There are some very upset residents in the Township of Lake of Bays.
Last month, the municipality enacted a bylaw with zero consultation or warning, noting that all residents who use an unopened road allowance to access their property or make improvements on the same will have to enter into a costly Roads License Agreement with the municipality.
A closer look at the agreement on the Township’s website indicates that residents using an unopened road allowance must pay for the survey of the road, which could cost several thousands of dollars. It also requires that they pay an application fee of $350.00 for simple applications (under 30m with minimal impact) or a complex application fee of $650.00 (over 30m and/or significant impacts). Other requirements include an insurance policy with liability coverage of not less than $5,000,000.00 “with respect to liability to any persons using the road for the duration of the agreement,” and an annual fee of $250.00.
Lake of Bays resident Brigitte Lavoie owns property on Pine Lane in Dorset. She said she is one of about ten residents who share an unopened road allowance to access their property.
“They require upgrading the road to standards that are unachievable—an 8 per cent grade, for instance. We have a hill that’s at a 12.5 per cent grade. In order to achieve an 8 per cent grade it would require blasting… and that’s just one of the issues. There are all kinds of requirements like putting in drainage and putting in culverts,” said Lavoie, noting that the costs would be exorbitant. “We estimate that for us, it would be a minimum of about $100,000 worth of work. There’s nobody here that has the deep pockets to be able to manage that.”
She argued that not only would the residents not own the road, but they would have to upgrade to the standards dictated by the municipality, which she said are not stipulated in the agreement. “They are written on the Lake of Bays website in their frequently asked questions series and have changed over time. So they expect you to sign a contract, but the terms are variable and unclear. For the most part, they haven’t visited the roads, and they’re coming up with one-size-fits-all standards.”
Lavoie alleged residents have been threatened and told that they could lose access to their properties and bulldozers could be brought in if they don’t sign. “They’ve threatened…and made good on denial of short-term rental applications if they don’t sign this agreement.” She accused the municipality of applying the bylaw on a prejudicial basis because it is being triggered by applications such as short-term rental licenses. She believes there are approximately 69 roads that fall under the new bylaw. “They have contacted only a handful of people. So they’re rolling this out really slowly, and what we need to do, and what we are doing, is reaching out to all those other residents,” she said. “What the municipality has really missed is that if they force us into this agreement, at extortionist costs, more people are going to have to rent out their homes in order to be able to afford to pay it,” she added.
Peter Ham owns property on Billie Bear Road in Lake of Bays. He travels about 66 feet on a laneway he shares with four other property owners to get to the entrance of his property. He maintains that the Township should be proving ownership of the land and get it surveyed, particularly if they claim it belongs to the Township, and they will force him and his neighbours to sign a road license agreement to use it. He also said the municipality does not have a mechanism in place to sell an unopened road allowance to more than one property owner.
The other issue, said Ham, is that if a resident enters into a road agreement, the municipality will not allow them to restrict access, which means they are taking on liability not just for their own use but for everyone else’s use, including ATVers and campers.
“They want me to insure property I don’t own… what if these campers start a fire and burn down the whole forest? I’m legally responsible now.” He said there are many who are currently afraid to contact their insurance provider for fear that their premiums will automatically go up. He said he’s heard of people being quoted up to $10,000 annually. “I mean, what homeowner could afford these types of premiums? I mean, if the Township were willing to transfer the property to me and allow us to restrict access, we’d probably be finished with all of this, but there are other people who are more than affected by this with things like having to bring their roads up to standards,” said Ham who said he has been living on his property for 26 years.
“If they can retroactively restate any bylaw to affect each and every individual who ever purchased property in this Township… this is just the tip of the iceberg… It’s open season on the attacks of individuals. Who is next?” He also said none of those ratepayers affected will be able to sell their properties until the issue is resolved.
The municipality maintains that its insurance premiums have gone up significantly and that if something were to occur on unopened road allowances, the entire township would be impacted.
