Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-12-115 - Open Air Burning1 Staff Re,~ort KIT(;x~l~`~.R ~ommunityServicesDepartmen~ www.kitthenerca REPORT TO: Mayor Zehr and Members of Council DATE OF MEETING: August 27, 2012 SUBMITTED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department, 519-741-2325 PREPARED BY: Tim Beckett, Fire Chief, 519-741-2926 Shayne Turner, Director of By-law Enforcement, 519-741- 2753 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: August 22, 2012 REPORT NO.: CSD-12-115 SUBJECT: Open Air Burning Regulations RECOMMENDATION: Council Direction is requested. BACKGROUND: At the June 25th Council meeting, Council enacted immediate changes to Chapter 711 to limit the times when fire pits and fireplaces can be used to 7PM to 11 PM and increased the setback distance for backyard fires from 5 meters to 6 meters. Also, By-law Enforcement staff were directed to give priority to complaints relating to backyard fires. In addition, Council directed staff to bring forward a report and a draft by-law for the August 27th Council meeting relating to limiting backyard fires to 6 per property per year and to implement an on-line permit system at a cost of $10 per permit. Finally, Council directed staff to provide a report by year's end to discuss the effectiveness of the changes to Chapter 711. REPORT: Since Chapter 711 was amended on June 25th, staff have received and responded to 142 complaints, as of August 13, 2012. This brings total number of complaints for the year to 270, as of that date. By-law Enforcement staff have laid 27 charges during this same time period. On July 8th, the Fire Chief declared a ban on all open air burning, including fireplaces and firepits, due to the extremely dry conditions existing in the area. This ban remained in effect until August 9th As a result of Council's direction to give priority status to backyard fire complaints, the By-law Enforcement Division felt it was necessary to add some officer coverage during peak times in an attempt to meet this expectation. It should be noted that the majority of fire complaints are dealt with by the same officers who respond to noise complaints. It is staff's experience that the peak times for noise complaints coincides with the peak times for most backyard fire complaints. 7(a)-1 There are many times when the Division's current resources only permit 1 officer to be on duty at any given time. Additional resources were deemed necessary in order to meet Council's and the public's expectations. In addition, staff note that many complaints were received during the time that the ban, as declared by the Fire Chief, was in effect. The presence of the ban, with its significant safety implications, actually increased the need to ensure that priority was given where necessary. The approximate cost of this additional resource allocation is $9,000. It should also be noted that there has been a great deal of public feedback received since June 25th. This feedback has included support on both sides of this issue, an outright ban on backyard fires and allowing them to continue. Notice of an on-line petition, with approximately 2,400 names, in support of continuing to allow backyard fires was also received. In addition, a lot of the feedback made reference to the potential permit system, and was predominantly opposed to such a system. Investiaation of Annual Limits and Permit Svstem Based on staff's preliminary investigation of a proposed six fire limit and the online permit system, they are concerned that it would be extremely difficult from an operational perspective to enforce a six fire limit and/or implement an effective online permit system. Indications are that the resources associated with setting up an on line permit system are estimated to be significantly more than would be covered by a $10 permit fee. A full and in-depth analysis would be required in order to fully gauge the resource and operational implications of such a permit system, subject to Council's direction. Staff believe that an effective permit system would require at least an initial inspection of each property to ensure that the by-law requirements are met to avoid the City issuing a permit to a property that does not comply with the by-law. Many properties in the City are not capable of complying with a six metre setback from all property lines, buildings, and other objects such as trees and it would not make sense for the City to issue permits in areas where we know most properties cannot comply with the by-law requirements. A single permit inspection could easily take an enforcement officer or fire inspector an hour when travel time is included. Although some inspections may be able to be grouped, this would depend on the number of inspections being requested in a specific area in a specific timeframe. We anticipate that the public would expect inspections to be conducted quickly to accommodate a request for a fire permit. We have heard from members of the public that fires are often conducted on a spontaneous basis. Staff believe that for a permit system to be effective and utilized by the public, both initial inspections and permits would need to be readily available on short notice. As existing software used by fire and by-law is not currently compatible with the City's Class permit system, it would require significant resources to accommodate online access to permit information for staff to be readily available in a timely manner. Another concern with the permit system is that our present by-law allows a fire to be prohibited if it causes an actual nuisance. A person who has complied with the by-law requirements and paid for a permit would likely be quite upset if they were told to extinguish their fire due to a neighbour's complaint. Keeping track of the number of fires that have been held at a particular address could also be difficult if a person does not obtain permits. A neighbor may very well believe that permits have been obtained and refrain from complaining about