An application brought before Huntsville Planning Council for information only by planning staff on March 15, left some councillors wide-eyed.
Not only was the owner of the estimated 2.15-hectare property with about 85.7 metres of frontage on Peninsula Lake asking for some significant exemptions to the municipality’s current policies, but the property, and particularly the shoreline in front of it, had already been significantly altered.
Property owner and local contractor Bruce Fitter’s application was before Planning Council. The application was seeking planning approval to:
- Permit the construction of a boathouse and increase the proposed boathouse and dock projection from 15m to 23.9m;
- Recognize the 23.4m projection of the existing dock;
- Recognize the 0.8m setback to a stream for an existing dryland boathouse;
- Recognize the 1.7m setback to Type 1 Fish Habitat for a dryland boathouse;
- Permit two, 2m wide pedestrian paths within the shoreline buffer area, and
- Increase the cumulative width of the shoreline amenity area from 15m to 46.84m.
Senior planner with the Town, Kelsey Shadlock, told councillors that the lot is developed with an existing single detached dwelling, detached garage, and dock as well as a dryland boathouse. She said the shoreline had been significantly manicured with hardscaping and landscaping. “The existing development within the shoreline amenity area includes a dock with a projection of 23.2m, a non-complying driveway and boathouse, a patio area, and landscaping. The existing cumulative width of the amenity area is 34.57m, and would need to increase to accommodate the width of the new proposed boathouse.”
She said the applicant provided a Fish Habitat Assessment for the location of the new boathouse which would be situated within Type 2 Fish Habitat which would be considered appropriate “provided revegetation and mitigation measures recommended within the report are implemented.”
The applicant was seeking permission for the “relocation” of a pervious boathouse. Council heard that a boathouse existed on the east side of the property in Type 1 fish habitat, but it has since been removed. The new boathouse is being proposed within Type 2 Fish Habit so it is considered an improvement although Shadlock indicated that ideally putting the boathouse where shoreline alteration has already taken place would be preferred. “It would also project further into the lake than the previous boathouse. Relief is also needed to increase the dock and boathouse projection from 15m to 23.9m and recognize the existing projection of the dock,” she added.
Planning Council also heard that there was no evidence that the dryland boathouse was grandfathered as it is not shown on aerial imaging prior to 2018. Shadlock said staff have asked the applicant to provide proof or alternatively remove it. She also noted that Peninsula Lake is an at-capacity for lake trout, which requires a 30m shoreline buffer.
She said should council view the application favourably, staff were recommending a revegetation plan be required. She also said staff were seeking planning justification for the increase to the proposed projection for the new dock and boathouse.
Two neighbouring property owners spoke against the application, saying the shoreline of the property had been dramatically altered and heavily developed with total loss of natural native shoreline. They also said the applicant had significantly altered a meandering creek that feeds Peninsula Lake. They asked Council to redress the destruction of habitat and either deny the application or defer it to give them time to review the proposal with professionals and request further information.
A joint letter of the Peninsula Lake Association and the Peninsula Lake Community Association seemed to concur with the neighbouring property owners. “In recent years, our associations have made significant efforts to inform, educate, and encourage all property owners on Pen Lake to be aware of the importance and necessity of maintaining an appropriate shoreline buffer. We have developed and shared numerous communications to encourage re-naturalization of the shorelines, and preventing the destruction of the forest cover, the littoral zone, and the riparian zone at the lake,” states the letter. “The current shoreline at 781 Canal Road contravenes nearly all aspects of responsible shoreline management that we espouse. And we fear that the variance requests included in Application No CPP/11/2023 will only exacerbate this situation.”
An Erik MacPherson was before Plannning Council speaking on behalf of the applicant. He read an excerpt from a report by RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. regarding the proposed location for the new boathouse. The report indicated that the proposed location of the boathouse on the western side of the property is the least invasive from a fisheries standpoint. “I would also like to note that the boathouse complies with the sideyard setback and is angled towards the middle of the property which should help limit the effect on the views from the neighbouring properties.” He said the location conforms to the requirements set out in the Community Planning Permit as well as its square footage “as we are still under the allowable accessory building lot coverage.”
MacPherson also noted that the water depth where the boathouse previously existed on the east side of the property is no longer viable, “as the boathouse would have to extend nearly 100 feet out from the shoreline to be of any use.”
In terms of the cumulative 46.84m shoreline amenity area, MacPherson said he felt it was misleading “as this is the distance from our 15 metre amenity area over to the shed and now we’ve included the boathouse in that calculation as well. So we’re really looking to maintain a 15 metre amenity area and then two-two metre pathways to the shed and the boathouse and we’re happy to do any remedial planting as recommended by Riverstone and the Town.” He also said he finds the term dryland boathouse misleading, referring to it as a 10×10 shed.
Huntsville Mayor Nancy Alcock said she agreed at the very least with deferring the application. She said there are a number of outstanding questions including the rationale for such a significant increase to the amenity space. “That for me is something that I need to understand a lot more to figure out because the pictures depict an entire shoreline that is manicured as opposed to in a natural state.” She also questioned the necessity of building a new boathouse in a new area rather than in the area of the existing dock.
