I had an interesting discussion with Senior Environmental Officer Irena Cooley from the Ministry of The environment yesterday. She directed me to the following Property Standards section of the Municipal Code that deals with some of our issues.
Regarding the high powered light that shines in Sean's house: 629-17. Buffering. Property that, because of its use, occupancy or other reasons, creates a nuisance to other properties in the neighbourhood shall be buffered from these properties so as to minimize the effect of the nuisance by the provision and maintenance of: A barrier or deflectors to prevent lighting and vehicle headlights from shining directly into a dwelling unit;
Regarding having to look at ugly scrap all day: A visual screen or fence, of uniform construction and appropriate to the nature of the adjacent use, to minimize the visual impact of nuisances to persons at grade on adjacent properties
Regarding a barrier fence that is falling apart: 629-13 Enclosers: All fences, screens and other enclosures around or on a property shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition and plumb, unless specifically designed to be other than vertical, with a uniform construction, in good repair and free from hazards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great work! Keep at it. The best solution may be to have the area re-zoned (hard to do, I'm sure).
The following email was sent by Vince Nicholson regarding these by-law infractions
09/11/2006 04:09 PM
"Luzi, Italo Joe" jluzi@toronto.ca, "Councillor Di Giorgio" councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca, "Mcguire, Bryan" bmcguire@toronto.ca, "David Giezen" dgiezen@toronto.ca, irena.cooney@ontario.ca
Hello all,
I believe that I've spoken to all of you over the last little while and it's dawned on me that it's probably less time consuming for all involved to include you all in an email instead of contacting standards/councillor/ministry of environment etc. individually. Thank you all for your continued efforts.
We were told to report any violations we thought were occurring with regards to the scrap yards on Hyde Avenue, so here goes.
Looking at the property standards in the municipal code, a few things look like they apply to 96 Hyde Avenue and in some cases 75 Hyde Avenue.
The fencing on the north side of 75 Hyde Ave. and on the north and east side of 96 Hyde is in terrible shape and has been for quite some time. Wouldn't 629-13 apply?
§ 629-13. Enclosures.
All fences, screens and other enclosures around or on a property shall be maintained in a
structurally sound condition and plumb, unless specifically designed to be other than
vertical, with a uniform construction, in good repair and free from hazards.
Also, wouldn't A in section 629-17 apply to the very bright light that currently shines into Mr. Kloosterman's dwelling all night from 96 Hyde?
Not certain if C would apply, but I know we all have an open view of a scrap yard these days
§ 629-17. Buffering.
Property that, because of its use, occupancy or other reasons, creates a nuisance to other
properties in the neighbourhood shall be buffered from these properties so as to minimize
the effect of the nuisance by the provision and maintenance of:
A. A barrier or deflectors to prevent lighting and vehicle headlights from shining
directly into a dwelling unit;
B. A barrier to prevent wind-blown waste, wrappings, debris and similar things from
littering or settling on adjacent properties;
C. A visual screen or fence, of uniform construction and appropriate to the nature of
the adjacent use, to minimize the visual impact of nuisances to persons at grade on
adjacent properties or a public highway; and
D. The provision and maintenance of a barrier of sufficient size and strength to prevent
the dumping of debris or refuse in yards or vacant property.
I am a resident of Westbury and have just reviewed this blog. Thank you Vince and Sean, it is very good, I am going to mark it with my favourties and keep tabs on what is being entered.
It really highlights what a lethal Catch 22 situation was created by York councillors and continued by current city councillors with their bias toward business interests. There has been no outrage or determination to correct this mess in any of the official reactions I have read or heard. In fact, I keep hearing the same road blocks and excuses for not enforcing the law.
If I took a digital picture, with a date on it of someone stealing from that scrapyard, or setting that scrapyard on fire, I am sure it would be accepted as compelling evidence and the perpetrator would be charged. Sean has taken quite a number of pictures showcasing blatant disregard for fire, environmental and zoning laws and yet these are not good enough as evidence of wrongdoing. There appear to be two very different sets of legal standards. 'Laws' for members of the public to be ignored at great personal peril and 'Suggested Guidelines' for the business community to follow if it doesn't interfere with their profitability.
When individuals flout laws they can lose their income, drivers licence, ability to earn a living and in extreme cases long period of their freedom.
When businesses flout laws their aberrant behaviour is either ignored, excused, denied or the minor fines are paid as a part of doing business. No great pain to be inflicted here, no reason to comply imposed.
Our leadership seems to feel that regulation on commercial enterprises is on the books as window dressing to create the appearance the publics interests are being protected without having to actually force business to obey.
Perception not substance is what counts in politics.
Dianne
Post a Comment