The Syers aren’t party to any of the settlement discussions, despite a real estate agent telling them the wall has diminished their property value by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“We can’t sell our home — nobody wants to buy it,” Syer said. “We don’t have people over very often because all they want to talk about is the focal point of our yard and we don’t want to talk about it anymore.”

The Hughes have at least, on one occasion, agreed the wall didn’t comply with the municipal zoning bylaw.

In December of 2012, the Hughes pleaded guilty in the Burlington Ontario Court of Justice to erecting a fence above the two-metre height restriction and were handed a $100 fine.

Noise allegations

The decision was then appealed to Milton’s committee of adjustment in May 2013 for a minor variance, as the Hughes argued in their application that the noise barrier should be allowed to stay because of the Syers’ “pool parties, amplified music, blowing of car horns, unnecessary engine revving or motorcycles, power and washer and other usual noises such as a lawn mower.”

At the minor variance hearing, Peggy Hughes went so far as to say the noise was comparable to an “amphitheatre” because of the way it compounds on their property.

The Syers said Hughes never called them or visited their home to make them aware of the issue.

“We weren’t aware of any of them (the complaints),” Syer said. “We’re reasonable people, we would have listened, we have to live beside these people.”

Town planner Aaron Raymond told the committee of adjustment last summer that a bylaw officer had visited the Syers’ property on one occasion after a complaint from the Hughes about lawn mowing equipment — found to be in normal working order.

According to the Syers, Halton police were also called to their home a couple of years ago – after the wall was already built – because of a noise complaint resulting from a pool party.

The committee of adjustment denied the minor variance, forcing the Hughes to appeal to the OMB or concede lowering the wall to the regulated fence height.

Approval of noise barrier unclear

The Syers, who have two teenage sons, have been living at the end of the quiet cul-de-sac on Southcott Drive since 1992.

The origins of the wall begin in 2008 when the Hughes first sought the assistance of Local and Regional Councillor Brian Penman over the alleged noise.

“It comes down to an individual who sought advice through his councillor, myself. I addressed the issue to Town staff and was told…there is no sound barrier bylaw,” Penman told the Champion. “I shared that with Mr. Hughes and he proceeded to get a site alteration permit and a footing engineering drawing and proceeded to build his wall.”

It remains unclear how the noise barrier met approval and was constructed without meeting the Town’s zoning bylaw approval.

At the minor variance hearing, Penman said he had consulted with the Town engineer and planning staff in 2008 and was advised that no regulations were in place with respect to noise barriers.

A letter from Penman, dated September 9, 2008, which was sent to Trevor Hughes and copied to Raymond and committee of adjustment members, said he’d been “advised by Town staff that the Town has no regulatory ability to dictate the terms of reference for a sound barrier.”

“As such, and because this is outside of the Town’s jurisdiction, I offer no guidance except that the sound barrier you proposed will solve your problem,” Penman wrote.

Wall contrary to Greenbelt Plan

The committee of adjustment was told the site alteration plan was also granted despite it being contrary to the provincial government’s Greenbelt Plan — which protects urbanization harmful to ecological features in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area.

Conservation Halton has requested 12 metres of wall be removed from the top of the bank lowering into Sixteen Mile Creek.

On the Hughes’ side of the wall are trees and vegetation, which mask the harsh cement features visible on the Syers’ side. An offer has been extended by the Hughes to do the same landscaping on other side of the wall, but the Syer family would prefer the Town enforce its bylaw and the structure be torn down altogether.

“We’re the injured party — the only one it affects is us,” Tim Syers said, noting that the wall is visible from almost every window in their house. “I can’t walk out the front door without being smacked in the face with it — it’s a quality of life issue.”

Councillor Rick Malboeuf said he only became aware of the wall at an Administration and Planning Standing Committee meeting on April 28.

Malboeuf visited the site, surveying the wall from the Syers’ property last weekend, and said he’s shocked by its size.

“I can’t see any justification to build that type of wall – it’s unbelievable,” Malboeuf said, adding that he’ll be speaking to the Town’s solicitor about the issue. “I don’t want to see this set as a precedent for anybody who gets ticked off at their neighbour in a country area to put up a stone wall like that.”

The Syers said they’ve tried to keep the dispute from going public until now but their frustration over what they believe is a lack of action by the Town has now made it necessary.

“Ideally we want it all gone but the Town appears to be prepared to negotiate its bylaws,” Tim Syer said.