Headline News

Mono considers height limits in some zoning regulations

August 6, 2026   ·   0 Comments

By JAMES MATTHEWS

Mono has started the process to consider amending its building and zoning bylaws.

Council directed municipal staff to review the town’s Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw, which includes provisions pertaining to the maximum height and gross floor area of accessory buildings and structures.

Coun. Elaine Cape’s motion was rooted in council’s wish to consider establishing height and lot coverage restrictions specific to accessory buildings and structures with respect to the Suburban Residential (RU), Hamlet Residential (RH), and Rural Estate (RE) zones.

It was suggested that council further direct staff to assess the feasibility of establishing specific provisions regarding accessory buildings and structures in the three zones as part of the overall review of the town’s Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw.

Deputy Mayor Fred Nix said there are height and coverage restrictions in rural zones. But he said he was surprised that such specifications are lacking on structures in the other zones.

“That’s maybe just my ignorance,” he said.

Fred Simpson, the town’s clerk, said restrictions for accessory buildings in the RU, RH, and RE zones are identical to the primary building.

“There is no separate and distinct restriction for accessory buildings,” Simpson said.

Coun. Melinda Davie said everything happens in steps, and the motion is itemizing possible changes to the zones.

“We would like to look at this before we get everybody building accessory buildings in these zones,” she said. “But this is a part of a very big thing that has to happen in steps.”

Suggested amendments would have to go to the Dufferin County level and through the Official Plan process.

“It just goes into the pile of all of the things that we’re looking at on our Unfinished Business list with respect to building,” Davie said.

“The most productive way to proceed with zoning bylaw amendments would be to take on multiple issues at the same time,” said Mike Dunmore, the town’s CAO.

Such amendments require full-scale public consultation with statutory meetings and mailout information.

Dufferin County is revisiting its Official Plan, and Mono was in line to look at its plan, followed by the zoning regulations.

“But we’ve delayed that,” Dunmore said. “From a financial perspective, it just doesn’t make sense anymore. Compiling a list with respect to zoning bylaw amendments is definitely the most productive and most comprehensive way to get to all the residents at one time.”

Mayor John Creelman asked if the Capes’ motion was on the list or the list’s beginning?

Dunmore said staff have a list of issues that are being dealt with, and the zoning bylaw amendment was among them.

“Not the square footage, but the lack of height restriction in these zone was definitely something that we had flagged for addition when we do the zoning bylaw,” he said.

Creelman said he’s been working with a resident farmer who wants to replace a dilapidated barn but is hampered by a height restriction. When somebody is replacing an existing structure, the committee of adjustment process shouldn’t apply, he said.

An existing structure is simply being replaced with a new one of identical size.

“I think we should look at whether or not we should be requiring this (process) in the future,” Creelman said.

Davie said the question may arise of whether or not the original barn was built according to the standard.

Creelman said the barn was appropriately built 150 years ago, but it is now falling down.

“Now things change and so you have to go through the rules,” Davie said. “We’re not planners.”

Capes said the motion merely highlights the idea that height parameters should be considered as part of possible zoning bylaw amendments.

“There’s more to the picture is all I’m saying,” Davie said. “There’s more to it than just the height and the gross floor area.”

Creelman said council has known for years that the bylaw requires revisions. And he said waiting for Dufferin County to finish its work could add more time to that wait for municipal amendments.

“At some point we’ve got to get on with these adjustments,” Creelman said. “While I’m not a planner, I don’t hesitate to have planning opinions.”

Nix said he doesn’t consider a barn to be an accessory structure to a residential house.

“A barn is essential to itself if you’re a farmer,” Nix said. “I think we’ve got a problem with the word accessory in the current bylaw.”

Dunmore suggested he revisit discussions with the planner regarding bylaw changes and Official Plan amendments. He offered to return to council with a verbal update.

Readers Comments (0)