January 4, 1999
To:East York Community Council
From:Harold Bratten, P. Eng.
Director, Municipal Standards
Subject:Conflict in Law
Fence By-law No. 81-89 and Zoning By-laws No. 1916 and No. 6752
Purpose:
At the East York Community Council meeting held on December 16, 1998, a deputation regarding 1028 Greenwood
Avenue was made before Community Council to outline a problem concerning a conflict in law between the East York
Zoning By-laws 1916 and 6752 and the Fence By-law 81-89. As a result, Community Council requested a report for the
January 20, 1999 meeting.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
It is anticipated that circulation and advertising costs will result in expenditures of approximately $1800 for each by-law
amendment for a total of $3600.
Recommendation:
That the East York Community Council request the Planning Division, East District to prepare amendments to Zoning
By-laws 1916 and 6752, as amended, so as to remove reference to fence and screen heights on decks.
Background/History:
Acting upon a complaint, by-law enforcement staff visited the property municipally known as 1028 Greenwood Avenue on
September 16, 1998. Inspection revealed that a wood deck had been constructed under permit at the rear of the dwelling.
Also constructed on the deck was a screen intended to create privacy. Measurements were taken and the overall height was
found to be 2.74 metres (9ft.) above grade whereas the former Borough of East York Fence By-law 81-89 as amended
permits a maximum height above grade of 2.4 metres (7.87 ft.) On September 22, 1998, a notice was issued to the owner
directing that the height of the screen be brought into compliance with the fence by-law.
Subsequent to this, a conflict between East York Zoning By-laws 1916, Section 5.7(1), Zoning By-law 6752, Section
5.6(H) and the Fence By-law 81-89, Section 2.3.2 was discovered. Specifically, all three by-laws regulate the height of
fences or screen walls when they are constructed in connection with a deck. This situation has produced a conflict
respecting the appropriate avenue of appeal when an exemption to the regulations is desired. For example, under the
Planning Act, an individual could seek a Minor Variance from the Zoning provisions by making application to the
Committee of Adjustment. A decision rendered by the Committee is appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board. Under
Section 3.2.2. of the Borough of East York Fence By-law 81-89, a citizen may, upon payment of an application fee, apply
to the Community Council for an exemption to the height provisions.
The Legal Services Division was contacted and upon review, they advised that either the Zoning By-laws or the Fence
By-law should be amended so as to eliminate the conflict. As the draft Toronto Fence By-law provides similar regulations
for deck screens and fences, the preferred solution would be to eliminate reference to screen or fence heights on decks from
the Zoning By-laws.
Planning, Buildings and Municipal Standards sections have reviewed this report and concur in its recommendations in so
far as they are satisfied that the fence by-law will satisfy the zoning criteria for fences on decks and unenclosed porches.
Justification:
The Borough of East York Zoning By-laws 6752 and 1916 as amended contain fence height provisions which create a
conflict in law with the Borough of East York Fence By-law 81-89 as amended.
Contact Name:
Bryan Byng, District Manager
(416) 396-7731
(416) 396-4266 Fax Number
byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca
Susan Smallwood, Manager
Community Planning, East District
(416) 397-4646
(416) 397-4582 Fax Number
Doug Walker, Manager
Building Services, East District
(416) 397-4483
(416) 397-4582 Fax Number
Harold Bratten, P. Eng.
Director, Municipal Standards
Urban Planning and Development Services
BB
