirement. It will also result in considerable staff time to investigate and prepare reports. The open space fencing requirements in Clarington are consistent with most other Municipalities. Clearly defining property lines with fencing is the best way to ensure the publics right to use and enjoy the land. The proposed chain link fence is 1.2m (4') high, it will not block views into the open space from the residential lots, and can easily be landscaped to be more aesthetically pleasing. Expecting residents to self police encroachments, dumping or clearing is not a reasonable expectation. Properties change hands over time and residents are often reluctant to report on their neighbours. In 2002 when the Council was considering the re-zoning of the land, existing residents were concerned that if the proposed 10 lots were approved the rear lot line should be fenced and that sufficient area for a walking trail be maintained between the rear lot line and the top of bank and that an access to the valley lands be maintained through the proposed lots. Installing the fencing in accordance with the subdivision agreement will ensure that public access and enjoyment of the open space will not be compromised. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Signed Petition Attachment 2 - Report PD-060-00 . REPORT NO.: EGD.56.Q4 PAGE 6 Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Anita and Harald Jensen Sandi and Geoff Grant David and Terry Robichaud Philip and Anne Haylock Linda and Dave MacFarlane Rob and Sandi Dobson Sandra and Gary Hammett Gabe Lea ATTACHMENT NO.: 1 REPORT NO.: EGD-56,04 - SIGNED PETITION September 8, 2004 Municipality of Clarington Attn: Clarington Town Council Re: Installation of backyard fence by Storybrook Homes on Auburn Lane, Courtlce, Paul Halminen of Storybrook Home is now at the pOint where he WOUld like to :nstall a fence as part of his subdivision agreement to the town 8 He has sold s~of-!he 10 premium ravine lots to date ana has Informed the owners that a fence will soon be ,nstalled. The s~rtbwners have all agreed that a fence will not accomplish any Important function and would deter from their' beautiful backyara setting overlooking the Farewell CreeK, If any owner would be Inclinea to "encroach" on tne ravine with a fence, It would not go unnoticed and appropriate action would be taken to inform the town, Councillors Adrian Foster and Jim Shell will be contacted by the writer on behalf of the Seven owners to ask for their views and hopeful support, Gary Hammett. 74 Aubum Lane. Present Owners: Owner(s) Name (Print) Address Phone Number SignaturelS) // ' 1 ';'1//.44 audJ/ti2UL<< -Z-vQ ex...-- !it;; ~lV1Ll\ {,(~ (;)eo~f ;-- L. ,.' "\~ L. 3 D/Jv, Do/TERRy xcd,U"'~u;J /(Jd. Ac",o?"r.; AN 4 () I. l'rJ d- /' ,'/()~~ I Ii' I/J.'/ J I:/},r,r, -r .; ; t I /:; f. a:, vrbF L "~y./. - b 35 t/ 5 l-1'{1cJ~ {, Oo.v( quS- " ~() H fCl.{'~ '1'1 :~(.l..I?t..t(n LwH::_ i.,gY'<:,,'S'1.ll : >-\~L\"'b'l.vl9vJ:;- 6 L.f-'~~J' f).B~ 7~ ;J(>'t:L0~ 'vA"-.Ji<: "IQ,S -d3~-Wn 7 SA DR.11 -" G,qRY 9d-- "I3{,- ?OYf 1" ffl:;::: ';/t/t,":::::;:'P L4>v~ ~~;~ (;::20~ 705 /}33-o:.:J 8:2 .- v,;.....-::--~ . , '----------~ ,D THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ATTACHMENT NO.: 2 REPORT NO.: EGD-56-04 REPORT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee Pile # Date: Monday June 19,2000 Res. # Report #: PD-060-00 File #: PLN 30.1 By-law # S ubj ect: FENCING OF OPEN SPACE LANDS FILE NO.: PLN 30.1 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-060-00 be received: 2. THAT the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement include the requirement that 1.2 metre (4 ft.) high galvanized chain link fencing be installed on lots abutting open space areas; 3. THAT the requirement for fencing of open space lands be applied to all future phases of plans of subdivision which have been draft approved; 4. THAT the Municipality's standard site plan agreement include the requirement that 1.5 m (5 ft) chain link fencing be installed along the boundaries of commercial or industrial development abutting open space areas, subject to variance by the Director of Public Works and Director of Planning and Development where appropriate; and 5. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Prior to 1990, it was municipal policy to require that 1.8 metre (6 ft.) privacy fencing be installed along the boundary between residential lots and open space lands. At the request of a number of residents who did not want fencing, Council requested staff to review the fencing policy. In response, staff recommended that fencing be maintained for the following reasons: . Provides a clear delineation of private and public property . Prevents encroachment on public lands . Discourages trespassing on private property REPORT PD-060-00 PAGE 2 . Discourages trespassing on public property by heavy equipment used for rear yard construction including pools . Limits municipal liability . Limits problems of enforcement of by-laws on municipal lands . Limits exposure to future fencing obligations to resolve problems However, staff also recommended in 1990 that fencing standards be revised from a 6 foot (1.S metre) privacy fence to a 4 foot (1.2 metre) chain link fence. This change was in response to the concerns of homeowners who had paid a premium for ravine lots but would be blocked from having a "premium view". 