• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Nuisance ordinance Vs the environment

M

Mary

Member
Messages
127
Points
6
We have a new directive from council to change the nuisance ordiance to only require weed mowing on the areas close to development or to the ROW when a lot is over 1 acre in size. No problem with that.

The problem is that they want it to not include tidal influenced areas but allow us to require it for the whole property or an increased portion of it in the case of known vermin etc.

I've never seen a nuisance ordiance that granted grey areas nor paid much attention to the environment.

So does anyone have an ordiance that excludes environmentally sensitive land? How does one define a tidal enfluenced area? I'm new to the community and new to tide related issues
 
donk

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
Mary asked
How does one define a tidal enfluenced area?
Click to expand...

Here is how they propose to define a coastal feature in my province.

http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0371/0002/Coastal-E.pdf

To cut down on downloading this document the gist is that within 100 feet of the HHWLT (Higher High Water Large Tide) elevation is considered the coastal area. The HHWLT is a 25 year roaming average that a surveyor is able to locate using Trabnsport Canada data.

Please note, I am in no way saying this is the right way to do it, just providing they way it is proposed here.

The real answer is much like everything, pick a number thaty seems reasonable and ay that is the minimum buffer distance. When this policy started out, the number was 500 m from a coastal feature, now it is 100m from the tide line, big difference. Very different impacts on property owners and the environment.
 
M

Mary

Member
Messages
127
Points
6
Thank you, This community should get interesting as I swear it's 50% bodies of water. We'll see what happens.
 
S

SGB

Cyburbian
Messages
3,388
Points
26
Does your municipality require mowing of private property at intersection sight triangles? If not, something else to consider....
 
Last edited:
donk

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
I just reread my post, i am pretty sure I messed the numbers up.

The old proposal was 500 metres (=/-1500 feet) . The new proposal is 30 m (=/- 100 feet).

Sorry
 
Last edited:
M

Mary

Member
Messages
127
Points
6
Those are drastically different numbers. We are probably going to end up with an ordiance that requires mowing on 1 acre + lots of only the 50' closes to development and closest to the road except that it will not be required in tital influence areas but it still can be required if the area is believed to harbor vermin.

I'm not sure I object but I am sure I've not seen an ordiance quite like this before.
 
Top