Faced with costs of thousands of dollars for each property, Lake of Bay residents responded with angry social media posts and letters to their councillors, Bob Aaron writes.

In the wake of intense vocal opposition from local residents, the council of the Township of Lake of Bays has repealed its controversial road licence agreement bylaw. And in an admirable gesture, Lake of Bays mayor Terry Glover acknowledged the difficulties the bylaw had caused
and apologized to his constituents.

“One thing I haven’t said, and I think needs to be said,” Glover noted, “is that I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the hardships this may have caused, along with the frustration and uncertainty experienced by those affected.”

The council will now move to “start repairing relationships.”

Unassumed or unopened road allowances are typical for cottages throughout the Township of Lake of Bays around Huntsville.

Last year, the local council passed a bylaw requiring all property owners who access their homes or cottages by way of municipally-owned unassumed or unopened road allowances, or even dirt tracks, to enter into a road licence agreement, pay a fee of $300 to $600, obtain a land survey at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and obtain liability insurance for a staggering $5 million.

Annual fees after the first year would have been $250.

Failure to comply could have resulted in restricted vehicular access to an owner’s property.

The bylaw was based on what I think was a misinterpretation of a legal opinion by the
township’s lawyers.

Faced with costs of thousands of dollars for each property, local residents responded with angry social media posts and letters to their councillors.

In this column last July, I expressed the opinion that road licence agreements can only be required under provincial legislation if users want to make improvements to a road. Townships cannot require owners to enter into an agreement if they only want to use an existing road
without making improvements, and that’s where I think the bylaw made its fatal mistake.

Responding to numerous complaints about the bylaw, council held a public meeting in September, issued a 180-day moratorium on new agreements, and then ordered a staff report on the future of the licence program.

A new legal opinion was obtained by the municipality. It concluded that it was a “challenging situation” when the municipality seeks to restrict the common law right of passage by way of a road licence agreement where the unopened road allowance is the only access and where existing dwellings have been constructed with building permits.

Following the recommendations of the staff report, township council repealed the road allowance bylaw. It decided that existing driveways and roads on municipal road allowances or township-owned property, and those on existing plans of subdivision, will not require an agreement.

New access roads or driveways on township-owned land will still require an agreement to make improvements.

Owners who paid fees and incurred other expenses to comply with the repealed bylaw may apply for reimbursement.

In an online post, local resident Andrew Mullins wrote, “This was the right, fair and equitable decision for all. It also shows good governance, with our elected representatives doing their duty, working for all people. Road licence agreements can now fade off into the sunset,
hopefully never to be heard of again…”