The idea of an anti-fortification bylaw in Wellington County received some dubious comments from the chief building official (CBO) in Centre Wellington on Monday.
CBO Bob Foster told council three municipalities in the county have considered and rejected the draft bylaw, which has been under discussion for several years. The county’s Police Services Board is proposing the bylaw, but it would be approved by each of the lower tier municipalities instead of being passed at the county.
Foster said the idea behind it is to prevent biker gangs from fortifying club houses, but he noted that many businesses and homes with security systems would also violate the draft bylaw as it is written. The county’s clerks and administrators met with the Police Services Board, which is proposing the bylaw, to review several municipalities’ bylaws, and numerous amendments were proposed.
Foster said after that, chief building officials met with the board twice. Although the building inspectors support the general intent of the bylaw, they have a number of concerns about it.
He concluded, “Unfortunately, with only some minor exceptions, the majority of the concerns raised have not been adequately addressed in the final draft of the bylaw.”
Foster presented council with a list of concerns shared by building officials.
Some of those include:
– it is unclear how CBOs would become aware of excessive fortifications or protective elements on properties unless they are readily visible from the street;
– getting a search warrant to permit entry of inspectors would be difficult without convincing evidence;
– there are no exemptions in the bylaw for security systems or measures in conjunction with operating a lawful business;
– no provisions for grandfather clauses for buildings not meeting the draft bylaw;
– CBOs want a list of examples of situations or requested exemptions for businesses that would be granted variances or exemptions;
– for new construction, a municipal bylaw would have to be amended to require the submission of drawings and specifications of all proposed security systems when applying for building permits;
– it is unclear if those drawings and specifications would fall under the Freedom of Information Act (meaning someone could request the details of a building’s security measurers and the township might have to release them);
– concern the CBOs would have to fulfill the dual function of approval and enforcement, particularly with regard to applications for exemptions (the CBOs suggest the Police Services Board has the ability to decide exemptions to the bylaw);
– a registry of fortified properties will have to be maintained in case a property is sold and the fortifications are no longer required or allowed;
– investigations of violations should be done by the OPP and not CBOs and their staff;
– the bylaw should include copies of the required exemption forms, orders to comply, and a fee schedule for such permits and variance approvals; and
– CBOs and the inspectors require special training to identify and distinguish between permitted and non-compliant special security measures.
Councillor Shawn Watters asked Foster how officials will balance property rights, and suggested the language in the draft bylaw is “vague.”
Foster said the CBOs asked the Police Services Board that question, and did not get an answer.
To underscore the problems, Foster pointed out that the township itself would not be in compliance with the bylaw as it is written. He cited the liquor store in Elora, owned by the township, which has bars on its windows.
He also stated that pharmacies that are often targets for thieves seeking drugs, and other businesses such as jewelry stores that need extra protection may not be in compliance.
He said later that the only buildings that received an automatic exemption in the draft were banks.