“The Township requires residents to sign Roads License Agreements (RLA) to reduce potential risk and liability for the Township and, by extension, all municipal taxpayers. Currently, if a claim occurs on these roads, the Township is liable for a road it did not assume, creating significant liability for the Township and ratepayers.
“This initiative is a direct response to skyrocketing insurance premiums across Ontario due to multi-million dollar liability-related court cases. The Township now pays over half a million dollars in insurance premiums every year, which is four times higher than in 2015. To minimize the assessed risk of liability by insurance providers and keep premiums as low as possible, staff report on measures taken by the Township to mitigate the risk of potential claims. These license agreements are among the measures the Township has implemented in recent years to protect taxpayers against potential claims and the associated rising insurance costs,” according to Lake of Bays Mayor Terry Glover in email correspondence.
But Ham questioned why the municipality does not put up signs stating ‘use at own risk’ to limit liability rather than creating hardship for its ratepayers.
When asked whether the issue should have been considered when building permits were issued, the Mayor stated: “For new development on vacant land accessed via an unopened road allowance, a Roads License Agreement is required before a building permit can be issued. License agreements have been around for decades under the previous name “unassumed road improvement agreements” and they were primarily focused on new construction and/or new uses not existing development.”
Doppler asked the Mayor whether residents impacted could purchase the unopened road allowance. He said, “Currently, staff are in the process of creating a policy to purchase certain types of unassumed road allowances. Until this occurs a RLA is required to protect the municipality and the ratepayer.”
Glover was also asked how fair it is to expect residents to enter into an agreement with the Township for the use of unopened road allowances when they don’t really know what the road standards required will be.
“Our recent webpage on Roads License Agreements provides direction and information on road standards. Property owners are not required to maintain the road to full municipal standards but must keep it in a safe manner, free from hazards that could cause injury or damage. The standards listed revolve around common-sense concerns to ensure user safety and allow emergency services to access properties when needed. Township staff will review the unopened road allowances and if there are concerns/issues noted then the holder of the License will be notified. Examples of issues that Township staff may deem as safety concerns may include potholes, fallen trees, rocks, or debris blocking passage, collapsed culverts or drainage crossings in poor repair. For more details, view the webpage’s section called ‘What standards must the road meet, and who determines if those standards are being upheld?’
“As to blasting: Every road will come with its own unique situation. Major changes like blasting are rarely required to meet basic road safety standards and ensure access for emergency services. Staff are available to help property owners understand what is required for their particular situation, and site visits are available, provided the survey work has been completed to ensure staff are reviewing only the sections that pertain to the RLA. Please see the next answer for more details.”
The Mayor added that “throughout this process, staff have been available for a site visit if and when required. Typically, this cannot happen until after the application has been submitted and the field survey work is completed to ensure staff are reviewing only the sections that pertain to the RLA. It’s important to note that applying for an RLA is not the same as signing the final agreement. Property owners, through the process of applying and acquiring a survey, will have the ability to understand the extent of potential work required to ensure the road is safe before entering into a legal agreement with the Township.”
Residents say have been accessing their properties for years without any issues. When asked about the existing historical use of these unopened road allowances to access their property, Glover responded: “The only legally allowed historical use of these road allowances is if a legally granted right-of-way or easement over the Township unopened road allowance was identified on the private property owner’s title. If this is the case, the property owner will be required to provide proof to the Township that a right-of-way or easement is part of the title to their private property. Private property owners cannot claim prescriptive rights over public land owned by the Township.”
Asked if the municipality planned to assume the road allowances if they were brought up to standards by private property owners, he said: “No, the Township does not intend to assume these private roads. Aside from Council approval being required for the assumption of any roads, the standards for Township-maintained roads are significantly higher than those set for private roads under the RLA, making them unsuitable for municipal assumption.”
