Corporate Services Department June 21,2012

Transcription

1 ~OShawa. Report To: From: Corporate Services Committee Item: Date of Report: CORP June 14, 2012 Rick Stockman, Commissioner File: Date of Meeting: Corporate Services Department June 21,2012 Subject: Regulating Rear-Yard Fence and Hedge Heights in Residential Areas and-a Consolidated Fence and Hedge By-law PUBLIC REPORT 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to summarize the input received from the public regarding the proposed rear yard residentialfence and hedge height regulations and to recommend that all municipal fence and hedge height regulations presently included in Zoning By-law be removed and included in a new consolidated Fence and Hedge By-law under the authority of the Municipal Act. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION That the Corporate Services Committee recommend to City Council: That in accordance with Report CORP dated June 14, 2012, Legal Services prepare a by-law establishing residential fence and hedge height restrictions in the front, side, and rear yards. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Corporate Services Committee considered Report CORP on November 17, 2011 regarding the regulation of rear yard fence/hedge heights in a new by-law and proposed that a public meeting be held to gather public input on the issue. A public meeting was held on J:;ebruary 2, 2012 yielding a limited amount of input from the public and building industry stakeholders. The input received primarily relates to a general desire to include legal non-conforming rights, that fence/hedge heights should be regulated in the rear yard, and some general concerns related to the proposed regulations and the preservation of decorative hedges. It is being recommended that the City prepare a new consolidated Fence and Hedge Bylaw under the authority of the Municipal Act. The proposed by-law would remove provisions related to fence and hedge heights from the Zoning By-law and include them in the new proposed Fence and Hedge By-law. Further, the report recommends, amongst other items, maintaining the current 0.9 metre fence and hedge height standard in the front yard and corner and driveway sights triangles and establishing a 2.2 metre fence and

2 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -2- Meeting Date: June 21, 2012 hedge height standard in the rear yard. The proposed standards are in keeping with practices in other GTA municipalities and have been identified by staff as the most ideal option for addressing the issues brought forward by the public. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 4.1 General ~ Public Meeting Input (February 2, 2012) ~ Planning Services ~ legal Services ~ Other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) ~ Building Industry Liaison Team (BllT) was apprised of the changes 4.2 Auditor General ~ The Auditor General has been consulted and has no comments. 5.0 ANALYSIS 5.1 Background ~ At its November 17, 2011 meeting, the Corporate Services Committee considered staff Report CORP (Attachment 1) recommending, in general terms, that: the City create a new Fence and Hedge By-law pursuant to the Municipal Act to regulate the height of fences and hedges; the by-law contain a "legal non-conforming" provision to protect existing hedges and fences which were lawfully in compliance with the predecessor Zoning By-law; and a public meeting be held in early 2012 to consider the issue. ~ A public meeting was held on February 2,2012 to gather input from residents. 5.2 Public Consultation: Correspondence Received and Public Meeting ~ Input from the public was gathered through various formats including, but not limited to holding a public meeting, receiving correspondence and through telephone inquiries. ~ A limited amount of input was received at the public meeting. The common themes from all the input gathered include: residents' desire to preserve their privacy on their property; and there was a general desire to place limits on the heights of fences and hedges in the rear yards, which are not presently regulated. 103

