Update: Muskoka Conservancy has issued a press release noting that it has decided to withdraw its application.
A proposed land exchange between the Muskoka Conservancy and abutting landowners Jeremiah Tillstra and Margaret Stead has area residents up in arms.
The exchange proposed would see the Conservancy sever about 0.8 hectares (1.977 acres) of land containing 105m of frontage at Town Line Road West from the Nelson Head Nature Reserve located at 25 Town Line Road West. In exchange, the abutting property owners at 139 Brunel Road would sever 4.0 hectares (9.884 acres) from the back of their property to be added to the reserve.
The land swap would enable the Brunel Road property owners to create a new building lot with frontage on Town Line Road West, while the Conservancy would increase the Nelson Head Nature Reserve from 3.7 hectares (9.143 acres) to 6.9 hectares (17.05 acres) with frontage on both Town Line Road West and Brunel Road.
In two letters submitted to the Town by the Conservancy, its representatives noted that the estimated two acres they would give up does not have as much ecological value as the approximately 10 acres the reserve would gain. In addition, they say the headwaters of a stream that runs through the nature reserve are located in the acreage the reserve would gain as a result of the land exchange.
In 2012, the lands where the reserve is situated were donated to the Conservancy by Aldine Head in memory of her husband, Bill, and father-in-law, Nelson.
Attempts to reach Head were unsuccessful. She indicated through a family friend, Mike MacDonald, that she did not want to go on the record. He said she was so distraught over the Conservancy’s proposal that she had asked him to speak on her behalf. MacDonald questioned why anybody would want to donate property to the Conservancy if their wishes aren’t going to be followed.
“They’re just doing whatever they see fit. They’re going against the donor’s wishes and doing whatever they want, is what it boils down to,” he said. He also questioned the intentions for the new lot, noting that it could be used for a multi-residential development.
When reached by Doppler, Scott Young, executive director of Muskoka Conservancy, said he’s surprised at the backlash. “A lot has changed during COVID, land values are changing rapidly. All I can tell you is that the land that we’re getting back in exchange for the land we’re giving up has more value to us,” he said, adding that a 200-acre swamp would be more ecologically valuable to the organization than say a perfectly level downtown property next to a parking lot.
“We value the land for its conservation value and the land that we’re getting in exchange is five times more than the land we’re giving up and it has higher conservation values,” he said, adding that typically people want more nature conservation. “We feel that the property that we’re getting in exchange for this is significantly better from a conservation perspective than the two acres that we’re giving up. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be doing this. I find it all surprising that people would be opposed to it.”
Young said despite Head’s wishes not to conduct the land exchange and leave the land as-is, the organization plans to move forward with the planning requests as the applications have already been submitted.
“We have indeed decided to go ahead anyway and just let the Town decide because the applications are already in, the meeting is already set, the public is already upset… if the Town decides it doesn’t want it, the Town doesn’t have to have it. The Town can say no, and if the good people of Huntsville decide that they don’t want it they can attend the meeting and write letters and tell them they don’t want it. From my experience, Huntsville gets what Huntsville wants,” he said, adding, “I totally respect her position, it’s just that the perspective changed… everybody can change their mind, right?”
MacDonald said Head has always maintained that she wanted the property to remain the way it was donated. He said she felt pressured by the Conservancy to accept their proposal but she does not want them to move forward with it.
A remote public meeting regarding the rezoning of the lands at 25 Town Line Road West to Conservation in support of the land exchange and lot creation is expected to take place on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 1 p.m. A link to the meeting and instructions on how to participate can be found here.
The staff report to be presented at the meeting includes eight letters objecting to the land exchange from area residents. Their concerns include the precedence such a land swap would create for future donations and concerns that the lands that were donated had not been rezoned Conservation in the first place. One letter writer went as far as questioning the optics associated with the planning department’s recommendation that the applications be approved, particularly since one of the landowners has a “Town Hall connection.”