In terms of the hardship the bylaw is creating for property owners in the municipality, Glover said: “We understand the concerns and effect this has on residents in Lake of Bays who do not live on Township-maintained roads, however, It’s important to understand that the implementation of Roads License Agreements is primarily for the protection of all taxpayers in the Township. The municipality has taken steps to communicate and work with residents on this issue. Ample time has been and is provided between the identification of roads and the requirement to enter into an RLA. The creation of a comprehensive FAQ resulted directly from listening to and engaging with affected residents.”
However, property owners maintain the bylaw is causing grave financial hardship. They said the municipality has a responsibility to protect all of its residents and have vowed to seek legal advice and make this an election issue if it is not resolved.
Ham warned that although not all residents affected by the bylaw have yet been contacted, they will be affected at some point.
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
In my opinion, if the township is now worried about liability, then they should have never approved building permits along their un-assumed road allowances. This is a problem of their own making. It stands to reason that if the township wants to now make improvements, they should use some of the fees and tax dollars they already collect. Alternatively, as others have mentioned they could put up un-assumed road signs and allow the residents to carry on with what they have already been doing for many years; maintaining the un-assumed roads themselves, on their own dime – to the benefit of the township.
How many of the mayor, council and Township administration staff have signed a road license agreement, meeting all of the excessive standards and lopsided, punitive clauses?
Bet you none. I am sure if the mayor or councillors used an unassumed road to access their property, a fair solution would have been in place long ago.
They should lead by example, sign our agreement, pay for a portion of upgrades to the public road, share in the maintenance of the public road, insure the public road, assume a portion of the liability, still keeping the road open for full public access.
They would have to pay their taxes and top of that pay for
Survey $10,000.
Bring the road up to their standards? over $100,000 maybe more?
Annual fee $250.
Join a Road Association $10,000.
Lawyers fees$$$ who knows how much?
Ongoing maintenance $$$
Would they pay this? Would they sign the agreement?
No they wouldn’t
How can the town ask residents to insure a road they don’t own? It’s like asking people to insure their home and then let strangers come into their backyard….
Well this is a great way to drive businesses, and property purchases far, far away.
I have been enjoying muskoka for years now, and never once had an issue on unassumed roads, nor have I seen anyone else.
What would happen to the beautiful forest, if these (minor as the mayor stated) adjustments were made? What is the environmental impact? What about those rare cases where blasting is needed to level the road? You have given no suggestions on how the average citizen is going to pay for surveyors, the actual road, or the blasting.
We all pay taxes that fund our roads, asking us to now survey and build those roads is nothing short of insanity.
If it an issue of too many accidents, or an increase, then show the proof of that, long before asking the basic person to fund the roads.
Also Mayor Terry Golver, how is three months notice until full compliance a timely way to inform the owners? I ask you this here as you don’t seem to be responding to anyone reaching out to you.
If this continues, you can thank this road agreement and the mayor for turning a beautiful place EVERYONE should get to enjoy into a ghost town.
This is just ridiculous. The township should not be pawning off their responsibilities of keeping up roads, onto the residents. These residents pay taxes to this town so that the town can do exactly that. And now the town wants to make them sign a contract (that can be changed at any time) to spend thousands of dollars of the residents money to survey, repair, widen, maintain and finish the roads. How is this allowed? Also what are the environmental implications for all this maintenance??
The town says it’s due to the amount of traffic and accidents in these areas but yet they have no statistics or evidence that proves this to be true. How does such a rural area have so many traffic issues that they need the residents to step in? I live in a bigger city with a lot more traffic and accidents yet I don’t have to pay thousands to repair my roads and neither should they.
Residents have already maintained these roads for many years because the town has refused to do so themselves. This agreement is a huge slap in the face to the people that are actually taking care of this township.
Time to elect a new mayor and council that actually works for the people.
This nonsense, and other similar bylaws, like the requirement for an entrance permit, needs to be removed. This will not be forgotten.
Word is out with real estate agents and those outside the township that this is not a place to go or grow. If you are interested in opening a business, building or purchasing property, you should think twice while this mayor and council are in office.