3 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -3- Meeting Date: June 21,2012 Citizens were concerned that any new potential standards related to hedges would require them to alter existing hedges. This was especially applicable to residents with decorative hedges. A consensus that "legal non-conforming" provisions or the "grandfathering" of preexisting fences and hedges be included in the new by-law. This would ensure that fences and hedges which are in compliance with the current standards would continue to be in compliance with the new potential standards provided that the owner could prove the pre-existing conditions. Residents' access to sunlight, the view, and "not feeling enclosed" in their yards was an important consideration for any new potential standard. Streetscape, landscaping features and general neighbourhood aesthetics were important factors to preserve. Considering permitted screening between townhouses and semi-detached dwellings needs to be clarified as to what type of screening, open fencing versus lattice is permitted. ~ BILT, a building industry stakeholder group, was contacted in preparation of this report however, they did not provide any comments. 5.3 Need for a New Fence and Hedge By-law ~ The height of fences and hedges in Oshawa are regulated, to varying degrees, in the City's Zoning By-law and the Pool Enclosure By-law ~ The Pool Enclosure By-law only regulates the minimum heights of fences whereas the Zoning By-law restricts fence or hedge heights in front yards and sight lines for vehicular and pedestrian safety, but does not restrict interior side or rear yard heights. ~ It is recommended that the City establish regulations for fences and hedges in the rear yard and interior side yards for the following reasons: excessively high fences and hedges impede the sight lines and the views of property owners; depending on the situation, fences and hedges could be built/grown at unrestricted heights that could "box in" the rear yard of a property thus providing for very little sunlight; and Other municipalities have implemented standards for such fencing and hedges based on the same principles and have found that the regulations have addressed many neighbourhood conflicts. ~ The creation of a separate regulatory by-law will remove fence and hedge regulations from the Planning Act By-law and accordingly will change the manner in which "variance or exemption" requests are handled by the City. 104

4 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -4- Meeting Date: June 21, ')0> It is proposed that the process of variances/exemptions be handled by the Director, Municipal Law Enforcement and Licensing and the Hearings Officer. The use of regulatory by-laws to regulate fences and hedges is consistent with the practice of the majority of GTA municipalities. )0> With the exception of provisions related to sight obstructions involving buildings and structures, it is proposed that the relevant provisions be removed from the Zoning Bylaw in the next round of zoning technical amendments. Further it is proposed that the new by-law only come into effect upon the zoning amendments becoming final and binding. 5.4 Proposed Fence and Hedge Height Standards )0> Staff' have identified that the proposed standards outlined in Table 1 in conjunction with standards (ie. legal non-conforming status) outlined later in the report would most appropriately address many of the issues brought forward by the public input. )0> Additionally, the proposed standards would address the issues identified in Report CORP )0> It is important to note that a new Fence and Hedge By-law will not limit the height of stand-alone trees; however, trees which pose a health and safety risk by creating a sight obstruction(s) will be subject to the proposed standards. Front Yard Table 1 Proposed Fence and Hedge Standards Sight Triangle Driveway Sight Triangle Interior Side Yard Fence 0.9 metres 0.9 metres 0.9 metres 2.2 metres* Hedge 0.9 metres 0.9 metres 0.9 metres 2.2 metres* *denotes new standard established in proposed by-law Exterior Side Yard 2.2 metres 2.2 metres Rear Yard 2.2 metres* 2.2 metres* Note: A 2.2 metre height restriction applies to rear yard fences and hedges which abut a flanking street (equal only to the exterior side yard depth) in the current Zoning By-law )0> For reference and convenience purposes, the following excerpts from Zoning By-law are provided as attachments. Illustration of Current Sight Triangles and Maximum Fence and Hedge Heights (Attachment 2) Illustration of Yard Definitions (Attachment 3) 105

5 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -5- Meeting Date: June 21, Other Related Fence and Hedge By-law Considerations ~ In addition to fence and hedge height measurement standards, staff propose the following related considerations in a new Fence and Hedge By-law; these items are detailed in Table 2. ~ The Pool Enclosure By-law will remain under a separate by-law. Pool enclosure requirements are unique and complex and should continue to be maintained in a separate by-law. Table 2 Other Proposed By-law Considerations for New By-law (Residential Properties) Regulation Standards Criteria Any fence/hedge in compliance with To be included in proposed previous standards in the Zoning By- new by-law law will continue to be in compliance Legal Nonprovided that the degree of nonconformity is not increased. This would Conforming Status include any fence/hedge which was subject to a minor variance. Prohibiting Dangerous Fencing Materials Provisions to prohibit: razor wire, barbed wire, sharp projections attached to a fence, and electrified fences. To be included in proposed new by-law AMP & Provincial Offences Act Non-compliance would trigger Processes an Order and a $250 penalty Service of Orders (approximate) for non- Enforcement - Personal service compliance with an Order - Letter or registered mail - Facsimile -. Appeals Exemptions to be included in new bylaw Appeals to AMP's as per AMP Screening and Hearings Process. Residential uses that abut other nonresidential uses such as a commercial plaza or industrial facility. Tennis courts, golf courses, baseball dia,monds in residential areas. Noise barriers approved by a government agency acting pursuant to statutory authority. Screening and Hearings Officers To be included in proposed new by-law Existing Central Business District, Institutional, To be maintained in proposed Exemptions to be Industrial, Airport and Farmland new by-law included in new by- (Agricultural Zones) law 106

