At its August 13 meeting, Lake of Bays Council passed a resolution placing a 180-day moratorium on the issuance of road license agreements for all existing private roads and driveways on unopened municipal road allowances.
The moratorium will provide affected residents an opportunity to attend a public meeting and express their concerns about the requirements, which will then be taken into consideration by the municipality, according to Mayor Terry Glover
The moratorium does not apply to new development or newly constructed access to private property, as road license agreement requirements will continue to apply to those.
The program, as Glover referred to the municipality’s license of occupation requirement for using unopened road allowances, has to date been primarily triggered by planning submissions such as an application to operate a short-term rental. It has not been positively received by many of those affected, or those who will be affected, because it requires that they provide a survey of the road allowance, that they insure the municipal property for liability in the amount of at least $5 million, that they pay an annual fee to the Township and, in some instances, that the road allowance be brought up to standards, standards that are unique in every situation and dictated by the municipality—in order to ensure emergency vehicles can get through.
Glover maintains that the requirements are necessary to ensure the municipality does not face liability issues, but Lake of Bays Councillor Nancy Tapley brought forward a notice of motion at the Aug. 13 council meeting to establish a moratorium on the requirements, noting that the Township did not solicit input from those who would be affected and said it was put in place too quickly and it represented an exorbitant cost for some people.”We’re forcing people into LOCs (License of Occupations), which are not cheap, and every year it continues, and we all know prices go up, they never go down…”
Tapley suggested a longer moratorium, but Glover, later in the meeting, pushed for 180 days instead. The initial motion would’ve also allowed applications already in progress to proceed but staff suggested the moratorium be placed on everything to make it easier.
Councillor Jacqueline Godard said she agreed with a moratorium. “I was just wondering if we have time to do another public meeting on this. Would staff have time,” she asked. Glover responded: “So today’s a public meeting; however, no one asked to speak, but yes, we could have another public meeting.”
Councillor Mike Peppard said he also agreed with a moratorium and suggested that the issue be revisited and then a public meeting be held.
Glover, who said councillors needed to give proper direction to staff, asked: “Exactly why do we need to pause it?” Tapley responded: “I think we need to pause it because this was brought on too quickly. It blindsided me completely. I had no idea this was coming… and we didn’t have enough time to discuss it. I imagine it halfway blinded staff as well. We’re writing policies after the fact… it should be the other way around. Staff should have ample time to do their jobs. There shouldn’t be a rush, and they should have lots of time to do their job with input from the public. There was no input from the public,” she added.
Tapley also questioned why such an excessive amount of liability insurance is required. “Are we asking something that is ridiculous to ask and expensive to ask of our public? We need to have more discussion on this,” she said. Applause from the audience at that point solicited a warning from the mayor, who said he would shut down the meeting. It would be the second warning while the issue was being discussed. There were about a dozen people in attendance to hear council discuss the subject.
Long-time residents say they have been using unopened road allowances to get to their property for many years, and it’s never been a problem. Glover has maintained that the use creates a liability issue for the entire municipality, but those who oppose the requirement argue that there is no evidence of any liability issue ever occurring on unopened road allowances in the Township of Lake of Bays.
Glover was on CBC radio the morning before the council meeting and indicated that no one had contacted him about the issue. Resident Peter Ham, who lives on Billie Bear Road, said he was amazed. He brought the interview to Doppler’s attention and said he had spoken via telephone to the mayor at his Township office three times about the issue and knows of others who have as well. Resident Linda Mullins, who lives on Pine Lane Road, said the mayor had received emails of objection from several residents on that road, including her son (Doppler was copied on two of those emails).
Glover also described to the CBC the concerns expressed by residents as a small group of vocal people who he said were good at getting media attention. He further said social media created misconceptions in the community, although he did not indicate what those misconceptions might be.
Doppler has heard from four residents who expressed concern with the municipality’s requirements. They have recently created a private Facebook group, which organizers say has 112 members. A petition is also circulating, which, as of August 13, 2024, had been signed by 567 people (see below).
Glover told those present at the council meeting that the issue is not going away. “This happened way before all of us were ever sitting here, and then the government decided to say, the provincial government decided to say, Ok municipality, you’ve got to deal with this issue, and that’s why we’re dealing with this issue, and then I also want to say that as the Mayor of the Township of Lake of Bays, my job is to protect the best interests of all residents in the Township of Lake of Bays. So this issue affects folks on private roads that may or may not have an issue with a road allowance,” he said, adding that ten groups have signed on “to the package, and we have five in the process… I also want to state that this is going on all over. You can go on the FOCA (Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ Association) website and find out, there’s actually insurance companies reaching out saying we can help too,” said Glover, referring to claims that insurance companies would not insure property that does not belong to the residents.
“This is a small percentage of people that are on private roads, not all roads, so I’ve had to speak at cottage associations about this, and none of them are affected by this, and so people are looking at me because, of course, it’s got a ton of social media attention and that’s due to the finesse of a small group that are good at that, and that’s great,” he told councillors.