a fire until they are sure someone has 7(a)-2 surpassed the six fire limit. Although enforcement action could follow any fire found without a permit, it would be difficult to prohibit a person from then obtaining permits for six more fires. For these reasons, staff would ask that Council give further direction with respect to this by-law Current By-law The current by-law does not restrict use of propane or natural gas fuelled appliances such as barbeques, fireplaces or fire pits that are in conformance with the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, and used according to manufacturer's instructions. The types of burning that are controlled are open air burning, outdoor appliances that burn solid fuel, and outdoor fire pits or fireplaces other than those fuelled by natural gas or propane. Open air burning, not including the backyard recreational firepits and fireplaces, may only be done under permit issued by the Fire Chief. This type of burning would typically involve clearing brush, etc.. These permits are not requested frequently and in fact no such permits have been applied for this year. Permits for this type of burning are only granted when there is a 20 metre setback from any building or other obstruction and many other conditions must be respected. Open air burning by permit is not common, and is therefore not a focus point for complaints. Outdoor fireplaces fuelled by anything other than natural gas or propane and outdoor appliances that burn solid fuel are regulated by the by-law. Council's new conditions on their use include a setback of 6 metres from the fireplace and any building, structure, property line, tree, hedge, fence, roadway, overhead wire, or other combustible article, and a restriction on the hours of use from 7:00 pm to 11:00. Conditions that already existed include placement of the fireplace or appliance on anon-combustible surface of a certain size, that no material other than brush material and manufactured logs specifically designed for fireplaces are to be burned, that the fire does not create a nuisance, that a portable fire extinguisher or garden hose be available for extinguishment and that an owner/occupant of at least 18 years of age maintains constant watch and control over the fireplace while in use. The regulations respecting outdoor fire pits are very similar and were also recently modified by Council to require a setback of at least 6 metres between the fire pit and any building, structure, property line, tree, hedge, fence, roadway, overhead wire or other combustible article and a restriction on the hours of operation from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 pm. Additional conditions include that the fire be fully contained and controlled and not exceed 0.5 metres in height, that the fire be contained by a distinctive raised, non-combustible barrier, that no combustible ground cover be within 1 metre of the fire pit, that no material other than brush material or logs manufactured specifically for fireplaces be burned therein, that the fire does not create a nuisance, that a hose or portable fire extinguisher be available for extinguishment, and that an owner/occupant of at least 18 years of age maintained constant watch and control over the fire pit while in use. Regulations in Neighbouring Cities: Staff were asked to confirm what open air burning regulations exist in the neighbouring cities. It was determined that the regulations in both Cambridge and Waterloo do not permit back yard recreational fires. Outdoor burning is permitted, for example clearing property and the burning of trees/brush, by permit only, with several safety regulations applying as well. An inspection prior to the issuance of a burn permit may be required. 7(a)-3 Options: If Council wishes to further amend the by-law, Council may wish to consider one of the following options: Fire Pits and Nuisance Staff have observed that many complaints are generated by the use of outdoor fire pits. Fire pits may be less effective in funneling and directing smoke upwards than many fireplaces and appliances. The smoke from a fire pit may tend to migrate at a lower level which is more disruptive to neighbours. It is also easy to increase the size of a fire pit beyond the permitted size in the by-law and the pit itself does little to control the height of the fire. The Fire Chief believes that because these fires are generally less controlled than fires conducted in outdoor appliances or outdoor fireplaces, that fires in fire pits are more likely to get out of control and cause safety concerns. It is possible that focusing stricter controls on fires in fire pits may do more to reduce nuisance and be more beneficial than imposing stricter controls on fires conducted in outdoor fireplaces or outdoor appliances. Council may wish to consider further increasing the set backs from property lines in place for fires conducted in outdoor fire pits. Staff believe that the former five metre setback was sufficient from a safety perspective although it did not address nuisance concerns adequately in all cases. Council may wish to consider reducing the setbacks for outdoor fireplaces and outdoor appliances to the previous distance of 5 metres while leaving or increasing the setbacks for fire pits specifically to encourage use of less bothersome types of burning. Duration and Freauencv of Fires Many complaints result from a person burning for excessive periods of time or on an ongoing and frequent basis. While a neighbor may tolerate an occasional nearby fire, tolerance seems to decrease when the intensity of use increases. This has been addressed in part by Council's limit on hours when fires can conducted. The present time limits have a negative impact on people who wish to conduct an occasional fire at another time of day. The time limits also do not address a person who wishes to burn every day. Council may wish to consider a limit on duration of fires (i.e. no more than two hours on any given day) or a limit on frequency of