About three years ago we became concerned with the erosion taking place on our water front along the Muskoka River. We engaged a contractor who assured us that no permit was required as our project was landscaping. Following the construction of a decorative retaining wall and prior to any actual landscaping an individual complained to the by-law department that it didn’t appear that filter cloth had been used in the project. Town planner, Richard Clark, met with me to review the project, Mr. Clark suggested some modifications to the wall itself and proper landscaping may make the project acceptable and suggested that we apply for a minor variation, which we did. Following the foregoing a meeting of the committee of adjustment was held chaired by councillor Stone and a panel of 4 members, Mr. Stone indicated that the wall must be completely removed and without discussion indicated aggressively that the panel must vote to have the wall taken down, each member then, as they were told, voted that the wall must be removed. We have since spent considerable funds to defend our position, hiring a planner, engineer, landscape architect and lawyer, the town has also spend a great deal of taxpayer money. We very much appreciate the support we have received from the community. The project is now in the hands of the O.L.T.
Last afternoon I attended a planning meeting, one of the subjects brought forward was the issue of a rusty steel wall erected on the shore of Crescent Bay by a developer. Apparently the wall is too close to the water. Amazingly in spite of many objections by local residents the wall was approved and will remain in place subject to landscaping. Must say that I was impressed with councillor Morrison as he indicated that he had personally checked with a landscaper to inquire as to what could be done to cover the steel wall.
The question now arises, why is a long term resident and contributor to the Town of Huntsville denied the the opportunity to have a decorative retaining wall on his property when an out of town developer is approved to have a rusty steel wall on the shoreline of a beautiful lake? I would appreciate your comments.
Yours very truly,
G. Douglas Wilson.
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
Ohhhh. That was not clear, Doug. Yes. If they built without a permit, why in hell are they receiving different treatment??? EVERYONE should be playing by the same rules!
Here is a question.
When the “government” (whichever department it might have been) raised our lake nearly 5 feet, way back over 100 years ago now, they created erosion issues with some pars of shoreline, flooded others and did all kinds of “great stuff”. Never was the environment considered as far as my history mining can tell.
They also came up with a somewhat hair brained way of determining “where the lake shore was. Basically, with no allowance for the fact that the underwater topography may have changed, being under water for 100 years, they just go out to about 5 feet deep, measure back toward shore that magic 66 feet and “presto” this is the “shoreline”. It may still be way out in the water, or if the shore is steep it might be pretty close to being all one and the same location. Every site is different.
Then the local municipality became the keeper of this 66 foot shoreline road allowance. This despite it never having been intended to be part of the municipality. It was originally part of the concession and side road system that was intended to allow settlers to reach any piece of land they ended up owning without having to trespass across their neighbors land. It did not work perfectly because again, topography was ignored.
What did work perfectly, as far as municipalities are concerned is that they can now charge whatever fee they want to allow people to buy this road allowance, thus removing it from municipal ownership and freeing the municipality of a theoretical liability issue, one that should never have been placed on them in the first place as the Province was intended to be the owner of this land. This is all playing out as we sit here today with regard to land locked road allowances but this is another issue entirely.
Logically, this shore road allowance is of no use to anyone other than the adjacent property owner and it should simply be attached to their land, no fee, no hassle, no need for local politics to stick their finger into the issue at all. The Province should have done this years ago.
On Lake of Bays (all this about depth, past flooding, etc. is lake specific) if the water is more than 5 feet deep it is a Federal issue and Canadian Coast Guard will talk to you.
If it is still water after you measure back 66 feet from the 5 foot deep point then that is “flooded land” and you cannot now buy it or do anything on it without possibly greasing several permit fee options laid out for you by the township, the one that does not own the land either as it is flooded. MNR is supposed to look after this but again somehow the municipalities seem to have finger in this issue too.
Somewhere in the background to all this there is the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans. Now oceans we do not have in Ontario and Fisheries in most of our small lakes are a bit of a stretch aside from a few sport fishermen. With acid rain and species additions to our lakes however there is maybe a “fishery” in our future somewhere.
Of course, if you really want a permit you need to talk to Ontario Hydro, North Central Gas, Bell and a few possible other entities to make sure you don’t mess up any of their future plans.
Why all this? Well to perhaps demonstrate that “getting a permit” is not quite as simple, straightforward and cheap as those that grant them would have you think. Perhaps this, when added to peoples natural desire to make their immediate local environment more to their liking, is why there are so many variations of misunderstanding about shorelines.
But now my main question.
Since the government flooded a lot of land and it has been eroding away for 100 years, when and how are they going to come and fix it? They, and nobody else caused this issue so they should just fix it or allow the land owner to do so according to best practices, no fees attached. As a matter of fact they should pay the current land owners costs to do what Mr. Wilson has done in an effort to prevent continuing erosion and siltation of the river. I think we can all see that his situation is somewhat different from the massive sheet steel piling wall on Fairy Lake at the condo development. No matter how you try to camouflage this wall if Doug’s wall is egregious (as a councilor called it) then this condo wall is “horrible”. I suspect that the condo wall is also a bit of a land grab that allows a few million more dollars worth of condo to sit on the site than if the shore was left natural. I don’t know this of course, it is just the way these kind of things tend to go.
By the way, who controls boat wakes? These are what causes the erosion in most rivers. Boat wakes and high water flows do all the damage in rivers and you don’t need a doctorate in hydraulic engineering to see this in action around our shorelines.
Just to be clear, the crescent bay developer also never received a permit to build there steel wall
That was why they were at town council seeking forgiveness that the council was more than happy to provide
The town planner indicated we required a minor variance because we were not far enough back from the water front . the newly constructed steel wall is only a few feet from the water front
Once again same situation two different outcomes?
Do it legally with a permit to avoid the consequences of not applying. Companies doing the illegal work need to be held accountable for their misinformation. Greed for work can result in shortcutting the process and the results have been made clear .I know from experience !
The difference is that the Crescent Bay project got a permit. Right or wrong ( and I do agree it is wrong), the town approved it? Building without a permit is a slippery slope. Everyone can use the excuse, “well we just didn’t know we needed one”, and where will we be then? With a lot of more of these eyesores. I do agree that rusty-looking wall is both an eyesore and an environmental concern, but my understanding is that was approved many years ago, before our official plan looks the way it does now and protects from such issues.
I find it funny that there is no mention of the contractor taking responsibility, or the owner. Everyone contractor in Muskoka knows they can not do any work along the shore without permits. This would all have been avoided with a simple phone call or email to the Town.
Next question why is it always the Towns fault when property owners does not follow the rules and gets caught. Again all avoidable.
Do you blame the police officer when you get caught speeding, is it thier fault you are going to fast, is it the Towns fault you listened to the contractor not do your due diligence.
I have seen your retaining wall, nothing wrong with it. The town should be ashamed to have treated you with such disdain. I am sorry you have needed to fight this fight – disgraceful.
Too many levels within municipal government and too many people with say over a project.
Your a good man, I feel your pain and agree when we see soooo many things allowed that make you scratch your head.
Doug it is amazing what you have gone through. When you see the other structures that are allowed to be be built on top of the water it amazes me when I read your story. Your story seems to be one that people in this town are telling & dealing with far to often these days. It seems unless you have deep pockets you are forced to give up/retreat, this is a sad state we are in!! Do not give up