Archive

Mono’s property standards bylaw review

July 2, 2020   ·   0 Comments

Re Bill 190, 2009 amendment (or editors choice)

In these very difficult and unprecedented times, we are required to make changes to the way we have previously lived our lives. This past week, Deputy Mayor of Mono, John Creelman made a special request of council, asking for proposed new Bylaws be placed in their own section of the town’s website so that they may be reviewed more easily by the residents of Mono rather than their normal presence at Council meetings. Mr. Fred Simpson, Deputy Clerk for Mono, is looking into the best way to accommodate Mr. Creelman’s request.

I have been an outspoken presence in regard for the need to upgrade Mono’s Property Standard bylaws, of which Council is in agreement. Property Standard bylaws are put into place to protect the health and safety of residents and to outline the reasonable maintenance and upkeep of buildings and properties. Good Property Standard bylaws will also help protect our financial investments in our properties. The flip side of Mono trying to upgrade and update their Property Standard bylaws is that residents also bear a responsibility in following the directives of the Property Standard bylaws.

The Ontario Government amended Bill 190 in 2009: Property Rights & Responsibilities, which states that in addition to whatever duties are specified by the law, every person has a moral responsibility to ensure that his or her real property is maintained to a presentable standard in keeping with such factors as the legal uses to which the property is put and the character of the community in which the property is located.

Therefore it is not only Mono’s duty to provide good Property Standard bylaws in keeping with the residential needs of those who live in Mono, but residents also bear a responsibility in following them. 

We live in a varied area here in Mono. There are urban residential subdivisions, rural residential properties, which Mayor Ryan refers to as “hobby farms”, a term which to me does not feel entirely accurate. While there are a number of ‘hobby farms’ sprinkled around our former township with horses, perhaps sheep, chickens (I raised chickens myself for many years), the greater majority of homes in the country on acreage less than farm acreage, are purely residential, therefore the term ‘rural residential’ feels more appropriate. And then there are the large acreages of farmland. Three distinct types of residential properties in which one rule cannot apply to all, given their differences.

As some will know, my issue with the Property Standard bylaw is that it does not limit the number of vehicles allowed on any one rural property. Now, in itself, this is a problem not easily resolved, however, when the number of used, wrecked and old vehicles reaches a number such as 19 on one particular property, there is a need to ask why.

This is where good Property Standard bylaws come into place with a bylaw officer willing to enforce them.   Now let us see what the hard-working committee advising council has come up with.

Sandra Small Proudfoot , 

Mono, Ontario

Readers Comments (0)