6 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -6- Meeting Date: June 21,2012 Regulation Standards Criteria Requests for variances to or Director/Hearings Officer exemptions from the by-law administered through application process. Height Variance Application to be made to the Director Requests for initial decision. Applicant may appeal Director's decision to Hearings Officer upon payment of a fee, initially recommended to be $ FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS ~ There are no direct financial implications related to this report 7.0 RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN ~ The recommendation is consistent with Objective C1 (Enhancing quality of communities and/or neighbourhoods, to protect the safety, health, and well-being of the public and to ensure the continued enjoyment of property for residents and property owners of the municipality by better coordination of enforcement activities. Jer onlin, Director Mu. ipal Law Enforcement and Licensing Services ~ick Stockman, Commissioner Corporate Services Department Attachments 107

7 '~. koshawa Item: CORP A~t1 (J To: Corporate Services.Committee Item: Date of Report: From: Subject: Rick Stockman, Commissioner Corporate Services Department Regulating Rear-Yard Fence Heights CORP File: D-2110 November 9, 2011 Date of Meeting: November 17, 2011 PUBLIC REPORT 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to respond to the April 21, 2011 Finance' and Administration Committee direction:. "That Correspondence FA dated April 8, 2011 from Andrew Davis requesting the City adopt a by-law to restrict the height of backyard fences, be referred to staff for a report." 2.0 RECOMMENDATION That thecorporate$ervices Committee recommend to City Council: That in accordance with Report CORP "Regulating Rear-Yard Fence Heights" dated November 9, 2011, that staff be authorized to schedule a public meeting to be held by the Corporate Services Committee in early 2012 to consider a proposed by-law passed under the Municipal Act related to the rear-yard height of fencing and hedges. 3.0 EXECUTIVESUMMARY At its April 21, 2011 meeting, the Finance and Administration Committee considered correspondence from Andrew Davis (Attachment 1) dated April 8, 2011 which requested that the City adopt a by-law to restrict the height of backyard fences. Following the meeting, Committee directed staff to report on the issue. Fence heights are presently regulated by the City's Zoning and Pool Enclosure By-laws; however, neither of the.by-iaws limits the heights of.interior or rear yard fences with the exception of a 2.2 metre height restriction for exterior side yard and rear-yard fences that abut a flanking street. It is being recommended that the City draft a new Fence/Hedge By-law to regulate such physical structures or natural hedge growth. In addition, it is also recommended that the fence/hedge height regulations presently contained in the Zoning By-law be deleted

8 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -2- Meeting Date: November 17, INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 4.1 General ~ Planning Services ~ Legal Services 4.2 Auditor General ~ The Auditor General has no comments 5.0 ANALYSIS 5.1 Background ~ At its April 21, 2011 meeting, the Finance and Administration Committee considered correspondence from Andrew Davis dated April 8, 2011 which requested that the City adopt a by-law to restrict the height Qf backyard fences. ~ Mr. Davis' request relates to his situation whereby his neighbour has constructed a rear yard fence in excess of three metres or ten feet. ~ Following the meeting, Committee directed staff to report on the issue. 5.2 Regulating Fences and Hedges» Fencing/hedges are regulated for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: Ensuring that minimum sight lines are maintained for vehicular and pedestrian safety;. Safety around pools; and Maintaining aesthetics in the front yards of properties. ~ The height of fences and hedges in Oshawa are regulated, to varying degrees, in the City's Zoning By-law and the Poo' Enclosure By-:-Iaw ~ The Pool Enclosure By-Law only regulates the minimum height of fences, not maximums. ~ The Zoning By-law restricts fence or hedge heights in front yards and sight lines for vehicular and pedestrian safety, but does not restrict interior side or rear yard heights which, is where Mr. Davis has an issue. 109

