Huntsville council is sticking to its guns.
Following closed session discussions at a special council meeting held January 10, Huntsville council emerged with a resolution to defend a decision by the committee of adjustment last October to order the owners of a riverfront property on King Crescent to remove a retaining wall from the shore.
Last October, the applicants’ file was before the committee of adjustment whose decisions, unlike other committees, do not require council ratification. The applicants were trying to get a retaining wall, referred to as ‘egregious’ by the chair of the committee, recognized as a minor variance. They told the committee the wall had been built to protect the shoreline from erosion particularly due to the wake created by speeding boats. They were also seeking relief from the requirements of the Town’s comprehensive zoning on the property to increase the allowed accessory lot coverage from 5 to 5.13 per cent for a floating dock.
Municipal planning staff were recommending that the allowance for the floating dock be approved but only if the applicants removed the retaining wall, revegetated the shoreline buffer area within 15 metres of the Muskoka River shore, and consulted with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) about requirements surrounding the potential impact of the wall on butternut trees on the property. You can find that story here.
The applicants have since appealed the committee’s decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal). Council, following closed session discussions on Jan. 10, moved to defend committee’s decision and authorized staff to engage legal counsel. The funds will be pulled from the Town’s legal planning reserve.
The hearing is expected to take place in March.
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 three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Bill Beatty says
The right initial decision for sound planning reasons . The ” I didn’t know ” excuse is not valid .The owner or his\her contractor should have known and contractors also need to be held accountable for no advice or the wrong advice . The whole exercise is a costly waste of time and resources and could have been avoided with proper due diligence on the part of the proper owner .
Brian Samuell says
It looks like your neighbours found a way to have a gin and tonic beside the water Doug. Do I see a big honking boathouse sticking out into the water? Hi I’m from the government, I’m here to help.
Neil Burnside says
Classic Muskoka!
Build it, look the other way and then fight it with I didn’t knows and money.
Slippery slope council is allowing. Build the boathouse, cut the annoying tree down or modify the waterfront etc and ask for forgiveness later.
John R. Earl says
“Egregious ” , hardly, might be to a new-comer to town with fantasies of living in beautiful Muskoka. The picture shows a retaining wall planned, respectfully and professionally built due to the damage being done from boat traffic and nearby municipal street run off. As for the comment ” that this could have been avoided with proper due diligence on the part of the property owner ” is in my opinion irresponsible and very negative. If the Town had such strong views of this, why wasn’t a stop work order placed on the project while the work was in progress?. This property is less than a 5 minute walk to the steps of Town Hall. As for the butternut trees, In my opinion their chance for survival is probably a heck of alot better than the trees that were planted along main street on town/district road/street allowance. I hope the members at the Ontario Land Tribunal have the wisdom and the intelligence enough to make the right decision.
Allen Markle says
Huntsville Council: I believe the town will lose. I hope not, but it’s a bit late to find some testicles. You are throwing yourself at the mercy of a group, some of whom are likely developers, who would build in hell as long as they were only required to keep above minimum Ontario standards. Plus, I imagine the trees are already down.
This wall is done and we are in the ‘beg forgiveness rather than secure permission’ phase.
It is previously noted that the work was completed, in the summer, and only a five minute walk from town hall: nobody noticed or went to look? Don’t ‘talk the talk if you can’t take the walk’, sort of.
Justice, if any, I suppose could be meted out in 3 portions.
The first third would be levied against the town, payable to ‘in lieu of parking’ in our town. You couldn’t be bothered to look.
The next third, the contractor for the work itself.
Lastly, the owner. Ignorance is supposedly not an excuse.
Anybody taking odds on how all this works out?