Councillors here have put their stamp of approval to the proposed county-wide anti-fortification bylaw.
Minto’s chief building official Terry Kuipers told council on March 17 that “in response to recent provincial legislation, the Wellington County Police Services Board, through the County of Wellington, has requested that the lower tier municipalities enact a common fortification of lands bylaw.
“The bylaw is meant to regulate the fortification of lands and protective elements being applied to land within the municipality … In the event of non-compliance, the bylaw would be enforced under the provisions of the Building Code Act by the chief building official.”
Kuipers explained the process to date has taken a number of years before getting to this stage.
“The chief building officials within the county have always supported the intent of the initial proposed bylaw. We have, however, identified a number of concerns with previous drafts of the bylaw. These concerns were shared and recommendations made that have resulted in a number of amendments from the original.”
Kuipers believed the current draft “has addressed the majority of these issues.”
As a result of the amendments, Kuipers said, “I can now support the enactment of the bylaw in its present form on the basis of the following policy assumptions:”
– the bylaw will be used to deal with situations of excessive fortification as identified by the Ontario Provincial Police or others;
– The OPP?will assist the CBO and designates, as requested, in the administration and interpretation of this bylaw. The OPP will also take an active role in the enforcement of this bylaw; and
– It is acknowledged that the CBO and/or designates are not experts in the field of “excessive fortification” of buildings and lands and will rely on the expertise of the OPP?in these matters.
Kuipers added the bylaw will be enforced upon requests from the OPP?only, and as such, the lower tier municipalities will not:
– establish a registry of all existing and future permitted fortified properties;
– amend building bylaws to require submission of drawings or specifications of security measures (fortification) prior to issuing building permits; or
– enact a permit or license system for the authorization of installation of permitted property fortification measures and protective elements.
“Properties that have been excessively fortified contrary to the bylaw, not unlike illegal marijuana grow houses and other clandestine drug laboratories, are potentially dangerous by their very nature. These premises may pose unseen dangers installed by the owners/operators to thwart law enforcement officials or other unwanted entrants. The bylaw assumes that in order for the building official to determine that a building has been excessively fortified, the building official must enter the premises.”
The potential also exists for inspectors to be physically or verbally threatened by the owners/operators of these premises during the investigation that would be defined as workplace violence. As such there is a potential conflict between the inspection requirements of the bylaw and part of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which allows a worker to refuse to work or particular work where the person has reason to believe the physical condition of the workplace is likely to be a danger or that workplace violence is likely to endanger him.
As a result, Kuipers and other chief building officials recommended that council adopt the land bylaw investigation and enforcement protocols.
As council began discussion, Kuipers said “it’s been a long time coming.”
“You’ve aged a bit since then,” added Deputy Mayor Judy Dirksen. Kuipers himself had been involved in the process for well over two years.
Mayor David Anderson agreed the bylaw has gone back and forth a number of times to meet the needs of the building department and the police.
“Terry has been very instrumental working together with other CBOs to give input and get his opinions forward,” said Anderson.
Kuipers said “basically this bylaw is coming through the Police Services Board as a recommendation for each lower tier municipality to pass as a common one. That was kind of the goal.”
The bylaw will still be enforced by the CBO under the Building Act.
Kuipers noted that parts removed from the bylaw included registration of properties, where properties would be categorized according to the security measures in place.
Also there was clarification as to whether the response would be based on inspectors going on site, or complaint generated.
He said one of the items which came up for discussion was Freedom of Information when it came to security measures within a building.
“If we had the information, someone could always request it … which is not very good.”
In terms of enforcement, he said the bylaw has not changed a whole lot. But there is an additional schedule dealing with enforcement of who does what and how things get done.
“It was a big concern for us banging on doors.”
“Essentially there’s a reason why they’re not letting people such as law enforcement officials [have] easy access to the building.”
In the development of the enforcement protocol, Kuipers said, “because there are more OPP?than building officials, they would be the ones identifying the properties. They know about them through their own people anyways. They will do the majority of the investigations into it..”
Kuipers explained where the building officials become involved is through the issuing of the orders for the excessive fortification devices to be removed.
“Obviously, we will need their assistance. Anytime we need to go onto the property, they will help us out,” he said.
“We’ll get done what is needed to get done. The bylaw has not been watered down by any means.
“It remains as enforceable as it was before. It’s a very strong bylaw.” He said he hoped it is something the municipality would never have to use, “but it would be there.”
Anderson said if the municipality did not enforce a bylaw like this, “it would leave us open to that class of individual moving into our municipality. This is a safeguard.”
Council quickly adopted the bylaw.
After passage, Councillor Rick Hembly asked Kuipers if some of that information could be forwarded to the fire chief since it would be relevant to emergency crews.
Anderson asked if that information was as relevant to the public works department.
Kuipers contended “it gets a little tough telling absolutely everybody … especially when it’s still being investigated.”
He had no issue forwarding the information to the “higher ups,” but not everyone.