9 Report to the Corporate. Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -3- Meeting Date: November 17,2011 ~ The maximum heights of fences and hedges as regulated under section 4.12 of Zoning By-law are summarized in Table 1 below. Lot Table 1 Fence and Hedge Height Regulations Under Zoning By-law Front Yard Corner Sight Triangles Driveway Sight Triangles Exterior Side Yard Interior Side Yard RearYard 1 Corner Lot metres 0.9 metres 2.2 metres No height No height metres restriction restriction Interior Lot 0.9 Not 0.9 metres Not No height No height metres Applicable. Applicable restriction restriction Note 1 A 2.2 metre fence/hedge height restriction applies to rear yard fences which abut a flanking street (Equal only to the exterior side yard depth)..~ The chart clearly illustrates that the City does not have height restrictions for interior side or rear lots. ~ It is recorrimended that the City establish regulations for fences and hedges in the rear yard and interior side yards for the following reasons:. Excessively high fences/hedges imp~de the sight lines and the views of property.. owners; Depending on the situation, fences/hedges could be built/grown at unrestricted heights that could "box in" the rear yard of a property thus providing for very little sunlight; and.. Other municipalities have implemented standards for such fencing/hedges based on the same principles and have found that the regulations have addressed many neighbourhood conflicts. ~ For reference and convenience purposes the following excerpts from Zoning By-law are provided as attachments:. Illustration of Sight Triangles' and Maximum Fence and (Attachment 2), Subsection 4.12 Fences and Hedges (Attachment 3), Illustration of Yard Definitions (Attachment 4). Hedge Heights Regulating Fence/Hedge Heights: General Implications ~ The City has generally regulated fences/hedges in the front yard and exterior side yard since at least 1957 through the Zoning By-law

10 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -4- Meeting Date: November 17,2011 ~ It is recommended that fence and hedge regulations be included in a new and separate by-law and removed from the Zoning By-law. Establishing a separate by-law is consistent with the practice of other municipalities as shown in the following survey. 5.3 Survey of Other Municipalities ~ As noted in Table 2 below, a survey of fence and hedge height standards of surrounding municipalities was conducted. All municipalities reported having fence/hedge by-laws separate from their Zoning By-laws. Table 2. Survey of Municipalities: Fence and Hedge Height Standards By-law Regulating Fence Height Regulations (m) Measurement Municipality Fence & Hedge Rear Yard Side Front of Fence Heights Yard 1 Yarcf Height Ajax Yes At grade 1.(solid) Pickering Yes At grade (open) Whitby Yes At grade. Clarington Yes At grade Scugog Y~s At grade Toronto Yes Average grade Mississauga Yes (solid) 1.5 (open) Windsor Yes Effective ground level Oakville Yes At grade Effective grade level Notes: 1includes both interior and exterior side yards. 2hedge height restriction applicable to front yard/sight triangles only; different measurements may apply. 5.4 Proposed By:-Iaw Considerations ~ It is recommended that a public meeting be held in early 2012 to considera proposed new by-law passed under the Municipal Act to regulate the height of fences and hedges..~ It is proposed that the draft by-law have a "legal non-conforming" structure built into it to protect existing hedges and fences which comply with the by-law or complied with predecessor by-laws. It will be the responsibility of a fence/hedge owner to prove legal non-conformity not the City's

