HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-10-033 - Enforcement Policy I-227 - Enforcement - By-lawsREPORT
REPORT TO:
Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
April 12, 2010
SUBMITTED BY:
Troy Speck, General Manager of Corporate Services
PREPARED BY:
Shayne Turner, Director of By-law Enforcement
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
All
DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 2010
REPORT NO.:
CRPS-10-033
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT POLICY I-227
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council Policy I-227 (Enforcement - By-laws) be repealed and replaced with the revised
policy as attached to Corporate Services Department report CRPS-10-033.
BACKGROUND:
th
On March 8, the Finance and Corporate Services Committee considered Report No. CRPS-
10-014, relating to Enforcement Policy I-227. As a result, staff was directed to report back to
the Finance and Corporate Services Committee with a draft revised Policy for consideration.
The direction related to revising certain existing sections of the Policy as well as adding 2 new
sections relating to:
1. On-going neighbour disputes whereby neighbours appear to be using municipal staff
to deal with concerns they have with each other, and it is obvious that there is no
reasonable opportunity that staff actions alone will be able to adequately resolve the
dispute.
2. Situations where an individual will submit multiple complaints to the Division, from
across a wide area of the City.
In addition, staff was requested to provide information relating to multiple fence complaints that
were received in December of 2009, indicating the number of violations investigated and the
number of property owners that proceeded through the Committee of Adjustment to obtain
fence variances.
ïê ó ï
REPORT:
Revisions to Existing Policy
The following revisions to existing sections of the policy are proposed, to align the policy with
the Division’s current processes:
1. Adding “graffiti” to section 2 as one of the issues that staff will give priority to. This
relates to the anti-graffiti strategy that is currently being developed.
2. Revising Section 4 that relates to staff’s response when a minor variance or Zone
Change application is submitted in response to a zoning violation notice having been
issued by staff.
3. A simple amendment to Section 5 to change the word “shall” to “may’ in 2 locations,
relating to situations involving repeat offenders and waiving the notification process
and proceeding straight to enforcement and perhaps a prosecution. It is appropriate
that staff have discretion in this regard and the word “shall” appears to limit this
discretion.
Additional Policy Guidelines
In looking at enforcement policies it is important to consider the most appropriate use of staff
resources and how priorities are established based on community, operational and seasonal
needs.
As indicated in the earlier report, it is important to understand the fundamental purpose of by-
law enforcement, which is to regulate safety as well as aesthetics and streetscapes, and
promote a reasonable standard of enjoyment with one’s property and within neighbourhoods.
Municipal by-laws, and enforcement resources, should not be used as tools to perpetuate
neighbour disputes or create unrest in otherwise amicable situations.
It is important to understand the intent of these proposed policy statements and how they will be
applied. It is not the intent to simply apply the policy in every situation to decide not to react to a
complaint or series of complaints. The policies will allow staff to exercise some discretion in
determining how to respond, based on the circumstances. Staff realize that each situation can
be different and must be scrutinized based on its own merits. The draft policy statements
indicate criteria that staff must have regard to when making their determination.
Provisions have been included in the draft policy allowing for reconsideration of any previous
decision, as may be influenced by new circumstances.
Submission of Multiple Complaints
On occasion, staff receive multiple complaints from a single source or lesser numbers of
complaints but on many occasions from the same source. Issues related to this type of
occurrence can include:
- situations where the complaints relate to addresses that are located a fair distance from
where the complainant may live and may have very little, if any, direct impact on the
complainant;
ïê ó î
- situations whereby staff have advised property owners of a violation that may have
existed for many years without any apparent negative impact on the neighbourhood;
- situations involving property owners who have purchased the property after the violation
may have originated;
- situations whereby a complaint originating from outside of a neighbourhood has
contributed to a level of unrest in a neighbourhood (ie. residents begin to suspect others
in their neighbourhood who truly have nothing to do with the matter).