Planning staff noted in their report that given the amount of opposition to the file, only once a decision on the zoning amendment has been rendered will the Town’s Committee of Adjustment consider the consent application (subdivision of land). The Town’s public notice is also requesting that all submissions from the public regarding the consent application be made prior to Wednesday’s meeting. But that process has come under fire by area residents who say public input should be sought first and separately on whether the lands should be severed.
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
May be the conservancy should donate the land they want to trade so the green space is made larger . A land deemed to be swamp land. You might go along way with the public trust issues caused by this bad faith action. Green space is very important in a world ???? that is slowly dieing. ????????????
The Webster New Collegiate Dictionary defines Conservation as “a careful preservation and protection of something, especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect”!
I do believe that the Muskoka Conservancy is a worthwhile organization dedicated to preserving natural habitat within Muskoka which is a noble cause! However it was unwise for them to enter into this “land-swap” deal with a private developer! I have personally spoken to Mrs. Head and she told me that she never agreed to this planned land swap and that the Nelson Head Nature Retreat should be left as is! The Conservancy should have gotten Mrs. Head’s permission to do this “in writing” which they failed to do! The Conservancy’s support of this questionable land swap deal has done real harm to their public image and to their branding as having “…ownership of properties and legally registered agreements with private property owners to protect land for nature conservation purposes, forever.” In pursuing this land-swap they are failing in their mission to protect the land generously donated by Mrs. Head!
Mr. Young is earnestly trying to put “lipstick” on this “pig” of a deal! (apologies for this crude description). The ten acres that the Stead-Tilstra application wants to exchange for two acres of prime real-estate fronting Town Line Road is land-locked and thereby already protected from human encroachment! The Conservancy should not enter into agreements that would help line the pockets of a private developer!
The Nelson Head Nature Retreat provides a much needed beautiful, green buffer to the surrounding residential development! It should be left as it is! Whatever the outcome of this application, the Conservancy should apply to have the Head property re-zoned as a protected green space…something they should have done long ago!
STOP THE SWAP!!!!!
As much as I support the work of the Muskoka Conservancy (and will continue to) I would strongly encourage them to re-think this swap. Any net gain in ecological value may turn out to be minor compared to the ensuing loss of public trust. It’s not worth it.
There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in Mr. Young’s latest letter. At the end of the day, all I see is giving away 2 acres of land that was generously donated by Mrs. Head. More is not always better!
Stop the Swap!
Susan Zimmer
In a ‘nut-shell’ Mr. Scott Young, the spring and creek are fine left as they are. In a ‘nut-shell’, you were derelict in not transferring the property to green space years ago. In a ‘nut-shell’, you and your conservancy have gone a long way toward damaging the trust people may have had in the organization.
I agree 100% with Ms. Peacock.
Muskoka Conservancy does not enter into this proposed land exchange lightly. In fact, when the neighbouring property owner approached MC with this opportunity, our immediate reaction was to say no because we didn’t want to risk our trust with land donors. But as we began to study the situation, we realized there was some very compelling ecological reasons to study this opportunity further. In fact, Muskoka Conservancy took very careful steps and studied the proposal for almost two years. In this time, Muskoka Conservancy staff and volunteers have:
1. walked the land several times;
2. studied the land with ecologists and biologists;
3. had many conversations among Conservancy volunteers, committees and our board of directors;
4. had many conversations with land donor Aldine Head;
5. been completely transparent and consulted with Aldine Head every step of the way.
Because of who we are and what we do, we know that nature has to be top of mind in anything we do. We verified through ecological experts that expanding the nature reserve was the right thing to do. We confirmed that protecting the upwelling source water of a creek was the right thing to do. Based on all the study and conversations this proposal has received over two-years, I can say with 100% conviction that the proposal Muskoka Conservancy has put forward is in the best interests of nature.