11 Report to the Corporate Item: CORP Services Committee (Continued) -5- Meeting Date: November 17,2011 );> With respect to the complaint introduced by Mr. Davis, the fencing which he is concerned about is not in violation of any by-law at this time. The passage of a new fence/hedge by-law that has legal non-conforming rights provisions would protect the neighbour's fence and accordingly would not address Mr. Davis' concerns. 6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS );> There are no direct financial implications related to this report. 7.0 RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN );> The recommendation to hold a public meeting is in accordance with Goal C (A Caring and Responsive Community) of the Community Strategic Plan by ensuring accountability to citizens and effective City management. Jer onlin, Director Mu. ipal Law Enforcement and Licensing Services Corporate Services Department Attachments 11 2

12 ;... ',',. ~ " "', 'to ',' Item: CORP Attachment 1 : rs. 14(1), Municipal Freedom ;! of Information and Protection -----Original Message; lof Privacy Act From: Andrew Davis,: ',~:.., ' Sent: Friday, April 08,?011 3:36 PM To: Patricia NokE;ls "" Cc: Mark Sheriff~~:, ~::,:;.,.:l.(.,)) H.KfPA.. 'K~rry,Davis '; 'Lorraine Van 06yerr. ~", Subject: Follow up on Back yard fence bylaw enclosed is a picture Importa'nce: High, Dear Patricia Nokes and Mr. Sheriff I would like to t~ke this opportunity to thank you Mrs. Nokes for taking my,, call today,at 11, :30am on April 8, 2011 and' Mr. Sheriff at 15:02, I wanted to include this message along with the phone message that I left with you for the Mayor and the Mayor'S Assistant. I trust that this ' may also help clarify some questions the Mayor and or his Executive Assistant, or council may have. Please forward this to all the current ', sitting councilors., I understand that it does take time to pass By-laws and that the by-law I am requesting that Oshawa, Council pass, is for Fence height restrictions in the backyard.', I understand that the By-law wouldn~t be implemented in time to benefit my 'household, unless amendments were made to "Excessive height Fences" that " By-law. Residents of Oshawa need there council to protect the most expensive assets in which a person or family have and that is their home and property. PaSSing a.backyard fence height restriction By-law will do that. Oshawa has some a'mazing views having obstructions like 10ft+ fences and gazebo's in their yards with out By-laws allows people to do what they weint. ", Oshawa Council should be looking at its fellow neighbouring communities of Durham Region, York and Peel as these communities all currently have a height restriction on Backyard,fences from 5ft to 7ft maximum height restriction. OSHAWA currently is the only municipality in Durham Region and' most surroundings regions that doesn't have a height restriction for backyard fences. There are already by-laws written that Oshawa. could review to help ensure passing a 'By-law efficiently. ' ' 11 }'

13 " Here is a list of reasons Council should consider for Height restrictions to ', include; View obstructions many people like my family bought our house because we. enjoyed the view that this house has to offer on/ near lake frorit, trails, and green belts".' Efficiency ~ Lower energy costs in summer to have a breeze.. - Sun for the winter and summer,' Planting' - Vegetables, flowers make for nicer Iqoking yards and promote green communities. Safety - if there is an~mergency and the only exit was to the back yard and a person, needed 10 get out they would have 10ft+ wall blocking exit.. Uniformity - In neighborhoods and overall attractiveness uniformity makes cities look much nicer cleaner arid inviting -. Decreased Property values- If an area all built fences of all different heights some of which go to 10+ feet property vaiues go down same with taxes and that means less revenue for the city. A homeowner that can't sel.! their. home because of what another neighbour has done to Prpperty boarding another prop~rty: The selling Homeowners in desperation may sell to undesirables Which could increase crime and with crime means more money the City of Oshawa needs to put out on Policing that area. Possible Structural DamagfEl/ Risk of Injury - The fence that my neighbour. built as shown in the picture I enclosed shows they have built 3 additions 1. on top of the oth~r; This Fence, bolts screws hardware I am assuming is 20.,years plus. We live facing east to west. To the immediate south of us is the lake with no 0bstructions that means when the wind blows, and it does blow strong' attimes that this solid fence structure having the stress from the wind may qause the structure to fail and a great potential to cause serious injury to person(s}and dwelling. My hope was that this By-law would have been passed already to avoid more potential additions to the fence. Then if I had called the City inspector to review the structure' and he/she deemed it to be unsafe and instructed the neighbour to take the fence down, the neighbour would not be able to reconstruct it because of thenew height restriction backyard fence By-law. I don't want to make this call until the By-law is passed. The new By-:law will help citizens like myself, and Is an opportunity to protect those citizens it couldn't help in the past. \ 1 1 4