The proposed policy statement would provide some guidelines for staff to exercise a level of
discretion to decide when to act or not to act on a series of multiple complaints. Staff’s decision
on how they will respond would have regard to the following criteria:
- safety factors;
- available resources;
- potential impact on the complainant;
- potential impact of not responding;
- is the violation obvious to the neighbourhood;
- impact on the immediate neighbourhood;
- complaints that appear to result from a form of vendetta or retribution, or are
otherwise deemed to be frivolous and vexatious.
Staff understand that there must be a level of comfort that they will use this level of discretion
appropriately, and ensure that the needs of the community are met, while at the same time
ensuring the most appropriate use of resources.
An additional option would be to assign a lower priority to the multiple complaints, advising that
the complaints will be investigated when time and resources reasonably allow.
On-going Neighbour Disputes
Although it is not an overly common occurrence, staff have experienced challenges in dealing
with some situations between neighbours, where it has become obvious that staff’s involvement
will not be able to achieve a reasonably resolution to their dispute. Unfortunately, some
situations exist whereby there is virtually nothing further that City resources can do to resolve
the dispute. It is often apparent that the particular by-law matter is not associated with the root
cause of the dispute, and is only being used as a source of aggravation between the parties.
The proposed policy statement would provide some guidelines for staff to exercise a level of
discretion to suspend further involvement or take no further action in a neighbour dispute when
they have attempted to resolve the dispute, using various means, to no avail.
Staff’s decision would have regard to the following criteria:
- safety factors;
- history of attempts to mediate by staff;
- offer for formal mediation;
- coordinating involvement with other relevant agencies;
- the number of unfounded complaints;
- apparent attempts to purposely aggravate the situation;
- complaints that are frivolous and vexatious;
ïê ó í
- the number of complaints or concerns registered that do not fall within the jurisdiction
of the City of Kitchener’s by-laws.
Staff understand that there must be a level of comfort within the community and with Council
that they will ensure that everything reasonably possible has been tried or offered before
choosing to suspend further enforcement action.
With regard to the request for information relating to the multiple fence complaints received in
December of 2009, staff advise that the list of complaints related to 59 properties. All properties
were inspected and of the 59, 15 properties were investigated further for violations of the Fence
By-law. Four property owners applied for and obtained a fence variance through the Committee
of Adjustment process. These properties are, 3 Trailwood Crescent, 271 Newbury Drive, 4
Burnaby Crescent and 1 Covington Crescent.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None identified at this time.
COMMUNICATIONS:
No Corporate Communications is required.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believe it is appropriate to revise Enforcement Policy I-227 to reflect the By-law
Enforcement Division’s current processes and to provide guidelines for staff when addressing
more challenging issues that have an impact on staff resources, priorities and an impact on
neighbourhoods.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Troy Speck, General Manager of Corporate Services
Encl.
ïê ó ì
COUNCIL POLICY RESOLUTION
POLICY NUMBER: I-227 DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1994
amended: JUNE 17, 2002
amended: April __, 2010
POLICY TYPE: ADMINISTRATION
SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT – BY-LAWS
POLICY CONTENT:
1. That subject to Sections 2 and 3 hereof, the By-law Enforcement Staff of
the Corporate Services Department investigate and enforce the various
municipal By-laws and Chapters of the Municipal Code under their
jurisdiction that are discovered in the following ways:
a) violations discovered through joint inspection with other City officials
or other agencies, such as the Regional Health Unit or the Waterloo
Regional Police Services;
b) violations brought to the attention of the City through applications or
written inquiries respecting a property;
c) violations brought to the attention of the City through complaints filed
by identified members of the public and/or City staff whose names
shall be kept in confidence; and,
d) highly visible violations identified by By-law Enforcement Staff in the
discharge of their normal duties and subject to staff resources.
2. That the By-law Enforcement Staff continue to give top enforcement priority
to violations that deal with:
a) safety and health issues, and in particular, fences or shrubs causing
sight obstructions, unsafe swimming pools, unsafe residential units,
discarded ice boxes and refrigerators, and sidewalk snow and ice
removal;
b) lodging houses in accordance with Council Policy Resolution I-228;
and,
c) Portable signs for compliance with the City’s Sign By-law, known as
Chapter 680 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code.
