Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 27, 2000 - Special Council SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM P.O. Box 160,9344 Plank Road STRAFFORDVILLE, ONTARIO Thursday, January 27,2000 7:00 p.m. A special meeting of Council of the Municipality of Bayham, was held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 27, 2000 in the Council Chambers. Present were Mayor Max Stewart,Deputy Mayor John Nezezon, Councillors David Mason, Mathew Schafer and Cliff Evanitski, Administrator Kyle Kruger, Deputy Clerk Maureen Beatty, Municipal F. Peterson. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stewart called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Councillor Matthew Schafer disclosed a pecuniary interest as he owns land abutting the former CP Rail Land. He left his seat and did not participate in discussion and voting on this matter. 3. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Administrator Kyle Kruger welcomed everyone in attendance and introduced Municipal Solicitor—Michael F. Peterson,the solicitor representing the applicants for fence viewers, Donald R. Good and noted that Council and staff were aware of the issues expressed by the applicants. He advised that in the past, Council and staff have had discussions with the Council and staff of the Town of Tillsonburg regarding concerns about the development of a trail, requests for fencing, and the complaints about motorized vehicles on the former CP Rail land. He added that an invitation had been extended to the Town of Tillsonburg to attend the meeting, however,they were unable to attend. Kyle Kruger announced that the meeting had been called at the request of Donald Good and that hopefully, all parties can come to some common understanding of the concerns as well as the separate issues concerning individual property owners. At this point,those in attendance were invited to comment. 4. COMMENTS Wayne Casier stated that the concerned property owners filed an application for the attendance of Fence Viewers on March 8, 1999 and since that time, they have been patiently waiting for a response. Councillor Evanitski stated that he had the impression from the owners that their request would be withdrawn if a trail was not pursued. Wayne Casier responded that they are entitled to a line fence, regardless of the outcome of the former CP rail lands. He asked Council for a written commitment. Donald Good concurred that while the Line Fences Act implies that the municipality is responsible for providing a fence, fence viewers can still be useful for determining the appropriate type of fence, crossings, gates etc,, and as the property line is fairly well defined, it wouldn't be difficult to draft an award. Kyle Kruger asked if any thought had been given to a uniform type of fencing. SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES - 21 - January 27, 2000 4. COMMENTS (continued) In response to questions, he confirmed that fence viewers have been appointed by Council. Wayne Casier stated that each owner would need to be consulted about their specific needs. Doug Howey stressed that while they realize the situation, fences should have been installed five years ago. Donald Good stated that the obvious choice is for the land to be sold to each abutting property owner and a fence erected down the middle of the lands. Wayne Casier asked if Council is prepared to award the property owners a fence and are willing to convene the fence viewers to make an appropriate award. Michael Peterson responded that his view and his advice to Council is that Section 20 of the Line Fences Act empowers the municipality to install a fence. While a third party intervention may be a good mechanism to resolve issues, fence viewers don't have the proper jurisdiction. He recommended that uses for the former CP Rail land first be determined which should dictate suitable fencing. He added that Council acknowledges that the municipality has an obligation to install fencing, however, such action which is determined later to be inappropriate for the approved uses of the land would be fiscally irresponsible. Isaac Froese asked if someone were to be killed on the former CP rail land, who would be responsible. Kyle Kruger responded that the municipality owns 50% of the land and likely would be one of many parties to which a claim would be lodged against. John Howey stated that he has taken many steps to reduce the number of incidents by trespassers; however, he has not seen a lot of reciprocal action from the municipalities. He said the owners would like to see the municipality take a leadership role. Kyle Kruger stressed that even if fencing were installed,the municipality does not have the manpower to enforce trespassing by motorized vehicles. Bob Gregson stressed that the owners have been waiting for several years and nothing has happened as yet. He's been unable to expand his farm with cattle,because there are no fences. He believes that Bayham Council is responsible for proceeding with fencing regardless of the Town of Tillsonburg. Michael Peterson responded that the Line Fences Act states that a municipal corporation has an obligation to fence, as a 50% owner, the Town of Tillsonburg has to contribute. Simply, although the Act compels the owner(s), compliance has legal remedies. He noted that the joint venture agreement executed between the Town of Tillsonburg and the former Village of Port Burwell contemplated that motorized vehicles would not be a permitted on the land, however, preventing individuals from accessing is difficult even with signs, fences etc. Bob Gregson recommended that Bayham should fence the entire length of the land and invoice the Town of Tillsonburg for 50% of the cost. Mayor Stewart stressed that Council would at least like to see motorized vehicles eliminated from the villages, however one action often creates a further problem. He encouraged residents to submit their suggestions for remedy. In response to the question of whether the municipality had a plan of action, Kyle Kruger responded that there is currently no plan of action because the issue of the trail and how it will be developed and in what manner has not yet been resolved. Wayne Casier asked if Bayham Council was in support of the trail, if not, he suggested the fence be awarded, estimates obtained for installation and surveying and the estimates be presented to the Town of Tillsonburg. Susan Garner asked what had been agreed upon between the two municipalities. Kyle Kruger responded that the joint venture agreement talks about a utility corridor and a recreation trail, but no motorized vehicle use. SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES - 22 - January 27, 2000 4. COMMENTS (continued) Donald Good stated that he is of the opinion that the Fence Viewers do have jurisdiction, and the Act provides for an appeal to a Referee. Michael Peterson responded that it is not within the Referee's jurisdiction, but is an issue of law. He recommended that the municipality should investigate the total estimated fencing costs as a first step. Bob Gregson estimated the average cost for farm fencing with an 8 inch wire gauge is approximately$5.00 per foot. Donald Good asked if Council has taken the position that fence viewers are not required. Mayor Stewart responded that it's not been decided as yet. Michael Peterson added that he is not opposed to fence viewers, as it seems appropriate to have a third party involved. However if fence viewers are asked by the municipality to be involved (by permission), it is different than following the procedures of the Line Fences Act. He reiterated that Council has an obligation to fence, but the problem is the matter of 50% ownership and the eventual use of the land. He wouldn't be adverse to utilizing fence viewers,the main problem may be cost recovery from the Town of Tillsonburg. He suggested that if property owners want more elaborate and expensive fences, they should be prepared to pay the difference and enter into a fencing agreement. Further, Bayham cannot unilaterally act pursuant to the terms of the joint venture agreement. 5. MOTION As a result of the discussion, the following motion was presented, voted on and carried: 2000-44 Moved by C. Evanitski Seconded by J. Nezezon "THAT the Administrator, in consultation with the municipal solicitor, be directed to report back to Council with a recommendation on how to proceed further on the issue of a Line Fence application submitted by various affected property owners abutting the former CP Rail land dated March 8, 1999, said report to address cost estimates for an 8 wire fence for the whole of the subject corridor." Disposition: Motion Carried Unanimously 6. BY-LAW By-law 2000 — 11 A By-law to confirm all actions of Council 2000-45 Moved by J. Nezezon Seconded by C. Evanitski "THAT confirming By-law 2000-11 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed." Disposition: Motion Carried Unanimously SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES -23 - January 27, 2000 7. ADJOURNMENT 2000-46 Moved by D. Mason Seconded by I. Nezezon "THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8:40 p.m." Disposition: Motion Carried Unanimously MAY 1 ' DEPUTY CL Date approved: . .h j J 0 0