HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2011-01-20, Page 7THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2011. PAGE 7.
Things have been quiet in Auburn
lately. Everyone tucked in their
houses hibernating for the winter.
The bitter cold seems to deter
everyone from enjoying the great
outdoors and it has been very cold
the last few days.
Central Huron has a reminder for
dog owners to renew their tags on its
website. A late fee of $15, in
addition to the tag fee, will apply
after March 31. If you no longerhave your dog, please advise CentralHuron as soon as possible so thatyou are not invoiced for the tags.Proof of the dog’s annual rabiesvaccination is required. TheTownship of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (ACW) also requires that
tags are purchased before March 31
or a late payment fee will apply.
In light of recent incidents in the
village, dog owners should be aware
of the bylaws regarding the
behaviour and containment of pets.
Central Huron has limited
information on its website, simply
stating that the “bylaw clearly states
that an owner is responsible and
liable for the actions of their dog”.
No dog is allowed to “run at large”
or trespass on private property even
when on a leash. Any dog running at
large can be taken by the Animal
Control officer to the local pound.ACW has its “Dog Licensing andRegulating Bylaw” readily availableon its website. The language of thebylaw is clear and easy to read. Itstates that a dog found without a tagor running at large can beapprehended by the Animal Control
Officer and taken to the pound. The
owner may pick the dog up
(provided that the Animal Control
officer or the Municipality can find
the owner) but must pay a $50
administrative fee. After three days
in the pound the municipality
becomes the owner of the dog and
has the discretion to deal with the
dog as it sees fit.
A couple of terms in the bylaw are
little known: female dogs in heat
must be leashed or confined to a
building away from other dogs until
the heat has ended; dogs must be tied
or in a chained or fenced area that is
not within three feet of the property
line; if a dog is barking continuously
for one half hour and can be heard
by neighbours during the hours of 8
a.m. and 10 p.m. or for 15 minutes
continuously between the hours of
10 p.m. and 8 a.m. the owner is in
violation of the bylaw.
A vicious dog is defined in the
bylaw as “a dog that, without
provocation, attacked or bitten a
person or another animal or has
demonstrated a propensity to do so”.
The Animal Control Officer for
both ACW and Central Huron is
Robert Trick. He can be reached at
519-523-4387.
Constable Joanna Van Mierlo from
the Huron OPP has advised that if
there is an issue with a vicious dog
and a resident feels that they are in
danger, they can call the local OPP
detachment at 1-888-310-1122.There is an opportunity under theDog Owners Liability Act that theOPP can rely upon to lay chargesand effectively deal with thesituation.The next meeting of the AuburnPlayground Committee has been
scheduled for Feb. 24 at 7 p.m.
Anyone wishing to volunteer a bit of
spare time to help the committee
achieve its goal is welcome to
attend. Letters requesting
consideration during budget
deliberations have gone out to all
three municipalities and the Trillium
Application is nearly complete.
Future event planning will
commence on Feb. 24.
On Tuesday, Jan. 11, 17 members
of Knox UCW and guests met in the
church basement for their Christmas
Potluck luncheon, which had been
postponed in the stormy days of
December. The hostesses, Marilyn
Verbeek, Laura May Chamney, and
Marie Millian prepared a
meaningful devotional on Epiphany,
concentrating on the importance of
light in the Christmas season and in
our lives. Marilyn conducted a
Christmas trivia contest and a fun
gift exchange was held. President
Bernice Gross led the business
portion of the meeting. Members
contributed many items for Brenda
Empey to take on her mission trip
with FOTOCAN to work at an
orphanage in the Dominican
Republic in March. Decisions were
made regarding mission donations
for the year, with several local and
international groups benefitting. It
was an interesting and rewarding
afternoon for all who were able to
attend.
