(Report dated March 18, 1998, addressed to Toronto Community Council, from the By-law Administration and
Enforcement, City Works Services.)
Subject:Fences Within the City Street Allowance (Wards 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26)
Purpose:
To report on fences within the City street allowance and on the notification requirements for fence applications.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Toronto Community Council choose between the options for amending the current
Municipal Code requirements for fences on public property within the former City of Toronto, and the public
notification process as presented below:
1.(a)That fences and ornamental walls within the City street allowance, both at the front of a property and beyond
the main front wall of the building not exceed a height of 1.0 m;
OR
(b)That fences and ornamental walls within the City street allowance located beyond the main front wall of the
building not exceed a height of 1.9 m and that such fences and ornamental walls be set back a minimum distance of
2.1 m from the rear edge of the City sidewalk or 3.8 m from the curb where there is no sidewalk;
AND
2.(a)That notification of all fence and ornamental wall applications continue to be forwarded to the Ward
Councillors;
OR
(b)That the requirement for notification of fences and ornamental wall applications to the Ward Councillor be
eliminated;
OR
(c)That City staff post a notice on the property, of application for fences and ornamental walls over 1.0 m in height
for a period of 14 days;
AND
3.That appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background:
In the last few months there have been various requests of staff for reports or information on issues related to
fences in the road allowance. These include requests directly from City Councillors, and requests from the Toronto
Community Council, as follows:
A.In a letter dated December 18, 1997, Councillor Jakobek requested me to report on the prohibition of fences
over 1.0 m in height on flanking streets.
B.In a separate request, Councillor Johnston requested that I report on the notification procedures for fences.
C.The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of February 18, 1998, also requested the appropriate officials to
report to its meeting of April 1, 1998, on:
(1)whether the issue of the fence by-law can be delegated to a fence by-law process or to the Committee of
Adjustment;
(2)how to achieve this;
(3)the desirability of doing so; and
(4)by-law amendments required to prohibit privacy fences or screening fences on corner properties over and above
a height of 42 inches.
D.In addition, the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering the
department=s report dated January 9, 1998 entitled AMaintenance of a Wooden Fence - 745 Markham Street@,
requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban and Development Services to report on the policy and process for
fences: such report to include the roles and responsibilities of the applicant, staff and the Community Council,
suggested ways to provide for community input, and also setting out a dispute resolution process.
This report deals with items A, B, C(4), and most aspects of item D, with the exception of the dispute resolution
process. A separate report by the City Solicitor will address the legal aspects of items C(1) to C(3). A separate
exercise is currently underway to develop a uniform fence by-law to regulate fences on private property, for
consideration by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee. One aspect of this work is a review of the
current dispute resolution process in place in the former City of Toronto, and if and how it could be replicated to
deal with boundary dispute and other fence disputes in the new City. I have therefore left this issue out of my
present report.
Fences on the public road allowance are authorized under ' 313-33 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter
313. As ' 313-33 also deals with ornamental walls which have the same impact as fences on the street allowance,
they are included with fences in the discussion in this report.
Comments:
Section 313-33 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 regulates the construction of fences within the City street
allowance. The by-law currently permits the construction of fences up to 1.0 m in height at the front of a property
and to a height of 1.9 m on the flank of a property.
The Code also requires that all applications for a fence which comply with the height regulations and may be
approved by the Commissioner, be circulated to the Ward Councillor for comment, and where objections are
received, the application must be refused. The applicant may appeal this refusal, in which case, a report would be
submitted to your Committee.
Applications which satisfy the height requirements as well as the other criteria in the Code and to which there has
been no objection by either the Ward Councillor or an area resident, would be approved subject to the applicant
obtaining a permit and entering an agreement with the City. The standard agreement outlines various requirements,
including clauses regarding the ongoing maintenance of the fence, indemnification of the City as well as the
cancellation rights retained by the City.
The following table provides a breakdown of the applications processed in 1996 and 1997. I note that until October
1997, ornamental walls were processed as encroachments under ' 313-50 of the Municipal Code and therefore are
not reflected in this table.