I used to help a lot of the cottagers back in the early fifties when my Dad was building on the Lake of Bays. I was always amazed with the quarter mile of iron pipes that would be put together each spring. Running down the hill through the scrub and junipers, the cobbled lengths would culminate at a valve. Hung over a log or rock, turn the valve and fill your water crocks to be carried down to the cottages east of Whitehouse Lodge.
One guy I helped a lot was J.W. Armstrong who had a cottage right out on bald rock and nestled in some big old pines. The road always had the PRIVATE and USE AT OWN RISK signs on it, but people didn’t poke into everybody’s business as they do today. The road to JW’s cottage came off the gravel road and just disappeared into the bush.
There was little ‘upgrading’ done. Running with a mirror out too far could result in an adjustment being made. The zinger for me was the rock ridge that needed to be surmounted to get to road sections leading to various other cottages. Stretches of bald granite with some cement or blacktop thrown in a particularly nasty crevasse. Don’t go too fast or there could be less of your vehicle arrive at the cottage than you hoped. Mufflers were easily lost.
The drivers delivering for Huntsville Planing Mills were always sure to keep an extra chain on the load and the bear-traps singing tight. But they were always up for the challenge.
Those roads are still there and though there may have been lots of ‘improvements’ they are still pretty rugged. I guess the Township and the people who want to rent out their cottages, now want to be able to get everybody’s Lexus towing a twenty four foot glass boat with 350’Holy crap’ horsepower, to the water.
Unassumed Road signs should be hammered along all these old jewels. You could almost sell tickets to watch somebody drag a big hull, full length along an unyielding Hemlock.
I say ‘full length’ because some would likely not know they should stop.
Residents and taxpayers should have been engaged in discussions and decision making; this has been essentially forced on us with no notice or warning with deadlines and threats that made it almost impossible for us to acquire legal opinion.
If you do not comply with the excessive Road License Agreement the Township are threatening levelling trespassing charges, blocking access and a series of fines (1st offence, $1,000.00, 2nd offence up to $10,000.00, 3rd offence up to $25,000!!!).
These are being levied just to use roads that residents have long maintained on our own, at our own expense and now the ability to access our property is being threatened, literally.
The thing to note here is that the Municipalities such as Tay Township, Haliburton etc. are rolling out agreements similar to this one (though none as egregious as Lake of Bays) under different names such as Occupation agreements.
Lake of Bays has recently passed some By-Laws for Entrance Agreements and the way it is written it seems it can be applied to all properties. So many more property owners could be affected.
Where will it end?
In City’s none of us have to pay an Occupation permit or an Entrance permit or a Road License Agreement to access our properties. Liability for accidents would be far greater on a city street Why would these smaller center roads less traveled require such?
The Township has left these unassumed roads unattended in some cases for 40 to 50 years. Now they are trying to pass on these costs and download the maintenance to a few property owners, rather than to make a plan to upgrade the roads, assume and maintain them, like every other road in the Township.
The Township should make a project and tackle a few roads every year until they are all done.
Or sell the roads and remove any chance of liability.
I don’t own any property in Lk of Bays twp, but if I did I would tell the twp to go pound salt. You own the unopened road allowance, put up a sign that says use at your own risk. How many law suits have been filed from someone using an unopened road allowance? Just another tax grab!
Mayor has been unwilling to directly discuss concerns with taxpayers.
The LOB RLA is unreasonable because it requires that residents pay 100% of costs to use, survey, upgrade and insure Township–and therefore it should be deemed public– property.
What the Township should do is host a town hall meeting to get ahead of this because a single delegation to council simply can’t work — we are too many independent people, on different roads, with unique specifics so no one person can speak for everyone–the only umbrella we fall under is Township residents.
I listened to broadcast on CBC this morning and just wanted to add that we have neighbours in this situation who have travelled over “portions” of this road allowance for well over 60 years – and without incident!
