There seems to be a lot of suspicion around the intended use of Fairview Island, particularly by those with waterfront properties surrounding the island.
The estimated 22-acre island was purchased by two brothers who have maintained from the start that the island would serve primarily as a family compound as well as a corporate retreat. They’ve stated that while the island and its facilities would be rented out to corporate employees for things like team-building activities from time-to-time, neither the island nor its facilities would be available for rent to the travelling public like commercial tourist resorts. But how to zone the property for those stated uses has probably been the most contentious issue surrounding the island’s redevelopment.
Many have argued that if the only intended commercial use involves the occasional corporate retreat, then the island should maintain its shoreline residential zoning with an exception which could allow for such retreats.
Harold Elston, a lawyer hired by an estimated 30 families who own property around the island, was at Huntsville’s February 14 Planning Committee meeting to argue that premise. He told committee that if a residential zoning with an exception is not adequate, “I would sure want to know why this doesn’t work for them.”
Huntsville Manager of Planning Services Kirstin Maxwell maintained that because the buildings would be rented, even to just corporate clients, they would no longer be restricted to a mere residential use. “Our Official Plan isn’t structured to allow a broad use of commercial uses in association with residential uses. It’s quite distinct and it says that you can have residential uses and these are the waterfront commercial uses you can have. In association with a residential use, you are permitted very limited commercial uses but nothing that would meet the intent of an institutional tourist establishment through a residential use and that’s why staff have been quite firm from the beginning that this has to be a commercial zoning to allow the development to occur.”
In her report, presented to committee, she recommended that the island be designated as a special policy area through an amendment to the Town’s Official Plan, thereby allowing a private institutional camp use for the island, while guiding the scale, size and density of redevelopment. Under Maxwell’s recommendation, the corresponding zoning, which spells out how the island can be developed, would be changed from the current Shoreline Residential Four Zone to an Institutional Camp Zone with exceptions including the type of accessory uses allowed, additional structures permitted, the number of boat houses, dwellings with accommodations in them including a central facilities building, the number of docks, maximum height of the buildings, the lot coverage, size of amenity areas, the location of the structures as well as their overall density and building setbacks. A proposed housekeeping cottage on the northern side of the island, across from Covelly point, would be removed. You can find the bylaw here, minus an amendment to include a provision for an internal pathway within the island as well as the recognition of habitable space in an existing boathouse.
Other amendments requested by the applicants and their lawyer such as increasing the maximum cumulative width of all amenity areas, docks and boathouses from the current 80 metres to 120 metres, were denied.
“A change to the institutional and commercial zone gets you basically as an applicant what you wanted and now I feel like you want your cake and eat it too because you want some of the standards and permissions of the residential (zoning)… for that reason I’m not very interested in considering any of your additional requests,” said Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano.
Elston, speaking further in support of leaving the residential zoning on the island, said arguments that such a zoning could allow the applicants to sever eight lots, build eight cottages and accessory structures while adding significant traffic to both land and water were unjustified. He maintained that the level of intensity would be far greater if the island were to be zoned for an institutional or adult camp use, as he put it.
Others weren’t so sure. Both councillors Jonathan Wiebe and Jason FitzGerald noted that a residential zone would be harder to control and large family gatherings at the cottage could involve upwards of 30 people.
“I think the impact could be potentially far greater and we would have less control. We talk about a family reunion, there are 37 immediate members of my family and we gather at the cottage… so what’s the impact of that versus an institutional camp?” So questioned FitzGerald.
Councillor Bob Stone asked Maxwell if what was being proposed was restrictive enough. “What if they sell it and some hotel chain buys it, or whatever? Are we restrictive enough right now with what’s proposed that they can do what they suggest they’re going to do with it (the island) and little else?”
According to Maxwell, because of the wording of the documents, if a different use were proposed, a new OP and zoning amendment would have to be sought.
Stone thanked Maxwell for her clear and concise report and all her hard work. “I want to say to the opponents, and there are very many, that I’ve read all of your letters and I’m sure everybody on committee has read all of your letters, including the 44 pages that came in last night. Thank you very much for that, this is an interactive process and this is how it works so I really appreciate that.
I think perhaps that there’s been some fear-mongering among the opponent group about the what ifs… that being said I think the restrictions in the OPA 13 (Official Plan amendment) and the zoning bylaw addresses most of the concerns and I feel confident in that. I’d like to say to the Konrads (proponents) that I hope your love of nature that you profess is in fact true and you’ll be good stewards of the land and good neighbours to the people on the lake. Basically, after great deliberation I am going to vote in favour of the proposal. Huntsville councillor and Planning Committee member Bob Stone
In the end, committee voted unanimously in favour of staff’s recommendation.
Committee’s recommendation will go to Huntsville Council for final approval. If approved, the OP amendment will go to the District for adoption. Both the OP and zoning amendments are subject to appeal. If no appeal is made, development cannot proceed until a site plan is completed. At that point, staff would conduct additional site visits to the island to ensure that development is proceeding as per the site plan, according to Maxwell.
You can find the full report including letters of concern submitted to committee here.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
Seeing this hearing is being held as part of Huntsville’s jurisdiction, how do they handle the fact that about a third of the shoreline of this island is actually in the Township of Lake of Bays?
Has the Township of Lake of Bays and the Town of Huntsville come to some earlier agreement regarding possibly a trade off here so that the entire island shall be considered to be in Huntsville? If this was done, when, how and by what process I wonder. It would be interesting to know how this came about.
As for the worries about congestion on the water…. it is an island! Does anybody seriously believe that this place is going to be heavily used in the late fall, winter and early spring? No! look at all the other islands and you see no activity at these times. As for the summer the weekends they are the time when boating activity is the greatest and a lot of this traffic comes from itinerant boaters whom we welcome with free launching and parking facilities paid for out of our municipal taxes already. It seems a bit strange that we are worried about a few people using an island in more or less the same manner the rest of the lake is used but we don’t make an effort to even track the numbers of itinerant day users that use our public access points and marinas. These day users generally bring very little in the way of commerce to the lake area, often not even buying fuel but they use the lake just as much or more than a local cottager might. The local cottager pays a hefty tax for the privilege of owning lake-shore, these itinerant users pay nothing at all.
Maybe we need to do a bit of research here to find out exactly who it is that is using the lake the most and then, if we are still worried about congestion and over use we will have an idea where to put our efforts to educate or in some other way reduce the congestion.