Headline News

Mono noise bylaw doesn’t get second reading, legislation to return at future council meeting

June 5, 2025   ·   0 Comments

By JAMES MATTHEWS

Mono doesn’t need to reinvent noise regulation in the town.

Rather, the rules around noise just need a little fine-tuning in line with how the municipality has changed.

That’s the feeling Mono Councillor Melinda Davie expressed about the proposed changes to the town’s noise bylaw during the May 27 meeting.

“The 2004 bylaw, I still maintain, is a pretty good bylaw,” she said, and added that times are clearly listed in it during which excessive noise is prohibited.

The proposed changes came about because of certain events at the Island Lake Conservation Area and at the Orangeville Agricultural Society (OAS) Event Centre. Essentially, change became necessary because of the increasing number of events that take place and not because of somebody who mows a lawn at a certain time.

At least one resident has a different view on the changes that are discussed.

Mono resident Emerson Pendleton asked why Mono “wants to assault working citizens, farmers, and property owners’ right to earn a living and live an active life with over-reaching authoritarian bylaws that insulate the affluent but punish working people.”

Loudspeakers and electronic amplified noise are obviously disturbing, Pendleton wrote in a question to council. That shouldn’t require a law banning the use of tools and equipment to maintain farms. Punishing working people by protecting the 7 a.m. beauty sleep for affluent people is counterintuitive, Pendleton said.

“It doesn’t give any specifics, but you get the idea that limitations on businesses should be removed or reduced,” said Fred Simpson, the town’s clerk. “And that would be construction equipment and perhaps even residential home maintenance equipment.”

“I think they’re objecting to the over-regulation of certain activities,” Mayor John Creelman said.

Much of the proposed changes have been informed by Mono residents. Public input was gathered by way of a survey sent to all residents, written comments submitted by residents and stakeholders, and oral comments during two public sessions.

As many as 377 people responded to the survey, and that is considered statistically representative of the community. The survey focused on the Prohibitions by Time of the bylaw. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each of the six prohibitions detailed. Do you agree or disagree with the prohibited days and times for this activity?

According to a report to council, the survey results indicated the majority of respondents were in agreement with each of the proposed prohibitions by time.

Twenty written comments were received from 12 residents. Seven stakeholder groups also provided written comments.

“The comments are very important,” Davie said.

And the majority of comments pertained to the increasing number of events at the OAS Event Centre and the conservation area.

“I think we can tweak stuff,” Davie said. “I don’t think we need to reinvent it.”

She referred to the OAS as more of an event-oriented organization in recent years.

Many of the comments pertained to regulating specific sources of noise at certain times of the day. A number of residents advocated for the elimination of Prohibition by Time. Stakeholders, on the other hand, generally argued in favour of maintaining that mechanism.

The comments mostly focused on amplified sound with little mention made of the other noise sources. Council will have to weigh the competing rights of various groups, notably stakeholders, versus those of their neighbours.

Deputy Mayor Fred Nix said it may be advisable for the municipality to simplify its noise bylaw.

“We have this enormous, complicated bylaw to regulate something that we actually, except in a few instances, get very few complaints about,” Nix said.

To avoid frivolous complaints, he suggested that a bylaw enforcement officer only respond to a location after a certain number of noise complaints were received about that location.

“In other words, you couldn’t just have one neighbour complaining about another neighbour and then you’d have an infraction,” he said. “You’d have to have a pattern, some noise that was bothering a number of people.”

Simpson said the current bylaw includes exceptionally more complicated Prohibitions by Time. In nearby Orangeville, there are only three in the equivalent section of the noise bylaw.

“So it’s simpler than ours,” he said. “What the draft bylaw that’s presented to council does is strike a middle ground between the two.”

The benefit of clear Prohibitions by Time is that it makes the rules very clear for certain activities at certain times of the day, Simpson said.

“So you basically have set, easy-to-interpret rules for those items at those times of the day,” he said. “Without that, then you’re relying on (determining) is it causing annoyance and disturbing residents as opposed to (a single) resident?”

And that is going to require a policy that defines what residents mean. Different situations may require different numbers of residents to make a complaint.

“If noise is something that disturbs you, I don’t see why we should be allowing people to disturb you,” Coun. Ralph Manktelow said. “I think we should be controlling noise in this municipality.”

Creelman asked Simpson about the possibility of crafting a proposed noise bylaw that is in line with Orangeville’s legislation about the issue.

Simpson said the bylaw will return to council for a second reading in future.

Readers Comments (0)