KITCHENER Page 1 of 4 JUNE 2002
ïê ó ë
POLICY NUMBER: I-227
SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT – BY-LAWS
d) Graffiti
3. That, as directed by Council resolution, By-law Enforcement Staff target for
intensive enforcement:
a) specific types of violations; and,
b) specific geographic areas as designated as Community Mobilization
areas by Council or other specific areas as directed from time to time
Excepting when a charge has already been laid, that staff may suspend
4.
further enforcement action under the Zoning By-law, including initiation of a
prosecution, where a person alleged to have violated the Zoning By-law,
has submitted and is actively pursuing a minor variance or Zone Change
application to resolve the alleged violation provided such application is
submitted within a reasonable time frame from when the original deadline
was set by staff and no undue risk or safety hazard is created by
suspension of enforcement.
5. That in cases of:
a) alleged repeat offenders,
b) health and safety related violations; and/or
c) violations set out in Section 3,
optional notification procedures may be waived and the By-law Enforcement
Staff mayproceed directly with the appropriate measures necessary to
ensure swift prosecution of such alleged violations in the most effective,
efficient and economical manner. For the purposes of this policy, alleged
repeat offenders shall include those persons who By-law Enforcement Staff
are satisfied were aware of the applicable regulations prior to the date of the
alleged violation.
6. That By-law Enforcement Staff co-operate with and assist other City officials
(including the City’s Fire Inspection Staff) or other agencies, such as the
Regional Health Unit or the Waterloo Regional Police Services.
7. That the By-law Enforcement Staff increase public awareness of the City’s
By-law Enforcement Policies and Procedures by:
a) preparing and distributing information pamphlets and preparing
website content outlining the role of the By-law Enforcement Staff,
complaint procedures and potential penalties; and,
b) hosting and participating in by-law educational sessions for
neighbourhood associations, the business community and the general
public when requested.
KITCHENER Page 2 of 4 JUNE 2002
ïê ó ê
POLICY NUMBER: I-227
SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT – BY-LAWS
8. That, in situations whereby multiple complaints are received from a single
person at one time, or where a single person continuously submits a variety
of complaints on an on-going basis, By-law Enforcement staff are given the
discretion to decide on an appropriate level of response to such complaints.
The level of response by staff may include a decision to act on some or all
of the complaints, to not act on some or all of the complaints, or to assign
priority to some or all of the complaints.
In making their decision on the appropriate level of response to such
complaints, staff will have regard to the following criteria:
- safety factors;
- available resources;
- potential impact on the complainant;
- potential impact of not responding;
- is the violation obvious to the neighbourhood;
- impact on the immediate neighbourhood;
- complaints that appear to result from a form of vendetta or retribution,
or are otherwise deemed to be frivolous and vexatious.
9. That, in situations where By-law Enforcement staff are involved in a dispute
between 2 or more people, where it has become obvious that staff’s
involvement will not be able to achieve a reasonable resolution to their
dispute, staff are given the discretion to decide on an appropriate level of
further involvement. The level of involvement by staff may include a
decision to suspend further involvement or take no further action in the
dispute.
In making their decision as to the level of further involvement with the dispute,
staff will have regard to the following criteria:
- safety factors;
- history of attempts to mediate by staff;
- offer for formal mediation;
- coordinating involvement with other relevant agencies;
- the number of unfounded complaints;
- apparent attempts to purposely aggravate the situation;
- complaints that are frivolous and vexatious;
- the number of complaints or concerns registered that do not fall within
the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener’s by-laws.
Any decision made under this policy including a decision not to respond to
complaints or enforce by-laws, and also including a decision made by the
Director of Enforcement may, at any time, be revisited. A decision of one by-
law enforcement staff person in this respect will not bind another.
Additionally, the Director or Supervisor of Enforcement may at his/her
KITCHENER Page 3 of 4 JUNE 2002
ïê ó é
POLICY NUMBER: I-227
SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT – BY-LAWS
discretion require staff to respond to a complaint or enforce a by-law in spite
of any previous decision to the contrary.
KITCHENER Page 4 of 4 JUNE 2002
ïê ó è