Claude Doughty is in the process of redeveloping a property he owns at 38 Whitetail Lane for its new buyer. The property is about 0.74 hectares in size, with about 57 metres of frontage on Lake Vernon. It has been dubbed as one of the ugliest properties on the lake due to its turbulent past, with neighbours accusing the former owner of blatantly ignoring sound building practices and bylaws.
“As you may have gathered, this property has a bit of history behind it (i.e. previous owner built house too close to the water and extended shoreline into the water) so I am hoping to make sure that things do not fall through the cracks,” reads a letter submitted to the municipality by Lake Vernon Association President Tracey Rast. Her letter was among many others from adjoining property owners concerned with the property’s redevelopment.
Doughty was before Huntsville’s Committee of Adjustment on October 12 seeking approval to increase the size of a reconstructed boathouse from the permitted floor area of 100m2 to 111m2. He was also seeking a variance to decrease the required setback for an infinity pool from 20 metres to 12.19 metres.
Committee members expressed concerns with both. Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano asked why people need to build bigger boathouses. She said she’s getting tired of people asking for variances when the Town’s Official Plan limits the size of boathouses to 100 square metres.
Doughty said he understood her position but noted that committee must be consistent and reminded committee that in the past it has approved a 22 metre increase. He said the reason for the increase request is that “the new owner likes everything neat and tidy.” He said rather than having water toys spread across the lake front, the boathouse will enable the owner to store all such items in one place.
“You can see that boathouse from Aspdin Road. It’s that offensive,” he said, adding that its redevelopment will be much more appealing with the width remaining under 30 feet and the colour will be darker and blend in more.
Boathouse to be redeveloped on the property as presented by planning staff to committee.
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe questioned the distance from the infinity pool to the lake and asked where the water would go in the event of a leak or when drainage is required.
Doughty said the pool will be made of cast concrete with an overflow and backwash provision. He said the backwash would be directed up the property and into a pit and argued that the amount of chlorine in the pool is negligible. “As soon as it hits bacteria or anything, it changes its form and it’s no longer an issue.” Doughty said the 9 x 30 foot pool is small. “The chances of it cracking or being a catastrophic failure is low. The chlorine dissipates as soon as sunlight hits it… it’s gone. So it doesn’t pose a threat to the body of water.” He said about 500 litres of water will come out of the backwash every two weeks containing a “thimble full” of chlorine, which he said will be pumped into a pit “where there’s lots of bacteria and that immediately transforms the chlorine.” He also said that because the pool will be located on a high terrace it will not be an issue from a visual standpoint and added, “I think that chlorine has been magnified if you will in its risk factor. The municipality has some pretty significant pools full of chlorine as well and it is not a problem that has surfaced in the past and I think it is manageable.” Doughty also noted that given the area’s climate the pool will likely only be used for eight weeks out of the year, “so it’ll get back-washed four times so it is not a big quantity,” he argued.
Doughty said he is addressing preexisting drainage issues on the property and said there is a substantial budget associated with the landscaping portion of the property’s redevelopment. Councillor Nancy Alcock asked why revegetation had not yet taken place, as per the initial size and location variance approved by committee last year for that boathouse which is located in an area of fish habitat. Doughty said the redevelopment of the house on the property had been delayed so as not to cause noise disturbance for the neighbours during the summer months. “When we’re putting the stone on a building we can’t be doing the landscaping,” he said. “We delayed the stone on the building because it was so noisy. It is now finished so we’ve now moved on to doing the landscaping.” He said that will be completed partly this fall and the rest of it by end of May next year.
Doughty assured committee that once the property is redeveloped it will be much more visibly appealing. “This whole property earned the merit of the ugliest property on I think probably any lake in Huntsville.” Doughty said there are plans to plant spruce trees along the retaining wall of the property.
In the end, committee approved both variance requests. You can take a look at the report from staff, letters from neighbours, photos and other information related to the development by turning to page 30 at this link.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
I read the letter from the next-door neighbour, Gary Lintern, whose comments were not only insightful, but very conciliatory. Am I to assume that he received no response, or that said response would be considered confidential? Either alternative is both distinctly unhelpful and deeply disturbing.
In a nutshell, the “Law of Riparian Rights” allows a property owner at a higher elevation to freely allow rainfall to flow downhill to a property of lower elevation. It does not, however, allow ditching or re-grading of the higher property to achieve this outcome. When will this situation be remedied?
Why do property owners (when removing existing buildings) seem to have such license to not respect the existing footprint? I applaud the fact that the boathouse/dock are being moved to a more central location (to improve Mr. Lintern’s view), but are all the requirements for building in a Type I fish habitat supplied to the Owner under separate cover?
The only requirement, which I found, was regarding buffer vegetation adjacent to the shoreline. Given the building’s truncated setback from the shoreline and the steep slope to that shoreline, I would have thought that far more detailed requirements vis-à-vis the type of plantings required to retard runoffs were necessary. In fact, as a former reviewer of such applications, I would have asked for a stormwater management plan for the property; as I believe that a significant portion of any runoff would have to be temporarily retained away from Mr. Lintern’s property and the front of the cottage/home.
Behind the new spruce trees on top of the retaining wall, I assume that the pool will also be completely surrounded by fencing of a mandated height.
I could go on, but my point is why are all the requirements not listed in one location? My impression is that the increased tax base for the Town is equally important to “green” building practices (as would be stipulated by the Township of Lake of Bays).
I know it is in bad taste but it would be interesting to have a contest for the “ugliest” place on Huntsville area lakes. This one might end up on the list after “redevelopment”.