Fence Height Exemption Request

at 28 Ferris Road

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

To report to the June 24, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council on a request for a fence height exemption from Mrs. Margaret Mauzeroll of 28 Ferris Road.

Financial Implications:

The applicant has submitted the non-refundable fee of $200.00 for the exemption request to be heard, as is required by the by-law.

Recommendations:

That the exemption request be granted and that staff be instructed to bring forward the appropriate by-law amendment to City Council.

Background:

On May 5, 1998, an area resident complained about a high fence being built in the front yard of 28 Ferris Road. An inspection was conducted and it was confirmed that a fence/screen had been built in the front yard of 28 Ferris Road and that the fence/screen exceeded the height permitted by Fence By-law No. 81-89.

The fence in question is totally on private property in the front yard. It was built in conjunction with other landscaping improvements at the property. The fence consists of a sixteen foot length of framed lattice work which ranges in height from 6' 5" to 7' 2" from the grade of the front yard.

The By-law restricts the height of fences in front yards to a maximum height of 0.9 metres or 3 feet.

Enforcement action was taken and the property owner has now applied for an exemption.

Comments:

The applicant's reason for wanting the high screen/fence is for landscaping purposes and for some protection from a dog that is resident in the adjacent house. There are no obstructions of vision which may impede safety for the neighbour using the abutting driveway. In our discussions with the complainant, it appears that there is less concern with the fence itself but rather they felt that they should have been given the opportunity to comment on the type and height of fence before it was constructed.

Staff have reviewed the application and have no objections to a fence height exemption.

Conclusions:

A fence/screen which exceeds the permitted height for fences in front yards has been erected at 28 Ferris Road. Staff have no objection to allowing the fence, as it is now constructed, to remain.

Contact Name:

Michael Vince

Manager of By-law Enforcement

778-2220

The East York Community Council submits the following communication (June 10, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. P. Glen, East York:

"This letter is to protest the encroachment and the blocking of our view of the neighbourhood, by the next door neighbour, Margaret Mauzeroll of 28 Ferris Rd.

She has erected a 6'6" fence on her front yard on the property line, which is against the borough by-laws. Without consent from us, she has also erected a privacy fence along the East side of her house. This privacy fence was not measured and now it sits totally on our property, as well the fence is crooked.

This fencing issue arose because she extended her house sideways and without thinking of how to get into her own backyard. Her extension on the West side leaves her about 1' to get into her backyard, absolutely no thought was put into a walkway. Her property is now the only property in this neighbourhood which has a backyard entrance on the East side.

The privacy fence issue started as a result to the entrance of her backyard adjacent to our backyard, which contains our two dogs. Every time she used the East side entrance, it would aggravate our dogs who would naturally bark at anyone coming down the East side of her house or towards our backyard. Once, she had invited a male guest, James Hoskins, over and the Doberman puppy was in the backyard by himself and when he saw or smelt or even heard them coming, he started baking at them. Her guest, James Hoskins, then through a cup of hot coffee all over our dog.

I heard a yelp, went outside to see what had been thrown, and all I smelt was coffee and the dog was soaked. I then went next door and knocked on her gate, she asked who it was, I told her and she said come in. I went in and was about to ask him why he did what he did and he then verbally and physically assaulted me, April Glen. I have been under my doctor's care ever since! After I got free I did go into the house and call the police.

On Saturday June 6, 1998 we opened the side door to let the dogs out at 9:30 a.m.. Much to our surprise, our chain-link fence was no longer there, including the Wild Morning Glory Vines which covered half of our chain link fence. She had her son-in-law remove it without our permission and or our knowledge and just didn't care about tearing out the Morning Glory's. Once I asked her what she thought she was doing, she just tried to get away from me without answering. When I finally did get her to stop, she told me that she was putting up her privacy fence. She said it like she was a proud peacock!

I did confront her about the dogs and how they weren't properly contained in my backyard. She told me that that was my problem. I then called the police. The police told her that because she took the fence down, that she would be held partially responsible for the dogs running loose. The police seemed to calm both parties down, but then her daughter showed up with the grandchildren. The daughter then stated that they were putting up the fence, so that they wouldn't have to see our ugly faces anymore. (However, the language was a lot more colourful.)

A temporary fence was put up and the privacy fence was finished the next day. As you know who I am, you also know that I like a different front garden, as past pictures that I once took for the Mayor's Blooming Contest will show. In the years that I took the photo's with Bori, I have never seen a front garden with 14 trees on it! These include 4 White Birch, 4 Evergreens, 4 Japanese Bloodgood Maples and 2 Fruit Bearing trees. These may all look great now, but within a few years it won't be a garden, but it will be a forest! This will eventually cause problems for backing out of our driveway. Again, she is not thinking of the future.

We will have photographs on hand of our objections, mostly the property line, our view of the neighbourhood and the front garden. We would like for her to bring the front fence down to by-law level, so that we may enjoy the view of the neighbourhood, including across the street, seeing as this neighbourhood is a Neighbourhood Watch area! And as for the privacy fence that is totally on our property, we would not mind if she kept that as well, as long as it is on her property and not ours! In other words, she must move it.

So being that both of us were born and raised in East York, Peter born in 1949 and raised in this house since 1952, and April born in 1959 and raised in East York and then moving into this house in 1978. We have never had any problems with any of our neighbours, ever!

We think that it is fair to say, that we are both very well established in the community and in the neighbourhood. We volunteered our time and services to the community for the past eight years. We would like you to view the property before you make a decision, just in case the photograph's are not conclusive enough. We will promise to keep both of our dog's in the house, when you decide to view the property."

--------

The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:

-Mrs. April Glen, East York;

-Mr. Dave Gould, East York;

-Mr. James Hoskins, East York;

-Mrs. Margaret Mauzeroll, East York;

-Ms. Joann Tzogas, East York;

-Ms. Debra Robinson, East York; and

-Ms. Helene Kanaris, East York.

(Copy of map attached hereto, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)