Last Monday, Cornwall City Council passed a new Burn By-law. This comes after nearly a year since the old by-law was repealed. It was a year of passionate arguments, public engagement, and council debate.
The issue not only divided council, but it divided the City too, with neighbours on different sides of the argument.
Some felt it was their fundamental right to have a wood fire in their backyard, while others felt it was their fundamental right to be able to enjoy their property without having to endure waves of smoke, which are harmful to those with breathing issues.
The reaction to this by-law has been mixed on both sides of the debate.
The by-law requires that fires burn clean wood, which shouldn’t produce a lot of smoke, and be at least seven-and-a-half meters away from buildings. This increases the minimum distance from the five meters set out in the last by-law and could exclude many properties from being able to have wood fires at all.
On the other side of the argument, there are still over 4,000 homes in Cornwall that will be able to have wood fires.
This by-law does have some enforcement measures, such has property owners being charged service fees if the fire department has to respond to a complaint on the property, but it seems more reactive than preventative and I don’t doubt that there will be violations early and often. I am sure that the seven-and-a-half meter restriction will be ignored, as will the requirement to burn clean wood.
Is this by-law a compromise? Yes, neither side is fully happy, and both sides have had to give a little, but I don’t feel that it is an equal compromise.
The old by-law had no consideration for residents who wished to enjoy their property smoke free, this by-law at least gives them some recourse, but ultimately it is complaint driven, meaning that something can only be done after a problem occurs and it is up to the complainant to push to resolve the issue.
I think that if I wanted to have a wood burning fire in my backyard, with wet green wood, in close proximity to my neighbours, I think I would probably get away with it.
What this by-law needed was one additional measure to be included, one that Councillor Todd Bennett brought up prior to voting in favour of the law.
Bennett suggested that those who enjoy having a fire in their backyard transition from wood burning, to a gas firepit, as he did. This should have been in the by-law.
The by-law should have a sunset clause written in stating that within two or three years, all wood fires are phased out in favour of gas fires.
Gas fires do not create the obnoxious and noxious smoke, which is what is at issue here.
The pro-fire side of the debate obviously still want to have their backyard fires, which they still can with gas. While they may not want to have to pay to upgrade their firepits, the City might be able to help offset the cost. Burn permits are still required to be purchased from the City in order to have an open air burning at all, that money should be set aside in a fund which could be used to help and encourage residents to convert to gas fires.
This is a good neighbour issue. In a city we live close together, and we all have the same rights to enjoy our property, and if someone wants to enjoy their property without smoke, then they should absolutely be able to.
“A resident advised me this is the first summer they can sit on their back deck,” Councillor Glen Grant said on Monday. “They haven’t been able to sit out and enjoy their property in seven years.”
What do you think readers? Should wood fires be phased out? If you received a subsidy to convert to gas, would you?Email me a Letter to the Editor with your opinion to nseebruch@seawaynews.media
