Uncategorized

Property bylaw is not a weapon against owners: mayor

July 24, 2025   ·   0 Comments

Written By JAMES MATTHEWS

Mono could save one heritage structure or lose six that will possibly be reduced to rubble on the Anderson Farm property.

Deputy Mayor Fred Nix said he understands the Heritage Advisory Committee’s recommendation to maintain designation on the aged farm structures. But he has a concern regarding bestowing heritage status on the farm property.

Council passed a bylaw that designated the Anderson Farm under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act on Nov. 14, 2023. The property owners objected to the designation, and council considered the objection prior to passing the designation bylaw.

The owners appealed the designation to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) on Dec. 22, 2023. A hearing date has not been set for the appeal as the owners and the town have been working to reach an amicable resolution.

Then council heard in June from Tamara Rebanks and James Appleyard who suggested relocating one of the designated buildings to their Mono property. The owners of the Anderson Farm support that effort, according to a report to council.

The Anderson Farm includes six buildings: the main house, a three-building barn complex, a cottage, and a milkhouse. The proposal is to disassemble the cottage, move it about 1.5 kilometres from Airport Road to their 5th Line EHS property.

The owners of the Anderson Farm, the Thind family, have expressed their support for the project. Rebanks and Appleyard would undertake this at their own expense and have Dean McLellan Stonework oversee the project with the goal to faithfully reassemble the structure. The project would maintain the exterior appearance. 

Council held an in-camera discussion following its meeting with Rebanks and Appleyard to consider how the proposal would affect the appeal before the OLT.

“My concern is that if the designation goes ahead as we had originally intended, I think it was four buildings, there’s no obligation on the part of the landowner to fix those buildings up,” Nix said.

Some of those structures need a lot of work to be restored.

To boot, he said the town’s legal bill for the matter having been elevated to the OLT could be as high as $50,000.

“Here’s my concern,” Nix said. “Let’s suppose we go ahead, we keep the designation, we spend the money on legal, and we win. The landowner isn’t required to do anything. So 30 years from now, we may have designated a pile of rubble and a pile of stones.”

The offer by Rebanks and Appleyard to remove the property’s stone cottage and relocate it stone by stone will save at least one of the structures.

Nix said he respects the heritage committee’s work, but he isn’t willing to get behind the Anderson Farm recommendation.

“Unless you could twist my arm, I am no willing to take it,” he said.

Councillor Elaine Capes broached the town’s property standards bylaw that makes homeowners accountable for the upkeep of properties.

“I’m just letting you know that it’s not true they can leave it and let it fall down,” Capes said. “We should have probably acted on this sooner rather than later.”

The deterioration of one of the structure’s roof was plainly evident when the committee first turned eyes toward the farm, she said.

And then there’s the provincial heritage legislation that makes preservation of such structures a council duty, she said.

Coun. Melinda Davie said everybody on council had been adamant about the importance of preserving the farm’s structures as a group.

Mayor John Creelman asked that staff look into how much cost would be incurred to pursue the matter at the OLT level.

Fred Simpson, the town’s clerk, said hiring an expert to compile a heritage report on the property came with a price tag of about $10,000.

“Over and above that would be cost for someone from that firm to provide witness evidence at an OLT, plus the cost of legal to pursue at the OLT,” Simpson said.

He pegged the cost to be at least about $20,000 and possibly significantly more. 

While council has supported the heritage committee, Creelman said there was never an opportunity to salvage and reconstruct one such structure.

“Had that been on the table at the time, we might have had a different determination,” he said. “But it was not.”

Supporting the committee’s recommendation could mean the town will spend a lot of money either winning or losing at the tribunal.

“And the end result is the same: We end up with a pile of rubble either way,” Creelman said.

But now there’s the novel suggestion that one of the structures could be saved.

“I think it’s groundbreaking,” he said of Rebanks’ and Appleyard’s proposition.

Capes, who is a member of the heritage committee, said the property’s historical value is in the collection of the structures at the same site they have been for 150 years.

Taking cottage structure from the site removes it from the public’s eye, she said.

“And it won’t become a pile of rubble because we can use our Property Standards Bylaw to have that roof repaired,” she said.

“I do not believe that the bylaw can force them to spend any money on it,” Creelman said. “It can fine them for having a derelict building.”

And then: “I don’t know of any municipality that is behaving that way toward its residents.”

Council decided to direct staff and the town’s lawyer to negotiate a settlement with the property owners. The heritage designation will be removed from all structures except the site’s cottage and steps will be undertaken to facilitate the relocation of the cottage.

Readers Comments (0)