WESTLOCK – At long last, Westlock County’s new community standards bylaw, a 28-page document that’s been in front of council repeatedly in 2022 and revised extensively since it was first proposed in May, is now law.
At their Oct. 11 meeting, councillors offered no debate and voted 6-1 (Coun. Stuart Fox-Robinson was opposed) to give Community Standards Bylaw 35-2022 third and final reading — at their Sept. 27 meeting, councillors voted 4-2 consecutively (Coun. Francis Cloutier was absent, while deputy reeve Ray Marquette and Fox-Robinson were opposed) to give the edict first and second readings, while unanimous consent was needed to get it to third reading that day.
In a follow-up interview, reeve Christine Wiese said she was pleased it was finally done and called it a positive piece of legislation as in the months between the first draft and now, she’s spoken to many residents who’ve been impacted by the municipality not having a good bylaw in place. The bylaw first appeared at the May 17 governance and priorities (GPC) meeting and was debated twice in June before ending up back in front of council at their Sept. 20 GPC meeting.
“There’s probably a little bit of tweaking that could still have been done but that could have taken months. So, I think this is a good start for something that I hope will help us build better communities. I’m impressed by it,” said Wiese. “To me I think it’s a cooperative effort. We need residents, community leaders and enforcement all on the same side.”
Wiese said during the “COVID years” more people have become isolated and many hamlets within the county have “become less desirable places to live.” She hopes the bylaw will set a standard that will not only help attract new residents but restore faith in the communities and maybe even encourage more civic pride.
“In a lot of our hamlets, the real estate prices are dropping and investment in businesses are evaporating. When you have damaged and deteriorating communities, it’s about more than just unsightly properties. It’s attracting unwanted activities like crime,” said Wiese.
“We need to be building healthy neighbouring relationships. It’s kind of like a prenuptial agreement. We all know what the agreement of living in a community is going to be and these are the standards all of us are going to live up to. And I think if someone is falling under those standards, then it’s a great way for neighbours to stop and ask and see if everything is OK and how can they all come together to help.”
Ultimately the document isn’t about someone’s grass being an inch or two too long, she continued, noting the first response for the county’s peace officers will be to work with residents. In past presentations, county community peace officer Sgt. Darcy DeVos called the former Unsightly Premises Bylaw 17-2012 “inadequate and antiquated” and said the new edict will offer a “streamlined approach” that will be more “efficient and effective” in addressing unsightly conditions that exist within the municipality and that adoption will “demonstrate council’s commitment to invest in quality of life by promoting safe, secure and peaceful neighborhoods, as stated in the third strategic priority.”
“I think what took us the extra time is that we didn’t want a document that focused solely on enforcement or prohibiting things. We really want to encourage and build healthy communities and to have our peace officers doing things like wellness check-ins,” said Wiese. “We need to have a clear and transparent expectation even just for common concerns within the county.”
At the end of September, DeVos told councillors that the document had gone through yet another round of legal review, recommended by council at the Sept. 20 GPC meeting, and a handful of minor changes were included in the final version.
Nuts and bolts
The edict covers everything from unsightly premises to residents’ obligations to maintain their property and littering — the full bylaw is available on the county’s website.
The document also carries a fine list, ranging from a low of $50 for panhandling, to a $150 ticket for bullying or encouraging it, to $250 fines for “open storage of industrial fluid” and holding a garage sale for four-consecutive days and a $10,000 fine for an “owner of a condemned building in excess of one year.”
The document also allows the county to enter a premises or property “to perform or complete the work necessary to remedy the violation of this bylaw, the costs incurred by the county to remedy the violation will be billed to the owner and will be amounts owing to the county.”
Ultimately, if the costs are not paid in the time specified by the county, they could be charged against the premises or property as a special assessment to be recovered in the same manner as other taxes.
