Puslinch Township has sent the county’s anti-fortification bylaw back to upper tier officials, with the message that it needs major changes.
“I think we should send the message to the county that it needs to be re-written,” Chief Building Official Dave Thompson told council on April 1.
CBOs in all seven municipalities say there are major problems with the document, not the least of which is the requirement for CBOs to enforce its provisions.
Councillors throughout Wellington have also reacted less than enthusiastically to the bylaw, which is proposed by the county’s Police Services Board.
It was thought that several meetings between the board and building officials would help make the bylaw more acceptable to lower tier staff and councils, but thus far that has not materialized.
“It needs a lot of work,” councillor Matthew Bulmer said.
In addition to all the issues the CBOs have raised, with which he agrees, Bulmer said there are other problems with the bylaw, including its language.
But instead of defeating the bylaw, as Thompson suggested, Mayor Brad Whitcombe said the township should draft a letter to county officials asking them to work on it until it is acceptable to all communities.
“I agree it may send a stronger message if we defeat the bylaw, but I would prefer to keep the dialogue open,” said Whitcombe.
Council agreed to defer the bylaw until its concerns are addressed.
The main goal of the anti-fortification bylaw, which has been discussed for several years now, is to prevent biker gangs from fortifying club houses.
However, building officials and councillors have addressed many problems with it, including, but not limited to, the following:
– there are no exemptions for security systems or measures in conjunction with operating a lawful business;
– the absence of a grandfather clause, meaning building departments would need to investigate all businesses and residences;
– it is unclear how building officials s would become aware of new fortifications or protective elements on properties unless they are readily visible from the street;
– getting search warrants to permit entry of inspectors would be difficult without convincing evidence;
– safety concerns for officials, who may enter dangerous situations without knowing it;
– concern the officials would have to fulfill the dual function of approval and enforcement, particularly with regard to applications for exemptions (the CBOs suggested 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; and
– CBOs and the inspectors will require special training to identify and distinguish between permitted and non-compliant special security measures.
