The town’s Chief Building Inspector Terry Kuipers is concerned that a fortification bylaw under consideration by Wellington County could mean more training and flak jackets for local building inspectors.
When Kuipers spoke to council last week, he stressed he supports the concept of working to prevent excessive fortification of properties. The proposal is coming at the prompting of local police and the county council.
However, CBOs across the county, he said, have concerns with what is currently proposed. He said few properties are excluded from the current bylaw.
While police stations and municipal offices might be exempt, other properties such as banks and liquors stores currently are not.
The point, said Kuipers, is there are a number of businesses that require security or a degree of fortification for various reasons.
Therefore those properties would need to get permission to have the fortifications and security systems – or have currently installed ones removed.
Under this proposal, the investigation and enforcement “is on our shoulders,” Kuipers said.
He added the bylaw allows no grandfather clause, therefore the building department would need to investigate all businesses and residences in order to enforce the bylaw.
Kuipers estimated in Minto alone there would be 3,500 properties requiring a check to ensure compliance with the bylaw. In addition, even if an exemption is granted, the bylaw proposed provides it only to an individual – a new owner would need to apply for another exemption.
He added that this type of enforcement is proactive and not complaint generated.
Therefore, he said, staff would be required to continue to check and re-check properties throughout the town.
“It would be very difficult with existing staffing levels,” he said.
For Kuipers, another main concern is the matter of training. Staff are not currently trained to deal with security systems – which are not part of the Building Code.
But now, he said, building departments are being asked to take on the dual role of investigation and enforcement of the bylaw.
He suggested if the concern is that high, the police should be the ones doing the investigation and enforcement.
Kuipers explained that the police already have the expertise in security systems and fortification.
He also said police also have the body armor to go in to potentially dangerous situations. The police, he added, also likely have the information as to which situations might be potentially dangerous.
Because of ongoing investigations, that information might not be accessible or shared with local building inspectors.
Kuipers also has concerns with the potential impact of the Municipal Freedom of Information Act and if a request could end up providing someone with information on camera locations or security systems at a particular location.
“It would be like giving away a key to the front door.”
Despite all those arguments, Kuipers said he still agrees with the intent of the bylaw.
“But we need the right people to enforce it.”
He said after discussions with the OPP a few amendments were made to the bylaw, but the police did not believe they could enforce the bylaw themselves.
Councillor Rick Hembly said it sounds like a lot more research is needed before the county chooses to adopt such a bylaw.
“These guys concerns seem quite genuine,” he said.
This week, local CBOs are again meeting with police representatives to express their concerns.
Clerk Barb Wilson agreed the police might have information about specific properties which cannot be shared with CBOs.
“But without that information, we could be setting up the CBOs by sending them in [unprepared].”
Hembly noted that such things as illegal marijuana growing operations, some properties are booby-trapped and the weapons stored there are not pea shooters but shotguns and grenades.
