💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
Ontario set to veto ban on clotheslines
TheStar.com - Ontario - Ontario set to veto ban on clotheslines

RON ALBERTSON/THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR FILE PHOTO
Laundry hangs to dry on an outdoor clothes line. April 18, 2008
Robert Benzie
Peter Gorrie
Staff Reporters

Ontarians will soon be able to air their linen in public.

Premier Dalton McGuinty is to announce today that clotheslines can no longer be banned in subdivisions or almost anywhere else in the province.

In a bid to curb the use of energy-sucking dryers, the new regulation will overrule neighbourhood covenants – part of the mortgage agreement between many developers and homebuyers – that outlaw clotheslines because they're considered unsightly.

The regulation, to take effect today, will not only prohibit new bans but also wipe out most that already exist, a provision that angered the province's building industry.

It will apply to free-standing and semi-detached homes and most row houses.

Highrise condos and apartments won't be affected for now. The province wants more consultation about them to deal with safety and other concerns.

"The premier wanted to move quickly on this because it's a simple way to help families save money and help to save the environment," said a government official. "We're always looking for opportunities to help people find ways to conserve energy and fight climate change."

The announcement will come as Toronto Hydro launches a giveaway of 75,000 clotheslines through four retail chains.

Each Saturday and Sunday from April 26 to May 11, retractable lines for indoor or outdoor use, worth $13 to $15 each, will be handed to the first 500 shoppers at some Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Costco and Zellers locations. Details can be found at torontohydro.com.

Dryers account for 5 to 6 per cent of Ontario's household electricity demand. An average machine consumes about 900 kilowatt-hours of energy each year and results in the discharge of up to 840 kilograms of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Each dryer adds about $90 a year to a household's electricity bill.

The new regulation comes under the province's Energy Conservation Leadership Act, which empowers the government to remove barriers to conservation, including covenants and municipal bylaws.

McGuinty's move, following a 60-day consultation period, was urged by many elected municipal officials and environment groups.

Ontario's chief conservation officer, Peter Love, recommended overriding the bans last November. Across North America, the issue has spawned an advocacy movement known as "Right to Dry."

But the group that represents the province's housing industry said the regulation should not be retroactive.

All new developments could be clothesline-friendly but existing bans should not be overturned, said Victor Fiume, past-president of the Ontario Home Builders Association and general manager of Oshawa-based Durham Homes.

"It's taking away a right from people who knew (a ban) was in place and purchased a home because of that," Fiume said.

Clothesline bans are imposed in 20 to 30 per cent of the province's subdivisions, and are part of the legally binding contract between builder and buyer, he said. "Is this what government should be doing – overturning contracts signed by parties voluntarily?

"It's a slippery slope to arbitrarily remove a covenant between builders and buyers."

Instead of an "arbitrary" government move, it would be better if opponents of the bans sought a court ruling against them. But that has never happened, he said.

In any case, Fiume said, the new regulation is a non-issue because few people will use clotheslines in any case. "With today's lifestyle, no one has the time or inclination to hang their clothes outside to dry."

The new regulation is just a first step, said Chris Winter of the Conservation Council of Ontario. "The overwhelming majority of people say it's a good move and are solidly behind it. That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority will dry every piece of clothing on a clothesline. But this is a start."

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
Imagine that: Ontario now. But Arizona won't address it with all our sunshine. Thanks for sharing DJ!
GloriaM (North Carolina)
Posts: 829
Posted:
It may be coming here to the good USA as well. There is already talk of this in the Federal level.
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
I always found it amusing the President of the HOA had a a standalone permanent clothline in his yard, visible to the neighborhood, in violation of the CCR's. Really set a good example! Guess he will no longer be in violation...not that they bothered to enforce the CCR's anyway. One of the reasons we decided not to join the HOA because once they do decide just imagine the nightmare of selective enforcement, lawsuits etc. Not something we wanted to pay the costs to fix!
HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
DJ - you can choose not to join? Is this a voluntary HOA? - obviously not a mandatory one.
Unusual to see a voluntary one with fines etc. Would tend to make the recipient un-join quickly.
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
Harold, no, it isn't a voluntary one. It is one where the developer and his lawyer apparently didn't know how to structure a HOA. They sold 34 of the ~111 homes BEFORE registering the CCR's on title. Our lawyer discovered this during a dispute we had with the developer over another of his 'errors' where he basically promised all homeowners would have access to the beach along Lake Ontario but then screwed that up causing the lakefront homes to have sole access to the beach.

Here you can only registered CCR's on title to property you own, and since he sold the 34 lots he couldn't register the CCR's after the fact. Some of the 34 decided to join, in part imo because the interim HOA board lied or mislead these individuals as they approached them individually and told them a variety of stories to 'convince' them to join. We know because when the interim board refused to hold a group meeting so all could hear the same story and be provided the facts we decided to hold a meeting in our yard and during that meeting some of the residents conveyed what they had been told to try and get them to join.
HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906
Posted:
Thanks for the clarification. Unusual situation. Sounds like a real can of worms with some having to comply and others not.
Are those that did join under false information able to opt out again - since you said you can only record deed restrictions on proprety you own, that would mean those owners had to have recorded the CC&Rs against their property and was not done by the HOA? I assume since those who bought their homes with the CC&Rs already recorded cannot remove them, but since those other owners recorded it themselves, can they also remove it?
Was the promise of beach access in writing to all buyers? Your developer was a ding-a-ling and had an even worst attorney.
DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798
Posted:
Can of worms is right Harold! Picture a HOA with homes scattered throughout, some in, some out, as far as CCR's.

"Are those that did join under false information able to opt out again - since you said you can only record deed restrictions on proprety you own, that would mean those owners had to have recorded the CC&Rs against their property and was not done by the HOA?"

Homeowners were asked to sign legal papers to allow the HOA/developer's lawyer to register the CCR's on their properties. Once registered CCR's cannot be removed just the same as any other HOA unless the HOA were dissolved I suppose. A homeowner could argue they were mislead/lied to so it would be up to the court to deal with that.

The one concession the developer made was it was his lawyer who was going to register the CCR's for the HOA for any people who wanted to 'join'.

The carrot was the clubhouse, the cost of which was included in the cost of all our homes. By not joining we don't get our 'share'. Since the cost wasn't broken out in the house price we could have sued the developer but we just wanted to wash our hands of his mess.

So far it appears the CCR's still remain unenforced so there have been no conflicts (homeowner vs hoa, lawsuits claiming selective enforcement) on that front.

There are many other possible legal problems with this whole situation ie. Was a vote of the membership required to admit 'new' members? Cause it didn't happen. One could argue the developer always intended to include them but a good lawyer for a homeowner who joined after the fact, or one of the original HOA members could turn the whole situation upside down in a court of law.

All imo.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here