Have to weigh in again, the Township narrative on these roads is infuriating:
“The Township requires residents to sign Roads License Agreements (RLA) to reduce potential risk and liability for the Township and, by extension, all municipal taxpayers. Currently, if a claim occurs on these roads, the Township is liable for a road it did not assume, creating significant liability for the Township and ratepayers.”
The Township approved of these roads, approved of subdivision plans, approved of building permits, performed inspections, approved of driveways, garages, etc. This continued mentioned of liability and lack of acceptance is not correct. The houses and roads were not constructed by renegade builders. The Township has been collecting added revenue without providing services and now speak of these properties as a liability. Selected property owners should not be on the hook for Township poor planning and management.
As stated before and by others (thank you!) these roads have been in service for years without issue.
What we can do:
1. Register to vote municipally— you can vote wherever you own property. Clearly we need a new council that will work for residents instead of unfairly scapegoating subsets of them.
2. Call/ write the Township and demand they repeal the bylaw and engage with residents on this issue. We need a full public town hall.
3. Take this to the province— the premier promised to “fix what needs fixing”. Ontario’s joint and shared liability model needs reform— tell your MPP to get to work. We can make this an election issue and if the conservatives won’t address the issue and fight for affordability in rural Ontario, the NDP will.
4. Municipal insurance’s rising costs stem
from many causes including cyber threats and extreme weather events ( forest fires being a huge concern in rural Ontario)— province needs to get involved to provide affordable options for Municipalities
It’s becoming ever easier to believe that some people lie awake at night, dreaming up creative things to do to tick off the people that pay their salaries !
Continuing on Brian’s track….
When there was only roadless bush everywhere in Ontario, road allowances were reserved to allow access to the lands being granted to settlers….for immediate use as needed, AND presumably, for needs in the future. They were efficiently and practically surveyed every two 100 acre parcels. They were either Provincially or Federally owned. ( they weren’t “granted” to the land recipients.) Some of those allowances were eventually assumed by various jurisdictions for the intended purpose. Thus our grid pattern of roads south of us, but due to terrain, AND a lesser need, not so prevalent here.
As Brian points out, at some point, presumably when population increased, Townships “organized”. Somehow in this process, the Twp. “assumed” certain powers/responsibility/OWNERSHIP ?…( ie. selling shore road allowances ! )
Although this would have involved lawyers, who is to say now, whether all that was done appropriately. Obviously lawyers are involved in this issue too….and that’s where it gets complicated. With due respect to experts in their field, we shouldn’t always be preoccupied with the “what ifs” and “worst case scenarios”
I’ve seen lots of “unassumed road” signs and there must be many hunt camps that have been accessed via unmarked, unopened road allowances with 4 wheelers for decades. (talk about liability )
I acknowledge that there is obviously a liability concern on the part of our Township staff…probably because of apocalyptic legal advice….and it may take some “outside the box” thinking to ease their minds. There can be no valid reason however, for them to attempt to burden their taxpaying clients with such a harsh/unempathetic solution to these concerns. ( for a start, most homeowner policies already have a generous liability coverage…so let’s rule out the liability excuse)
The lucrative lifetime annual fee annuity and the application fees (both of which just MIGHT increase in the future ! ) are laudable objectives for fundraising, but could simply be masking the fact that Lake of Bays has run out of signs that say ” Unassumed Road. Use at your own risk ”
Why not order some more signs and solve this thing. The property owners would probably not object to putting them up…according to Twp. specifications, of course.
Though a recent study claims that the average annual household income in LOB is over $ 90,000, ..really ??… I can imagine that this “policy” will cause unnecessary financial hardship for even “average” earners.
Maybe put up a sign in the office…”Let’s all work FOR the residents rather than AGAINST them”
Apologize in advance for the verbosity, but responses to the Mayors statements in the article are necessary.