Zoning amendment incites
discussion at Central Huron
By KoreenMoss519-526-1060
kandkmoss@
sympatico.ca
PEOPLE AROUND AUBURN
NEWS
FROM AUBURN
The zoning amendment
application made by John and
Shirley Mallett returned for
discussion at the Jan. 10 meeting of
Central Huron Council, with
nothing changing.
The Malletts appeared at the
meeting to discuss the issue further
with council. Little, however, had
changed, as council seemed to
sympathize with the applicants, but
also acknowledged that their
decision-making hands were legally
tied.
After further consultation with
their solicitor at the Dec. 21 meeting
of Central Huron Council and the
Committee of the Whole (the Dec.
13 meeting was snowed out, so both
meetings were incorporated into
one) it was decided that they
couldn’t support the application
going forward.
The Hullett Ward family says they
simply want to build a home
on a property that has been in their
family for over 100 years to retire
in.
There are problems, however, with
Minimum Distance Separation
(MDS) pertaining to an adjacent
“barn” on their neighbour’s
property.
While there had been some reports
that it had been decommissioned,
whether the barn was still capable of
being a functional barn weighed
heavily on the situation.
In his initial letter of opinion,
solicitor Greg Stewart stated that he
didn’t think the barn was still able to
function, which would dismiss it
from MDS requirements.
Upon further research, however,
he advised council that it was his
opinion that the barn could function
and that MDS would be a factor.
Because Stewart “changed his
mind” the Malletts were upset and
asked council if they could get a
second (or third, in the Malletts’
eyes) opinion as to whether this barn
was actually a barn or not.
If it was properly decommissioned
and no longer capable of manure
storage, then MDS would not apply,
as it would be considered a storage
shed.
However, a closed session with the
municipality’s legal counsel at the
Dec. 21 changed the minds of
councillors, who felt they had to
follow Stewart’s advice, lest they get
tied up in a messy Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB) hearing
that they would have little chance of
winning.
Initially it was the opinion of the
Huron County Planning Department
that the neighbour’s structure was
indeed a functional barn, a claim
that has now been seconded by the
municipality’s legal counsel.
The Malletts made several
emotional claims, citing
conversations they had with their
neighbour in the past where they
said he was happy for them and their
decision to build a retirement home
on the property.
Shirley Mallett indicated that it
was her opinion that there was
something “personal” going on
between the Mallett family and the
family’s neighbour and she wasn’t
sure what that was. She said she
wasn’t sure what had changed since
the positive discussions the families
had earlier in the process.
Councillor Brian Barnim said that
because of how contested the
issue has been, there would be no
way that it wouldn’t end up in an
OMB hearing. It would just be a
question of who would file the
appeal.
“Huron County could take us to an
OMB hearing, the neighbours could
take you and us to an OMB hearing,
the province could take us to an
OMB hearing,” he said. “Either way,
it’ll end up at an OMB hearing.”
Barnim said this issue was part the
bigger problem of MDS and the
Provincial Policy Statement, which
is currently up for its five-year
review.
“This is about the Provincial
Policy Statement and MDS and
Toronto saying they know MDS
better than rural Ontario,” Barnim
said.
Shirley continued to discuss the
personal aspect of the issue that she
felt was present, saying that she felt
she had a right to know what the
issue was truly about.
“Just following the rules doesn’t
wash with us either. This is not about
a house and I think we’re entitled to
know what it’s really about,” she
said. “This has a really foul smell to
it.”
When the Malletts inquired as to
obtaining a second legal opinion,
Barnim felt their request was
warranted and made a motion to that
effect. The motion did not receive a
seconder to get it on the floor for
discussion, however, so the motion
simply died.
Barnim defended his motion by
saying that it would be worth the
extra money because an OMB
hearing could cost the municipality
“tens of thousands of dollars”.
The application was defeated, but
Barnim said it wouldn’t likely
be council that would make the
final decision, that it would be the
OMB.
Our 43rd Anniversary1968 2011
By Shawn Loughlin
The Citizen
Get entertainment
information on the
Entertainment section
of our
website at
www.northhuron.on.ca