fires (i.e. no more than one time weekly). Enforcement of such limits could present challenges specifically with respect to limits on numbers of fires without any tracking system. However, a neighbor who was adversely impacted would have the option of providing a witness statement and testimony at court as needed as evidence that rules are not being followed. Additionally, staff could respond to complaints or even do spot checks at problematic locations. Another option would be for Council to limit burning to certain days. Council could consider certain days of the week, long weekends or holidays, etc. This would be relatively less difficult to enforce but may require some public education on the impact of smog days or fire bans in prohibiting burning on otherwise permitted days. Revocation of Burnina Privileaes Another change that could be made to the by-law could be the revocation or limitation on burning privileges where a person repeatedly does not follow the rules. The by-law could provide that where a person has had more than one conviction for an offence under the by-law that the Director of By-law Enforcement or Fire Chief is able to place limitations on, or revoke, 7(a)-4 their burning privileges. This type of by-law may require a committee to be set up to hear appeals of any such order but would allow Council to specifically address problematic individuals/addresses without negatively impacting others. Increasing Setbacks It is clear from some of the public input received by Council that fires continue to cause a nuisance for some individuals in the community. It would also be open to Council to increase setbacks from property lines or property lines and other objects either incrementally or significantly to further reduce the impact of fires on neighbouring properties. Staff note that even small additional increases to existing setbacks could significantly limit the number of properties where burning regulated by the by-law can be conducted. Subsequent to the June 25th Council meeting, staff were asked to comment on some additional information. Annual Permits Staff were asked to comment on the concept of an annual permit, which would be subject to the approval of all residents who live within 100 meters of the property applying for the permit. Staff feel that such a process can be problematic as there are a variety of factors that come into play when determining whether smoke can create a nuisance. The situation can change over the course of a year, which can lead to complications with issuing and then revoking permits based on the opinion of any one person rather than quantitative information. Ticketing Staff were asked to comment on certain enforcement issues, including the ability for staff to issue tickets on the spot versus the process of a summons to court. Such a ticketing process requires the approval of the Ministry of the Attorney General on an individual by-law basis and can take several weeks to several months. This process of ticketing is in place and commonly used for several other Kitchener by-laws. Staff are proposing to apply for approval for a ticketing process once final recommendations for the by-law are implemented. Increased Enforcement In addition, staff were asked to comment on the resource implications of a more aggressive approach to enforcement if backyard recreational fires were allowed to continue. The focus would be on assigning priority to the complaints and specifically nuisance driven complaints. It would be difficult to commit to a ramped up enforcement initiative within the current staff deployment. As referenced earlier in the report, the fire calls are currently being addressed by the staff that also enforce the Noise By-law. Typically, the peak times for both by-laws coincide, which can create competing priorities. In order to assign the priority that would meet the public and Council's expectations, additional shifts would be required, which would involve an officer being assigned specifically to respond to fire calls only. For example, extra coverage could be assigned during what staff determine are the peak periods on weekends in the spring and fall, with even more coverage during peak periods throughout July and August. The approximate cost of increased resources based on this type of model would be approximately $29,000 annually. 7(a)-5 Summary: The following options are presented for Council's consideration: That staff be directed to engage in public consultation over the next several months, either generally or with respect to specific options, and to report back to Council with options or recommendations prior to the spring of 2013; 2. That the current by-law be amended to further address nuisance and environmental concerns raised by members of the public; 3. That the current by-law, including amendments directed by Council on June 25, 2012, be maintained; 4. That the by-law be amended to its former state, prior to the amendments enacted on June 25th, with 5 metre setbacks and no restrictions on hours of burning; or 5. That consideration be given to additional enforcement resources to allow for a dedicated and focused priority to fire calls, in particular the nuisance provisions of the by-law, during identified peak burning times during the year. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The aforementioned amendments support the Community Priority of Quality of Life, as contained in the City's Strategic Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: To be determined, subject to Council direction. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: There has already been a great deal of engagement throughout the community regarding this topic since the June 25th Council meeting, including direct emails and the use of social media. Subject to Council's direction, further public communication efforts will accompany whatever actions are to be implemented as a result of the August 27th Council meeting. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department 7(a)-6