Despite planning staff’s recommendation to the contrary, Huntsville’s planning committee gave the owner of 9 Elm Street planning approvals to replace on old boathouse and dock on the river with a new and larger boathouse and attached dock in an area of the river where boathouses are no longer allowed.
The property, with an approximate area of 3,960 square metres and 52.2 metres of frontage on the eastern bank of the Muskoka River is developed with an existing 70.6 square metre garage, 9.3 metre shed, and a 64.8 m² boathouse. The boathouse also has a 30.6 m² attached dock.
The applicant was before committee seeking zoning exemptions in order to replace the grandfathered 64.8 m² boathouse with a new 100m² boathouse and the existing 30.6m² attached dock would be replaced with one measuring 57.8m².
“Under the policies of the Official Plan boathouses are not permitted in the urban shoreline residential designation between the railway bridge crossing of the Muskoka River and the furthest easternly extent of the shoreline residential designation of Fairy Lake,” Huntsville manager of planning Richard Clark told committee members. “Fully enclosed roofed shoreline structures that project out over the river are prohibited in this high-traffic, high-density narrow urban waterway to help control visual impacts, prevent overcrowded conditions, and avoid boating hazards.”
The applicant was also seeking approval to demolish the existing legal non-complying detached garage and replace it with a new 160 m² detached garage.
According to Clark’s report to committee, “To facilitate this development, the application seeks zoning relief to:
- permit a 100m² boathouse within a boathouse prohibited area;
- increase the maximum accessory lot coverage from five per cent to eight per cent;
- increase the maximum permitted projection for a dock and boathouse from 10m to 11.6m; and
- increase the maximum number of enclosed or roofed accessory buildings and structures from one to two for a 100m² boathouse and a 160m² detached garage.”
Clark said Huntsville’s OP policies allow the expansion of legal non-conforming structures if it can be proven, for example, that the expansion prevents undue hardship.
Planning consultant for the applicant, John Gallagher, said the boathouse and garage are about 100 years old, and all the structures on the property are in dire need of repair. He noted that the property, as well as the neighbouring lot, have been in the Hutcheson family for many years and what’s being proposed would be an improvement.
“The boathouse that is there has got to be one of the most photographed items of tourists entering Huntsville,” he said, adding that what’s being proposed will match as best as possible what’s already there in both design and location in keeping with tradition, the way the applicant has asked.
He said the new garage will remove the existing garage off the Elm Street road allowance and the location where the current garage sits will act as the driveway to the property.
Gallagher as well as Al Shaw of RiverStone Environmental Solution Inc. told committee there’d be no dredging or shoreline alteration. He said the current structure has cribs underneath and the new boathouse would be erected on steel piles.
Gallagher also argued that there is ample space for boats to enter and exit safely from the river. “Right now, it comes in from the south which impacts the existing docking that’s already there which creates more of an aggravated situation. The boathouse and the garage both predate the bylaw by many, many years and I think the historic value of allowing this boathouse to be rebuilt in the same type of form is a positive for the Town of Huntsville,” said Gallagher, also noting that the applicant does not intend to build a house on the lot as there is a house on the neighbouring lot, again also owned by the family.
Three area residents provided letters of support for the planning requests.
Blake Hutcheson, who said he had just turned 61, spoke to committee from a remote location. He told committee he grew up on the property, his grandfather lived there, and he recalled spending Sundays there having lunch and dinners and playing lacrosse against the old garage with his brothers. “I still play lacrosse in Huntsville in the summers and from high school on I’ve… made my career in Toronto and elsewhere and I’ve always had a hope and dream to go back to that community at some point,” he said of Huntsville.
“Dad’s been good enough to hold 9 and 11 Elm in the family hoping one of his children would show up with both an interest and an ability to go preserve it to its former self and it’s just been a dream of mine my entire life. And so, this has just happened recently that we’ve been able to put it into my name and my ambitions are very honourable. They’re to fix these two structures and to some day fix the home to the left, which is why the density is small for this site because I’d like to keep both sites for the same purpose over time.”
He also said the boathouse being proposed to replace the existing one is slightly bigger “but modern boats are slightly bigger.” Hutcheson said they tried to keep the size to the “absolute minimum” in keeping with the request from the planning department.
“It’s a modest structure, it’s a modest ask, I hope. We’re being honourable, we’re sticking with family tradition. I hope to grow old there with a lot of you and we’d ask for your favourable consideration,” he told committee.
Huntsville Councillor Jonathan Wiebe said he struggled with the increase to the projection and size of the boathouse. “I know it seems small or insignificant, but I do think that it really is changing the traffic and the way things would operate there… I would be in favour if it was kept exactly as-is in terms of size and orientation with a single slip. I could get my head around that because it was there, but changing it around I’m struggling with…”
Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano said her concerns involved shoreline dredging and alteration and given that the applicant’s consultants have addressed that, she’d be in favour of approving the application.
“The… extension of about four feet out into the river doesn’t concern me as much as Councillor Wiebe because of the orientation of it…,” said Terziano who also referred to the change in size as “fairly minimal.”
In the end, a majority of the committee approved the planning application with the exception of Councillor Wiebe who voted against it.
You can find staff’s full report here.
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
It is becoming apparent(?), that if you need to breeze something past our Planning Committee, there is a pattern emerging. Follow the program and you are golden.
Present as if you are in the running for a Genie. Tear up and allow the voice to crack. Not overboard, just so the emotion shows.
I thought the one presentation, with the repeated use of the word ‘honorable’ was a bit over done, as was the suggestion of returning to live among us. When I was growing up on Brunel road, the population sign read 2795 and then 3100. I’ve seen a lot of people come here to ‘live among us’ and that seems to have lost the cache it once had.
We have a duplex in a field in exchange for root crops(?) and a barn on a flood plain. Pretty much anything can be deked around the OP if you just apply a little innovation and flair; after all these people seem to appreciate some novel, ‘outside the box’ thinking.
Henk Rietveld proposes that the rules be fair and equitable, for everyone! What a novel concept.
But we still have this ‘egregious’ wall!
Lights, action, cue the music.
Kudos to council for approving this. That old structure has been an eyesore for years. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t collapsed into the river…which would’ve been a much larger issue than screwing more environmentally friendly piles into the river bed.
Look forward to seeing the new boathouse.
There’s no question that the two structures in question are totally decrepit, and should be replaced. That said, it might have been useful for the proponent to try to stay within the planning rules and existing structure footprints, and reach a compromise that doesn’t cut the ground out from under the feet of town planning staff…they are doing their job.
Perhaps a more comprehensive locally focused plan for the maintenance of the existing river shoreline from the railway bridge down to Camp Kitchen, involving all the stakeholders, shoreline owners, the town, the feds (navigable waters) might be in order to establish some guidelines for these types of proposals.
Seriously what is wrong with this town? Why do we even having a planning committee if you just make up your own rules?
We need an entire no board running this town! Locals and people that understand what impacts to the environment are… hey earth day was yesterday… let’s push forward with mega cottages and clear cutting!!!!
This is wrong
What point is there is having planning rules or a planning department if historical money/influence and sweet talk or tears can divert politician’s from m carefully thought out rules that are meant to protect our environment? Clearly something is amiss.
How about just standing a cardboard cutout of Richard in front of the planning committee? Committee could pretend to listen while yet another owner sways it with an emotional plea. Let’s hope this site doesn’t turn out like the “new improved” Hart House.