Through the process of sharing information and discussion with Aldine Head, we knew that protecting the site of her family homestead and protecting the small creek were very high priorities for her. We also knew Aldine was reluctant to support the two acre severance, but she liked the idea of increasing the protected space from 9 acres to 17 acres. It wasn’t ideal, but we felt she was supportive, and that together we would be achieving shared objectives.
In a nutshell, the proposed expanded nature reserve:
-increases a 9 acre nature reserve and turns it into a 17-acre nature reserve;
-adds protection to the headwaters of the creek;
-continues to protect the site of the Head family homestead;
-maintains large frontages on both Town Line Road and Brunel Road;
-it will rezone the new 17 acre nature reserve as conservation land.
Based on the above, the exchange is the right thing to do. To a person here at Muskoka Conservancy, we viewed this proposal as a positive thing for all parties, including Aldine Head and the people of Huntsville.
It was very surprising for us to learn last Thursday of the opposition to the expansion of this nature reserve. It was even more surprising to learn that Aldine Head had changed her mind and now opposed the project.
The new perspective has definitely given us pause. It has caused us to have more discussions and we are trying to determine the best way forward. For starters, we have decided there’s more to learn from a public meeting than there is by shying away from it. We are aware that doing the right thing often doesn’t make you popular.
We do not expect to change anyone’s mind with this explanation. We just want to ensure readers have our perspective.
I agree with Dale and Allen. The ramifications of this decision are critically important to consider and already would make anyone pause when considering what Mrs. Head and her late husband wanted and where this land decision lies now. What type of stewardship are we looking for in Huntsville and does this align with expectations? Not in my opinion.
I would strongly suggest that future donors think twice about donating land to a conservancy that clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of conservancy.
Email sent to Town of Hntsville:
I am a born-and-raised resident of Huntsville and I disagree with the plan for property swapping and lot creation.
As I remember it, Mrs. Head donated this land to be preserved. As she told the Forester in 2012, “I donated this land so that it would be kept in its natural state, I thought it would be nice to have a piece of undisturbed land in town for people to walk through.”
That is when the Town should have put a conservation easement on title for the nature reserve lands to protect them. But it didn’t and now there is talk of allowing a sell-off while still insisting that reserve lands are being protected.
The Heads knew full well that they could have subdivided and sold the property themselves. But they chose to not cash in on the land and instead donated it to an organization that would keep it intact and protect it. and that is – or should be – should be the objective and MISSION of the Town and Muskoka Conservancy.
The lot to be severed is the best area to enter the Nature Reserve from the high point on Town Line, allowing a downhill walk through the Reserve before exiting on Brunel Rd. Severing would significantly lessen the enjoyment of the Reserve.
Extrapolating from the Planning Department’s faulty logic, an application would be recommended if the whole Head parcel was swapped for 100 acres of bush 10km from existing urban services, which no one would think was a good idea.
I urge you to turn down this application.
Sincerely,
Dale M. Peacock
9 Knotty Pine Trail, Huntsville, ON
The land was given to the Conservancy to be green space forever. Rather a long time that ‘forever’, but it is supposed that everyone gets the idea. The Conservancy certainly knows and the town only has to look in the books for confirmation. But this land was never registered as green space. Why not?
So Mr. Young’s statement of June 13, 2021; is a bit of a puzzle for me. He comments that we the the people can be enlightened by “the town’s planning report.” Isn’t it incumbent on the developer to make the request and submit his own plans, which will be then be accepted, modified or rejected by planning?
Mr. Young’s comment seems to indicate that the town has done the planning for this. Why are we paying to do the work of private interests, or did the Conservancy and/or the developer pay the town to have the work done?
In my opinion this swap is unnecessary and a bad idea. Accept what the family has donated. Be grateful. Let the developer search elsewhere. I hope any future persons donating land to this group will make sure the deal is wrapped a little tighter than this one has been.
It would be interesting to know what Nels would have said about this, but Mrs. Head thought she had spoken for him.