He also said the agreements with property owners will vary. “Because there’s all kinds of situations that will be different. Some will have wetlands, some will be quite lengthy, there might be all kinds of things… There’s so many different things that I’ve learned about. They could just make this go away for them, but they need to contact us. So I would suggest that Councillor Tapley, and Lake of Bays Association and a couple of others that wanted some sort of a moratorium, I’m suggesting 180 days… so in 180 days that gives an awful lot of time for people to stop and, you know what, you really need to read the facts… I’ve come across groups calling me and saying what about this and this and this—they’re all on that fact sheet that’s on the website.”
Glover said a public meeting could be held about 90 days into the moratorium, “where if anybody wants to come and make comments, we’ll take their comments, and we’ll look at them…”
Councillor George Anderson declared a conflict at the meeting and recused himself from discussions related to the Towship’s requirements for the use of parts or entire unopened road allowances to get to private property because he owns property that would be subject to such an agreement.
You can watch the council meeting Here.
Read the information about Roads License Agreement requirements on the Township website Here
Read information about purchasing the unopened road allowance (new) Here
Hear Lake of Bays Mayor Terry Glover talk about the issue on CBC Here
The petition by residents Here and a related story below:
Lake of Bays residents up in arms over required access agreements
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
A very fair summary of what happened. I wrote to council documenting precisely why I cannot sign the RLA, referencing specific terms in the by-law. None of these were addressed at council. The reason no delegation to council request has been made is straightforward: the Township’s procedures bylaw stipulates that only one delegation can be heard for one by-law. As only a minority of residents have yet been contacted by the Township regarding the RLA, our taxpayer group considers it important to broadly consult before using this single opportunity to speak. We have therefore sent individual letters, made phone clos to address specific points pertinent to our partticular roads. Please note that in his CBC interview the Mayor mischaracterized the issue as one pertaining only to “private roads”–this is incorrect, road allowances are in fact PUBLIC and by statute are public highways accordint to the Municipal Act 2001. The township has many such road allowances that were created for public use to access lands. To impose fees on private residents to survey, improve, maintain, use and insure public property is simply preposterous–we pay property tax like everyone but receive few services: no water, sewage, garbage, road maintenance of any sort, road signage (for speed), etc. How is this reasonable?
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Based on yesterday’s Council meeting I have grave concerns that the Mayor has already made up his mind to push forward with this egregious unfair Road License Agreement no matter how it affects the Taxpayers. It does not affect him, and he wants to save face and he will override the Council, with his power.
The agreement will not just affect the Taxpayers financially it will take away our rights and choice. It is total Government overreach.
*A 10 year agreement with no option to challenge it Legally, or in any other way.
*Municipality has the right to decide who you sell your property to.
* Municipality can change the terms, or requirements or fees whenever they wish.
Are we living in Canada?Doesn’t sound like a free Democracy? Does it?
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
My opinion is that Lake of Bays has tendencies that always seem to lead to big growth in regulation, big growth of government, big fee increases, big budget/tax increases and stepping ever further into citizens lives. Just seems like such a bleak vision for the future. They spend our money so freely, unlike any private business or individual would ever consider doing. 22.2% budget increase from 2023 ($13.0M) to 2024 ($15.9M), is that honestly the direction people want to go?
Also, Mayor Glover should consider engaging with citizens in the most public social media forums, it might lead to productive discussions and solutions without all the bureaucracy.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
In the CBC radio interview of August 13th, Mayor Glover suggests that “everybody shouldn’t be paying for every little thing” in the municipality. Then I would counter that as a taxpayer I shouldn’t have to pay for water & septic services in urban areas like Huntsville, as I personally pay for all water & septic facilities at my residence.
Why should I pay for garbage pick-up for others in town when I have to deliver trash to the transfer station, on days when it’s open, or why I have to pick up other’s trash that is left on our private road on days when the transfer station is closed?
Nor should I have to pay for every little thing the folks in Baysville or Dorset want.
Does anyone have ALL the data on who this affects? Mayor Glover suggests this affects a “very, very small percentage” of the population. I don’t believe they have done the full analysis of all the affected roads & road users. Our private road is NOT on their list, yet I know from surveys that it crosses unopened road allowances. No-one from the Township has reached out to us. So of course, most property owners (15-18) on this private road are not aware that this could affect them. So of course, they aren’t hearing from people.
“Misinformation”, claims Mayor Glover! Using rising liability insurance is an ill founded boondoggle.
On the surface this is another cash grab for deposit to general revenues.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
This government overreach needs to stop. The mayor and council should be ashamed of the harm caused to their constituents, these people were elected by the people, to represent the people, working for the people, not insurance companies. Not only will this be remembered in the upcoming 2026 election, for those looking to further their career in politics, this will be their legacy and will be attributed them. Do what is right…
The mayor is trying to make a two-tiered Township, assumed roads supported by everyone, accessible to everyone and the lower class, an unassumed road, open for everyone but paid for by the few.
This second class, privatized public road, is the the start. The Township has legislation to force this for all roads, be aware and be warned….
Your taxes go up, but you are getting less and less service.
Finally, we look forward to the promised “town hall” discussion with the mayor and councillors on this issue.