14 I was surprised to hear from previous council members and current sitting member's that they were unaware that we didn't' have a backyard height,restriction By-law for fences; The only exception is for your front yard max : 3ft and b~ckyard comer lot fence restriction which Is also 3ft.. My intention to have this By-law passed is to stop other citizens from being. harassed and buljied.and their property aevalued, by a selfish neighbour. Oshawa can stop N~ighbour bullying! I would kindly to ask that you keep me up to date on this by-law and progress as to what has been 'done' thus far.. Respectfully, /Isignedll. Andrew Davis ',',"... '.: " 1 rs: 14(1),'MunicjpaIF~om ~ \ of Information and ProtectIon ~ 'ofprivacy Act ~.... "~" 'i' :.. ~., "..,'., ,.,. ~ :; ( S. 14(1), MunicipalFf'gedom ~ -~-Original Message i ofinformation and Protection.' d D": \. ofprivacy Act From. An rew. avis," '.... Sent: Wednesday,' M~uch '1 :38 PM.' To: 'pnokes@oshawa.ca' ~ubject: Picture of Fence.Importance: High Dear P~trica Nokes, As per my conversation yesterday.marchbth 2011 between Mayor Henry and myself. Andrew R.. Davis, I have enclos.ed a photo ofthe fence structure that. my neighbour has built. 'had my wife take this picture to show the mere size of the fence I am almost 6 feet in height. The view behind thi$ fence is the view of the lake and. new water. front trail... "'1' '11 5

15 My house is 1533 ConnerY Crescent, L 1 J ag2.' The house that constructed this fence is { '" --". '. '... : :1531 Connery Cres.i6./4(1),v..{r,fJfA For ease of referenc~, here is a link to a map from google maps hanriel=s&hl.~en&q~1533+connery+cres&um~1 &ie~utf- 8&hq=&hnear=1533+Connery+Cres.. cent, +Oshawa, +ON+L 1 J+aB2&gl=ca&ei=MsF3TaucKcaLrQGBpIHrBg&sa=X&oi=geo. ro~~.' ult&ct~title&resnum=1 &ved=ocbuqagewaa My request is that The City of Oshawa would pass a by~law in regards to the maximum height a fence can be in the rear of a y;:trd.'. Mr. i~~~a '1 has compeleted two sections of the fence and I am afraid he will completely ~iose in the yard at the same height he is currently, building in early spring. There is noobvious reason why this fence needs to be extended beyond the existing fence height(seen in the two different fence designs) as he has no pool, animals etc. Thank you for speaking with me and taking the time to listen'to our family.needs and I believe many other families that are experiencing this very sam.e issue due to the lack of a rearjerice height by-law. '. Respectfully, /lsignedll ". Andrew R. Davis ;: is. 14(1), MuniCipal Freedom i of Information and Protection " 'of Privacy Act '.-.. '11 6

16

17 Item: Co.RP Attachment 2 I td Fence or hedge: maximum height 0.9 m NO fence or hedge Might II,mn Fence o~r hedge max~mum height 2.2 m Building, structure, fence or pillant ~ 0.9 m maximum height aoove grade of centre fine of streets _.- LoIUne.._---_.-._ _. Centre IJne of Street.-_.._---_.--.-_.._ I I Notes: 1, The above IlustratlOllS ar~ for c:lari~ca.tlon and c:onvenilence only and do not form part ofthis By-Law 2) These provisions not applicable In GBD ZOne S) Re,fer to poor, Enclosure By-!.aw for pool fencing requirements 4) See SIJIbseCtIOn 4.12for boundluyfence exe.on$ July