Year |
Total
fences
approved |
Fences 1.0
m or less |
Fences
over 1.0 m
but less
than 1.9 m |
Fences
over 1.0 m
at the front
of property |
Fences
over 1.9 m
on flank of
property |
Objections
received (all
applications) |
1996 |
117 |
52 |
65 |
15 |
1 |
3 |
1997 |
118 |
45 |
73 |
12 |
1 |
3 |
Arguments For and Against Fences on Flanking Streets:
Property owners generally apply for fences over 1.0 m high for the following reasons:
(a)to provide privacy;
(b)to provide security from intruders;
(c)to contain young children and pets; and
(d)to maximize yard space.
The majority of these requests are for the side and rear yards of corner properties which have a greater exposure to
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
While it is understandable that owners of corner properties would want to provide security and maintain privacy for
their yard space, when a fence is constructed within the City boulevard rather than on the property line, it may draw
opposition from area residents.
Typical objections to corner fences over 1.0 m in height are:
(a)that they obstruct the view of the street, particularly that of the immediate neighbour=s;
(b)that they are inconsistent with other fences on the street which are limited to a height of 1.0 m;
(c)that the street Aentrance@ is narrowed; and
(d)that higher fences create a safety concern by providing a Ahiding area@ for someone waiting for an
approaching pedestrian.
Implications of Changing Current Rules:
To address these concerns, Councillor Jakobek and the Toronto Community Council have requested a review on
the feasibility of limiting fences on corner properties to 42 inches (1.07 m) in height. To be consistent with
neighbouring fences and to ensure that sight lines are maintained, should the height of fences permitted on flanking
streets be reduced, a preferable height would be 1.0 m (39 inches), rather than 42 inches (1.07 m).
Reducing the height of fences on flanking streets to 1.0 m would deal with the noted visual and safety concerns.
However, it is important to recognize that historically, there have always been numerous applications for fences
over 1.0 m within the City boulevard, as typically reflected in the figures provided for 1996 and 1997. Given such
demand for this use of the street allowance, a side effect of a more stringent by-law could be a large increase in the
number of applicants seeking an exemption to the by-law. On this point, the following table reflects the changes to
the permitted height of fences within the City boulevard that were made in 1985 and 1994. The changes were made
in an effort to deal with the sensitive nature of fences and the community=s sometimes opposing demands to both
permit and prohibit privacy fences.
Year |
Height |
Approval
Required |
Reason for Change |
Pre-
1985 |
- up to 0.76 m (2.5 ft.)
- over 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) |
- Commissioner
- City Council |
|
1985 |
- up to 0.91 m (3.0 ft.)
- over 0.91 m (3.0 ft.) to
maximum of 1.5 m (5.0 ft.) |
- Commissioner
- City Council |
To introduce a maximum height
for fences on City boulevard. |
1994 |
- up to 1.9 m (6.25 ft.)
- over 1.9 m (6.25 ft.) |
- Commissioner
- City Council |
To delegate authority for fences
up to 1.9 m in height to
Commissioner.
Increase permitted height of
fences to reflect typical privacy
fence. |
1995 |
- up to 1.0 m (3.0 ft.)
- up to 1.9 m (6.25 ft.) on
flank only
- over 1.0 m (3.0 ft.) at
front or 1.9 m (6.25 ft.) on
flank |
- Commissioner
- Commissioner
- City Council |
To restrict privacy fences to
flanking streets. |
A possible side effect of a more restrictive by-law may also be an increase in unauthorized construction of privacy
fences within the City boulevard. These fences would have to be dealt with by enforcement to the extent of
requiring removal or height reduction, or through an appeal to the Community Council.
An alternative that could be considered would be to continue to permit fences to a height of 1.9 m on flanking
streets, but to amend the by-law to increase the required setback from 0.46 m to 2.1 m from the rear edge of the
sidewalk or 3.8 m from the curb where there is no sidewalk. This option minimizes the impact of higher fences on
the streetscape and addresses safety concerns, while still permitting such requests from homeowners whose yards
abut the street.
