???? for the legal beagles here

[packrat]

Here's the situation----

 

There is a parcel of land within the city (which I believe is defined as part of the "flood plain") that has been used as access to the river for many years by fishermen, ATV/4wd drivers etc.

 

Lately there have been abuses of this access from people dumping garbage and to be kind the whole area looks like a war zone-----deep ruts that would tear the guts out of a normal vehicle, garbage everwhere.

 

Anyway----have been informed that there is now a fence erected complete with gates and NO TRESPASSING/ PRIVATE PROPERTY signs.

 

So my question is this---if the land is designated flood plain would it not come under the jurisdiction of the GRCA???? Secondly seeing as there has been unrestricted access to the area for so long is it likely to come under the laws of "easement"???

[Dara]

Private land or city owned land?

[Greencoachdog]

You should've picked up the trash.

[JohnF]

Here's the situation----

 

There is a parcel of land within the city (which I believe is defined as part of the "flood plain") that has been used as access to the river for many years by fishermen, ATV/4wd drivers etc.

 

Lately there have been abuses of this access from people dumping garbage and to be kind the whole area looks like a war zone-----deep ruts that would tear the guts out of a normal vehicle, garbage everwhere.

 

Anyway----have been informed that there is now a fence erected complete with gates and NO TRESPASSING/ PRIVATE PROPERTY signs.

 

So my question is this---if the land is designated flood plain would it not come under the jurisdiction of the GRCA???? Secondly seeing as there has been unrestricted access to the area for so long is it likely to come under the laws of "easement"???

 

Privately owned land can be deemed "flood plain". That means the owner has all the usual property ownership rights to do anything they want with it as long as the local conservation authority, the Official Plan and the local zoning bylaw allows it. I've had all kinds of listings over the years where part of the property is designated as "flood plain".

 

Someone would have to make their claim to it on the basis of "unrestricted access" for a period of 10 years or more and back up the claim. Even this goes out the window if the property is registered under Land Titles as opposed to the older Registry system. If it's LT then in all probability "adverse possession" wouldn't apply.

 

Hope that helps

JF

[packrat]

Dont know the actual owner of the property but went for a looksee myself this morning (after the fact).

 

 

The signage reads: private property---no access for motorized vehicles etc. Nothing about no trespassing but if you were to climb over the fence to gain access for the purpose of fishing there you could be charged.

 

All is not lost however there is an adjacent parcel of land being used for farming purposes which is not posted and you can still go into the fishing spot by going around and following the shoreline in the water.

[bigfish1965]

Put the shoe on the other foot. Say this was your land. And for years you let people, as a courtesy, access the lake via your property. Finally you got tired of cleaning it up or the town issued you a notice under the Property Standards Act to keep it tidy. You'd do the same thing.

I know it's not just anglers making the mess, but until we can get everyone else 'enlightened' we do have to keep care of these places or more of this will happen.

Flood plain stuff can restricting building of structures, but not of fencing.

[packrat]

Put the shoe on the other foot. Say this was your land. And for years you let people, as a courtesy, access the lake via your property. Finally you got tired of cleaning it up or the town issued you a notice under the Property Standards Act to keep it tidy. You'd do the same thing.

I know it's not just anglers making the mess, but until we can get everyone else 'enlightened' we do have to keep care of these places or more of this will happen.

Flood plain stuff can restricting building of structures, but not of fencing.

 

Couldnt agree with you more Rick---as I mentioned the area has become a real eyesore lately.

[Fishnwire]

There's a 4x4 off-road club in Sudbury and I read about them spending a day hauling trash from an old road that had become an illegal dump site with their trucks and Jeeps with trailers. They were tired of looking at it and took it upon themselves to do something about it. About 20 guys pitched in and they helped clean up a mess that none of them had helped to create. Pretty cool, I think. They hauled out a couple of abondoned wrecks and around a hundred old tires along with tons of other junk. People can be thoughtless pigs.

[bigugli]

The same dumping problem is happening down here as well Gord, and more landowners are posting and fencing properties we used to access. There are a couple of real eyesores around lake Gibson.

[bigugli]

D'OH

Edited September 17, 2009 by bigugli

[JohnF]

Put the shoe on the other foot. Say this was your land. And for years you let people, as a courtesy, access the lake via your property. Finally you got tired of cleaning it up or the town issued you a notice under the Property Standards Act to keep it tidy. You'd do the same thing.

I know it's not just anglers making the mess, but until we can get everyone else 'enlightened' we do have to keep care of these places or more of this will happen.

Flood plain stuff can restricting building of structures, but not of fencing.

 

Actually, as it was explained to me once upon a time, the powers that be might even use the risk of flooding as sufficient reason to restrict the erection or placement of anything that might contribute to creating what would amount to a beaver dam during that once in a hundred year flood. Something like a chain link fence which at first you would assume wouldn't restrict water movement would however trap washed out trees and debris and resulting in damming of the flood water leading to even more damage.

 

I think that's when the two zone flood plain designation kicks in.

 

JF

[bigfish1965]

But there is a difference between flood plain and flood/fill lines. Most every property along a lake shore is within a 100 yr flood plain. It may differ from area to area....not sure. Its been awhile since I did stuff like that.

[JohnF]

But there is a difference between flood plain and flood/fill lines. Most every property along a lake shore is within a 100 yr flood plain. It may differ from area to area....not sure. Its been awhile since I did stuff like that.

 

Each conservation authority has some leeway in how they interpret "floodplain" enforcement but the basic definitions are provided by the relevant act as far as I know. I have seen properties in Stratford that actually have the FP in their zoning designation.

 

Here's a website that might help explain it.

 

http://www.ecoissues.ca/wiki//index.php?ti...Rehabilitate%3F

 

It's not all that clearcut wherever you look. I know that from personal experience in dealing with the sale of properties with FP implications. There seems to be a general feeling that it was a mistake to grant the various Conservation Authorities the sweeping powers (of interpretation at least) they have now assumed but unfortunately there seems to be no will on the part of any gov't to rein them in either. My own experiences with them have for the most part been frustrating. There's no reluctance to change horses in midstream (no pun intended) and no indication of any apology when these conflicting opinions cause grief for consumers in real estate deals.

 

Hopefully some day soon one of our gov'ts will revisit the original spirit and intent of the law insofar as empowering CA's and do something for a change to protect their constituency from that misguided bureaucracy. That's not to say the 28(?) Conservation Authorities and the relevant acts are a bad thing, just the way the application affects us.

 

JF