18 4.11 MINIMUM FRONT LOT LINE Item: CORP Attachment Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, no person shall erect or use a building or structure on a lot unless the front lot line of the lot has a length equal to or greater than: (a) (b) One-half of the minimum required lot fr.ontage established for the zone in which the lot is located; or 6.0m, where there is no minimum required lot frontage FENCES AND HEDGES Except as may be specifically provided for elsewhere in this By-law, this Subsection applies to all Residential Zones, Office Zones, Mixed Use Zones and Commercial Zones, except the CBD Zone. ( , OMB PL060815) No fence or hedge which is greater than O.9m in height shall be erected, grown or maintained in any front yard, provided, however, that any boundary fence or hedge erected, grown or maintained between the front yard of a lot and the abutting rear yard of an adjoining lot, shall be subject only to the rear yard and exterior side yard height restrictions of Articles and ( ) No fence or hedge which is greater than 2.2m.in height shall be erected, grown or maintained in.any exterior side yard, nor in that portion of any rear yard which abuts a flanking street which is a distance from that street equal to or less than the depth of the exterior side yard. ( ) Notwithstanding Articles and , no fence, hedge, tree, shrub or other plant shall be erected, maintained, or permitted to be grown to a height gre~ter than O.9m in any area which is bounded by the street line, the side of a driveway leading from that street, and a straight line joining the points in the street line and the side of the driveway line which are a distance of 3.0m from the point of their intersection. ( ) Notwithstanding Article , where a hedge Or fence is within O.3m of an interior side yard lot line, and where the. lot abutting the hedge or fence has a lesser front yard depth than the subject lot, the hedge or fence may be erected, grown or maintained at a.height greater than O.9m up to, but no closer to the street than, the front wall of the main building of the said abutting lot. ( ) 4.13 TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE AND MODEL HOMES Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, a temporary sales office, used exclusively for the sale of residential lots or dwelling units in a plan of subdivision or condominium, which has received draft plan 1-19

19 Item: CORP Attachment 4 ACTIJIIL REARYAAD DEPfH I REARVARD BUILDING COVERAGE REMVARD I W W a: I 00 o w > o a: a.. ~ I j!;; ~ FRONTVARD I.. I c FRONTYAAD. ~ I!~~ ~..., I ;------_:. - FRONT lot line---> IMPROVED STREET -.- Lot Line."~"-"- Permitted Building Location Nola: The above iiiusilaliol1s are lor clarification and convenience only and do no! lomi part olthis By-law. July

20 I...: COfIilP Attaehft!leflt 2 I Fence or hedge: maximum height 0.9 m I W W cr.: I 00 o w > o cr.: 0.. ::E No fence or hedge height limit Fence or hedge maximum height 2.2 m Building, structure, fence or plant 0.9 m maximum height above grade of centre line of streets Dwelling Unit Minimum I-+-~""",;L Required Exterior Side Yard Depth _.- Lot Line.. _ IMPROVED STREET Defining Angle Notes: 1) The above illustrations are for clarification and convenience only and do not form part of this By-Law 2) These provisions not applicable in CBD Zone 3) Refer to Pool Enclosure By-Law for pool fencing requirements 4) See subsection 4.12 for boundary fence exemptions 121 July 2004

21 I...: CORP Attachment :I.. ACTUAL REAR YARD DEPTH ~. "..._._._._._._.'I ~.. SIDE LOT LINE I _._._.J I r U.J Z :::; 5 -' UJ Q 1i5.-.-._._. REAR YARD BUILDING COVERAGE Q I I c:: :;x; > z 0 c:: u... I I.-.-1 :I: 8:r: b: ~li: ::Ow -,0 w CiJO I wo :30... '" o~ ~~ :::> «", I lti ~~ ~'" '" I REAR YARD I BUILDING COVERAGE lor l- ill ill a: I- en 0 ill > 0 a: a.. ~ I _._._. FRONT YARD I~.!:;! -- 1 FRONT LOT line--1 FRONT YARD._._._._...I I I _.- Lot Line IMPROVED STREET... Permitted Building Location Note: The above illustrations are for clarification and convenience only and do not form part of this By-Law. July