Notification Process:
Section 313-33 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 currently requires that notice of all applications for a fence or
ornamental wall be forwarded to the Ward Councillors. Prior to this process, the opportunity for public
input/comment was through the Standing Committee. The change requiring that notice be sent to the Ward
Councillor was made in 1992, as part of a number of streamlining initiatives that were adopted by City Council, to
streamline procedures and improve quality of service.
The current notification process has been effective in identifying any concerns/objections the area residents have
and in reducing the processing time for fence applications. To date, there has been only one instance where the
process broke down and where an objection was received after approval and construction of the fence. In this
instance, the problem may have resulted from misinformation/ miscommunication from the ratepayers group.
Should the permitted height of fences within City street allowance be restricted to 1.0 m, the current process of
notification could be eliminated and these fences could be processed >as of right=, on the basis that 1.0 m high
fences do not adversely affect the streetscape.
Given that specific criteria have been developed for fences, this could also be extended to include criteria
permitting fences up to 1.9 m in height. This would allow fences which comply with the criteria to be processed
>as of right= and again, the requirement for notice for these applications could be eliminated. The right to appeal
an >as of right= fence could be limited to disputes of whether the criteria were applied in accordance with the
by-law. This process would further streamline and expedite the processing of these applications.
Where a fence has already been constructed and is not in compliance with the requirements of the by-law, I would
continue to report to the Toronto Community Council and any notice of objection received would be included in
my report.
Should City Council prefer to maintain a notification process, then this could be achieved by either maintaining the
existing procedure or by requiring that a notice be posted on site for a two week period similar to our procedures
for cafe applications.
Existing Regulations Governing Fences:
A uniform fence by-law to regulate fences on private property is currently being developed, for consideration by
the Emergency and Protective Services Committee. This proposed fence by-law will harmonize the regulations for
fences on divisional lines and on private property, but it will not deal with fences on the City street allowance.
Therefore, the recommendations of this report and any amendments to ' 313-33 of Municipal Code Chapter 313
will not conflict with the review of the private fence by-laws.
Harmonization of the by-laws/policies for fences within the City street allowance has not been started yet, therefore
the changes outlined in this report would amend ' 313-33 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 only. Of the existing
by-laws and policies for fences on the street allowance across Metro and the six former municipalities, five of the
seven former jurisdictions permit privacy fences on flanking streets with a setback of 0 to 0.46 m from the back of
the sidewalk. Former Metro and York=s rules are more restrictive as they do not permit privacy fences within the
street allowance. However, there are significant factors, such as the prevalence of outer boulevards in some of the
former municipalities which affect the impact of privacy fences on the street allowance. This variability in the
urban form will need to be considered when the by-laws/polices for fences on street allowance are reviewed and
unified.
Conclusions:
While it is feasible to reduce the height of fences and ornamental walls on flanking streets to 1.0 m, I expect that
this would result in a large increase in requests for exemptions to the by-law requirements and/or an increase in
unauthorized fence construction. Should appeals for exemptions not be permitted, then it would be essential to
ensure that the by-law criteria is applied consistently, including enforcement measures to bring fences into
compliance with the by-law requirements.
It may be preferable, however, to revise the criteria of the by-law to increase the setback requirement for fences on
flanking properties. This alternative minimizes the impacts of fences on streetscapes, while recognizing the
exposure of corner properties and the demand for privacy fences within the City boulevard.
With respect to the notification process, this process could be eliminated and applications could be processed on an
Aas of right@ basis. This recommendation is based on the small number of objections to applications that are
received, and on the basis that the proposed changes to fences on flanking streets will better address the general
concerns of privacy fences within the City boulevard.
The recommendations at the beginning of this report are designed to let the Toronto Community Council choose
between these approaches.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
(p:\1998\ug\cws\bae\to981039.bae) - gp