Just how long can a homeowner in an urban area allow his grass to grow before it becomes too unsightly?
That was a big argument here on June 26 when council considered proposals from its bylaw enforcement officer for a “clean and clear” bylaw.
It would set out fines for failure to comply with directions from the township to clean up a property, but it does not replace the property standards bylaw. The clean and clear bylaw is a tool the municipality can use to force property owners to clean up messes that neighbours find unsightly.
The process will be driven by complaints, bylaw enforcement officer Maurita Boyle told council. She offered a list of fines for offences, with short form wording:
– failing to maintain land free from refuse, $100;
– failing to maintain land free from wrecked, dismantled, un-plated vehicles, $100;
– failing to maintain land free from wrecked, dismantled, abandoned boats, machinery, trailers, $100;
– failing to maintain land free from grass or weeds over 12 inches in height, $100;
– failing to maintain land free from dilapidated or a collapsed structure, $150;
– failing to maintain land free from partially constructed structures not currently under construction, $150;
– failing to maintain land free from injurious insects, termites, rodents, vermin, $100;
– failing to maintain land free from dead, diseased, decayed, or damaged trees, $100; and
– throwing, placing, depositing refuse on property without the written consent of the property owner, $150.
When council considered Boyle’s report, Mayor Bruce Whale asked how much time the township should give someone, for example, to cut grass deemed to be too high.
Boyle replied, “You have to give them time.” She said she could live with a deadline of 72 hours, but it could go as long as 15 days. Or, she said, “You [council] could shorten that.” She said a week would likely be adequate.
But councillor Jim Curry did not like allowing grass to grow to a foot high in urban areas. He has received several complaints about that, and, “I’d like to see that amended.”
Whale noted that at a previous meeting, councillor Neil Driscoll pointed out the township has not been meeting the 12 inch requirement.
“We have to live within the guidelines,” Whale said.
Curry replied that council could separate rural and urban areas and designate areas that must be cut to more suitable heights.
But councillor Mike Downey argued that becomes “very confusing” to residents. He pointed out in recent tours by council around the township and Drayton in particular, “How are we to maintain” the grass at six inches high, the limit Curry favours.
Curry replied, “It should be do-able.” Downey agreed, adding, “At a cost.” Curry argued, “Our staff does a great job.”
Whale noted that grass in some areas can grow six inches high in a single week.
Curry said, “I get a lot of complaints.”
Whale asked public works director Larry Lynch if he has concerns about keeping grass on township-owned land like road allowances at six inches high.
Lynch responded, “Absolutely I do.” He explained township crews are already busy trimming soccer and softball fields, and said of the other properties the township would have to keep to six inches, “We couldn’t possibly keep up with that.”
Lynch said at the end of August the township loses its seasonal workers and, “If it rains in September, we can’t keep up.”
Township chief administrative officer Patty Sinnamon pointed out that one section of the township bylaw states the rules apply to “other than township owned land.”
Driscoll had some sympathy for Curry’s position.
“I agree 12 inches is a long height in town,” he said. “We don’t cut some roads until it’s 24 inches.”
Lynch added some roadsides are not cut until dust suppression is completed and he also needs staff to prepare other township roads for paving each year.
Whale said the township should deal with high grass on a complaint basis, and noted some people continually let their grass grow each year, even with reminders.
His question was, “Do we want to live up to the standards we want others to … There’s going to be a cost for sure.”
Whale added the issue is “one of those things you can change” if it does not seem to work. He noted the clean and clear bylaw recommendations from Boyle are designed to “give teeth” to township bylaws.
Curry reiterated he cannot support allowing grass in urban areas to reach a foot high before ordering a trim. “Six inches would be very acceptable.”
Whale noted Curry had also suggested different heights for grass growing in urban and rural areas. Curry agreed, and said requiring six inches as a maximum height for a farm would be “ridiculous.”
Other issues
Whale asked if there were other issues with Boyle’s report.
Downey asked what constitutes an abandoned vehicle, and also what is considered to be “not under construction.” He said of the latter that “driving a few nails” on a weekend could meet the requirement of construction.
Boyle said that provision was included because some people can take “three or four years” to get something built, and meanwhile, their neighbours are “looking at a mess.” She added enforcement on that issue is “complaint driven, as well.”
But Downey asked how to define what is or is not under construction.
Building inspector David Kopp said “technically,” township has the right to revoke a building permit if the work is not taking place within a year.
Downey asked, “If a house never gets finished … it would have to disappear?” Kopp said the township could force the cleaning up of a building site.
Driscoll had councillors laughing when he suggested, “Fire your husband – and hire a contractor.”
Downey said the section is “pretty vague. There are several [places] in that state already. What is considered totally constructed?”
Whale said that occurs when the building department signs off on a building.
Lynch pointed out a yard is part of the issue, and asked what happens if the house is built but there is no landscaping completed.
Sinnamon said the township still has its property standards bylaw, and said of the clean and clear bylaw, “This allows a short-term warning and set fines. They can fight it in court. This … is to deal with the lesser issues. The other, they can appeal to the courts.”
Fines too low?
Driscoll wondered if the recommended fines were set high enough.
He suggested in an urban area someone who refuses to cut high grass might just pay the fine and ignore the work.
Boyle replied the judge could set a fine lower than what the township recommends, depending on the size of the problem.
“I don’t think the amount we’ve got is a bad range,” she said.
Downey, too, asked about people who would pay the fine and ignore the problem again.
Boyle said, “I have the right to go out and have grass cut by whoever I choose. It’s in the bylaw.”
Sinnamon explained the township would then charge that fee on the property taxes, and the offender would still have to pay the fine.
She added, “Three weeks later if the grass is not cut … We do it all over again.”
Whale said it appears the proposed bylaw is a means to “remedy” a problem on a property “rather than keep going back four or five times.”
Curry then proposed an amendment to the proposal so the bylaw insisted on no grass being higher than six inches in urban areas. His amendment died for lack of a seconder.
Council then voted 2-1 in favour of proceeding with the bylaw. Councillor Andy Knetsch was absent.