1. Reason for the agreements insurance premiums rising.
Response:
The Township has not confirmed there has been any actual basis for implementing the excessive agreements other than insurance premiums going up, rather than actual accidents. As we all are aware since 2016 insurance premiums have skyrocketed, mine included, as well as inflation for other goods and services. I can confirm my increasing rates and others as well, have nothing to do with unassumed roads. The roads are public properties that must remain accessible, roads approved by the Township and must be insured regardless. This is just simply downloading and unfair targeted taxation.
2. Road Upgrade Requirements:
Response:
The Mayor appears to have glossed over the upgrades requirements that are extensive.
The Road Upgrade Standards below have been taken directly from the Township’s FAQ and I quote “For existing (prior to May 1, 2024) private roads/driveways for cottages/non-commercial properties located on Municipally owned property, including an Unopened Road Allowance:
Must have a minimum driving surface width of 3.0 metres.
Must allow oncoming vehicles and/or emergency vehicles to pass, either by providing sufficient road width or by having driveways and/or pull-offs spaced no more than 90 metres apart.
Must be constructed to support the weight of emergency vehicles.
Slopes must not exceed 8% over 15 metres, and curves and/or corners must provide adequate space and visibility for traffic and emergency vehicles.
Adequate space must be provided at the end of the road to facilitate emergency vehicle turnarounds.” (30 m x 30 m turning circle)
“Potholes or other major surface defects that could damage vehicles or cause loss of control.
Fallen trees, rocks, or debris blocking passage.
Collapsed culverts or drainage crossings in poor repair.”
We must all be aware that the License agreement that the Township is rolling out is not static.
Once the agreement is signed, the Township can dictate standards or modifications in the future. They can change the requirements at any time, without recourse or legal challenge.
If the agreement is signed and the initial upgrades are carried out there are no Township limitations for tomorrow and upgrades could be required to full municipal road standards.
Also not sure how building permits are issued for water access only or other new build properties without upgraded road access based on this logic.
3. Signing the Application Prior to the Agreement
Response: There is no guarantee that signing the application is not in any way not a legally binding. Such language is not provided in the application.
4. Historic Road Access
Response: These roads, subdivisions, buildings, driveways have all been accepted and approved by the Township. The narrative that this construction has been without approval is clearly false. The Township has not accepted these roads, but has been collecting revenue from the construction and the Township has seen an economic benefit for many years without providing services in return. These are public roads created by the Township and their errors cannot be corrected by targeting individuals for the benefit of the general public.
5. Ample Time for Enter into Agreements
Response: My letter identifying the requirement to enter into a license agreement was provided on March 23, 2024 with full compliance needed by May 17, 2024, noting a majority of residents on our roads had notices provided well after we received ours. So in that short period of time a full assessment of the 10 pages of the application and agreement documents, arrange for a survey, assess the road, coordinate with road users, legal and relator review, insurance, etc. That is not ample time for such a critically important, long term binding license agreement that once signed cannot be challenged.
6. Engagement of Residents
Response: My emails and correspondence with the mayor, councilors have had no response. Perhaps selective engagement, if that, would be more appropriate.
7. Implementation of License Agreements
Response: At a loss here as to the grave liability concerns that are supposed to be driving these agreements; as we note that the Township is only slowly implementing agreements once identified during the process for building permits, short-term rental license, shore road allowance sales, all leveraging the license agreements require to allow approvals. If this were such a concern all roads should have been identified, instead of the piecemeal approach.
Nothing unusual here: too much greedy government, looking for ways to pad their coffers at the continuous expense of area residents!
But ask them to do something for you, or to be an advocate on your behalf..”It’s not our job!”
Suddenly charging people hundreds and thousands of dollars for nothing sounds like something the District would do.
Those on Santa’s Village Road not only had a lot of trees cut down along the road, their view of the river blocked with giant metal guardrails (instead of see-through cables), gigantic bollards at the ends of the guardrails but then the District has the audacity to suddenly charge them hundreds and thousands of dollars more for “waterfront” when they are on the other side of the road.