1.2 Council reviewed staffs report on May 2S, 1990 and referred that matter to the Municipality's solicitor to address the question of liability. A verbal report from the Solicitor was provided to the General Purpose and Administration Committee on July 23, 1990. Committee and Council adopted a resolution which in part reads as follows: "That staff be directed to delete the fencing requirement from subdivision agreements; That the hazardous areas located in a subdivision be signed where appropriate and necessary." 1.3 Since that time, most subdivision agreements have not required fencing of open space areas. However, in the last two years, fencing requirements have been re-instated on a case-by-case basis due to the problems noted in Section 2 and due to the recommendations of the environmental impact studies prepared for various plans of subdivision. These include: IST-91004 IST-92014 18T-91005 IST-9901S 1ST -96013 1ST -94027 Port of Newcastle Courtice Heights Black Creek Developments Lizjan Development In the above cases, the fencing has been 1.2 metre chain link fencing. 2. THE PROBLEM 2.1 Encroachment into Open Space Lands An encroachment occurs when a property owner intrudes on, in, under or over ground REPORT PD-060-00 PAGE 3 space of an abutting municipal property whether deliberately or inadvertently. The unauthorized use of municipal property is illegal. The Municipality needs to be concerned due to public safety, environmental damage, potential restoration costs and liability claims among other matters. There have been a number of incidents reported regarding encroachments into municipal open space. On the basis of various site visits for other purposes, staff believe that this is a much larger problem than the reported incidents. There has been no comprehensive review of this situation. The Property Manager investigated one incident in 1999 on Glenabbey Drive in Courtice. At this time seven (7) residential properties encroached on abutting open space lands with the following structures or uses: 4 storage sheds, one vegetable garden and two playground swings. The Property Manager is reviewing this situation and will be reporting on this matter at a later time. 2.2 Environmental Impacts Encroachment of structures and gardens, the removal of trees and shrubs, sodding, dumping of unwanted items, increased predation by domestic animals and the introduction of non-native species are occurring in many of the open space areas which have not been fenced. All these activities negatively effect the features and functions of the natural area. Many of these intrusions into the open space areas will negatively impact the natural features and functions for which the open space area had been identified and secured. This includes protection from natural hazards including flooding or unstable slopes. Fencing would provide a direct barrier, effectively reducing the scope of these intrusions into the open space area. REPORT PD-OGO-OO PAGE 4 At a time when we are striving to preserve as many environmental features as possible, it is poor stewardship not to incorporate the most rudimentary measures to provide for their protection. 3. PROPOSED REVISED POLICY ON FENCING 3.1 It is recommended that it be standard municipal policy to require developers to install fencing along the boundaries oflots abutting open space lands. This would apply equally to residential, commercial and industrial lots. This requirement would be incorporated into all subdivision and site plan agreements. Where subdivision agreements have been executed, it would be applicable to all future phases. 3.2 In certain instances such as where there is a trail, it may be appropriate to provide for a gate at the rear of the property. This could be determined on a site by site basis. This would take place at the request and expense of homeowners subject to a permit from the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department would prepare an appropriate design standard. In no case would gates be permitted adjacent to highly environmentally sensitive features such as wetlands and woodlots. 3.3 A review of municipal policy for the lakeshore municipalities in Durham was undertaken. Most municipalities require fencing as shown on Table 1. Table 1 Fencing of Open Space Lands in Residential Plans of Subdivision Pickering Ajax Whitby Oshawa Fencing Determined on site Yes Yes Yes Required by site basis Design 1.8 m chain link, 1.8 m chain link. 1.2 m black vinyl- 1.5 m chain link Standard privacy fencing or coated chain link farm fencing (for wildlife corridor) Gates Yes, at Yes, at Access determined No Permitted homeowner's homeowner's on site by site expense expense and basis. Fence at subject to home-owner's application expense and subject to fees REPORT PD-060-00 PAGE 5 3.4 In most cases, fencing should also be installed for commercial and industrial developments along open space lands. It is recommended that 1.5 metre (5 ft.) fencing be installed in these instances. In certain circumstances, it would be appropriate to vary this requirement such as where a valley land trail would connect to a commercial plaza. 3.5 This report has been reviewed by the Property Manager. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 Due to encroachment problems currently being experienced and the environmental impact of such en n lands identified, secured and zoned as Environmental Protection, i is recommended that fen ing be installed through the development process. I Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~ / roine, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. r of Planning & Development d r~-=LSu Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., Chief Administrative Officer ~1/~ Stephen A. Yokes, P. Eng., Director of Public Works DJC*SY*cc June 14,2000 613