Over regulation and typical over reaction by legal of risk. Self serving billing opportunity and an excuse to empire build within the municipality. The lawyers have been allowed to run amok and elected officials haven’t got enough data to make informed decisions. . What are the risk metrics? Shut this down.
For what it is worth, a comment from an old guy follows.
The side roads and concessions and lake shore road allowances were all created by the Province many years ago during the initial survey of the land. The purpose was to allow an individual to access their “lot”.
If you look at the layout of these road allowances they are on a grid system based on the original approximately 100 acre lot being 1320 feet by 3200 feet (these are approximate from memory. Check with a land surveyor for precision). With these concessions and side roads it is theoretically possible to reach any lot in the Province without having to cross private property.
Lake shore road allowances were created at the same time because those original surveyors realized that one cannot walk on water so they put these around every lake so when a person came to a lake while walking along a concession or side road they could continue around the lake.
The thing they did not consider was topography and due to the hills in Muskoka this lovely and logical grid simply does not work well as even a mountain goat would have trouble with many of the hills. This is true almost everywhere in Canada anyway. Deviations from this lovely plan are the norm.
The township never owned any of these right of ways initially as they preceded the existence of the modern township. Originally townships where “unorganized” and were simply a name used for a block of lots. Lake of Bays has amalgamated several of the “original” townships into one. Franklin, Sinclair etc. which are now called “wards” of the township. All of these right of ways were properly public and designed to allow public access to the land and this is the case to this day… (more or less and this is important)
I don’t know when the township usurped the right to control, charge a fee for, sell waterfront right or ways, and now charge fees to use public right of ways but they seem to have done this somehow when nobody was looking. I know it was never debated, nor could it be debated at local councils as the decision about all these right of ways should properly have come from the Province or maybe even Federal governments.
This is a case of extreme over reach caused by fear of lawyers and needs to be solved at a higher level than the local municipality. The local level is incapable of doing anything but reacting to fear and really should have no authority on any of these right of ways.
I may have a few historical details a bit wrong here, this is from my memory but I think if you check with a land surveyor or repute or the Province (assuming you can find someone there who knows anything and is willing to talk to you) you will find my memory is not totally inaccurate.
What the township is doing or trying to do now is not the solution. Like I said it is over reach driven by fear of some kind of legal lawsuit, a lawsuit that should never succeed if even allowed to be started.
ALL of our communities need to fight back on this!
The number of non maintained roads in Muskoka and Parry Sound districts are staggering. If this is implemented in Lake of Bays, how many other communities will ultimately be affected in the future?
The worst part is that these home owners have lived quite well and safely for decades with no issues. Most that live on private, non maintained roads have a community road alliance to ensure that their roads are well maintained – at their own cost. I know my community does!
This bylaw seems preposterous and a money grab from already heavily taxed residents who in some cases do not receive any amenities from the town due to their road status of being not being assumed.
We have to oppose this with all of our collective might!
Need less government!
Is there any insurance company that would actually provide insurance to an individual for property they do not own? Has the Township researched this? This seems ludicrous!
The Ontario Municipal Councillor’s guide provides directions to council on their exercise of municipal powers via bylaws.
In part, the guide suggests that municipal councils consider whether a bylaw will impose restrictions or hardships on a particular group of people, be received favourably by the community, and in general how a bylaw may affect the community.
Because there were no open public meetings and, no debate within council when these bylaw were passed, it is clear to me that council did not consider the guidance of the Ontario Government or willfully dismissed the impact of these bylaws on the public.
Source:
https://www.ontario.ca/document/ontario-municipal-councillors-guide/8-exercising-municipal-powers
Lake of Bays council wants me to insure land I do not own.
In the Jan 2023 council meeting it was decided that LOB would no longer maintain the Raven Lake landing primarily because of the liability issue of maintaining property the township does not own.
Why then is the municipality applying this double standard?