Councillor Scott Morrison expressed concern about the boathouse extending that far out into the lake, calling it inappropriate. He also wanted to know if the shoreline developed with all the rocks is something that would’ve been done with a permit. Shadlock said that wasn’t shown in previous approvals.
Deputy Mayor Dan Armour wanted to know what the depth is at the end of the current dock. Staff did not have the answer and said that would need to be clarified.
“I do question whether the extension of the dock and boathouse has been necessitated by the applicant dumping sand to create an illegal beach right at the shoreline as well as having the manicured lawn right down to the shoreline,” said Planning Council Chair and Councillor Bob Stone. “Before I would be comfortable with seeing this again, I would like to see the dock and the boathouse attach together. Only one path to the water. The amenity area being no greater than 25 per cent and significantly revegetate 30 metres from the shoreline. This manicured lawn down to the water is a perfect example of bad stewardship of our lands.”
Armour also said he wants to see a drawing of where the boathouse is being proposed and how it would look if it were on the current dock “and how it would affect the neighbours’ sight lines.”
You can find the Town’s planning staff report, here (pdf).
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
“Not all shoreline work requires a work permit. Certain activities (for example, repairs or replacement of existing structures) only require online registration.” on MNR website
So, maybe the contractor did follow the MNR rules. However, previous owners and historical development defintely degraded the shoreline. It is incumbent on the present government to insist that our waterfront is kept intact. Maybe it’s time for a “waterfront” audit and start asking waterfront property owners to be responsible and respectful to our environment by reclamation of shoreline. When I see grass to the shore, I wonder about run off and grass maintenance products.
The owner of this property,based on the available information, is a local contractor. He should know better than to undertake such significant shoreline work without approval. Based on the photos he has completely destroyed the shoreline, tributary creek, and lake bottom. I would be horribly disappointed if the Town approved this application. They should compel him to remove the grass and non native soil and restore the shoreline to its original state.
The rest of us follow the rules, he should too
I was going to refrain from commenting on this article but seeing the responses I am compelled to correct some misleading information and accusations, as I was not provided the opportunity to speak to these questions at the council meeting.
Firstly, no one ever looked into or reported what was on this property prior to me purchasing it but rather chose to sound the alarm bells that I destroyed a natural piece of shoreline.
I purchased this property because of the existing sand beach and the lawn for my Grandchildren to enjoy. Yes this property is manicured and the shoreline altered by rocks, however, this was completed with an MNR permit to remove the existing creosote railway tie retaining walls and gravel driveway that was used as a boat launch into the lake.
The dock that seems to be causing an issue is an existing dock that was built prior to my purchase, albeit, it now has a new cedar surface and no longer the pressure treated surface. Also the “dry land boat house” in question is actually an 8’X12′ shed built in the location where once stood a 24’X36′ half dry land & half in the creek boathouse which was removed with a permit granted by the town.
While questioning the development along the shoreline, there was no mention that I didn’t build my new house in the footprint of the existing grandfathered footprint 42′ from the waters edge. I chose instead to push it back over 100′ from the waters edge thus causing more grassed area, yes, but I also planted over 100 trees.
Our “heavily developed property” has two buildings on this 5 plus acre lot. My home with attached garage (not detached) and the shed in question with no mention of the 3 buildings and 2 sheds previously on this property that were removed with demolition permits.
The most disappointing comment came from the Committee Chair Bob Stone accusing me of creating an “illegal beach”. Had Bob Stone read the report submitted by River Stone Environmental he would have seen the reference to the natural sand found on the west side of the waterfront.
I trust this brings some clarity and gives some perspective to some of my side of the story.
Respectfully Submitted.
From what I can see, it looks like a very beautiful property, wonderfully developed and maintained. It is an asset to the community on Pen Lake. Absolutely protect the fish, but don’t make every property look like virgin forest.
This is quite a disappointing situation. A local builder, knowing full well what the rules are and why they’re in place, never mind likely fully aware of the environmental damage he’s already done, continues to push through modifications to his personal property. Knowing that the provincial government has abandoned almost all environmental regulations and as someone who has very deep pockets, he plans to just say “oh, sorry” and carry on because he knows the OMB, now called the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) won’t protect the environment. For his own personal benefit and use? Ha! until someone with even bigger pockets comes along and says I’ll give you $MX so he sells and does it all again on another lake/property. Repeat and repeat. When will the environment win rather than the person with most $$? This property should be restored, not more devastation.
An outright denial is not a solution. But boats tie to docks, as well as a boathouse. A man’s home is his castle, and owners decisions on highest and best use are more than likely agreed upon by the OMB in favour of the owner. Not always but generally. Councils are not the final say nor are municipal bylaws. If the council’s decisions are further found to be an infringement on the owners rights. You will not likely see this go to the OMB if the latter is the case? And rightly so. Money does not always win?
Arguably the worst offender on Peninsula Lake is the first water-facing property on Canal Rd, south of the bridge, where the road doglegs eastward (reference a satellite map for clarity). Several years ago, the owners completely obliterated the tree canopy along the shoreline and slope, thereby disrupting the continuity of the tree line. How this was permitted, or eluded the attention of the association/planners, I have no clue.
In addition to embedding two rows of armourstone into the slope, on the canal-facing side, as well as building a dirt road down to the water — which the owners drive down with their vehicles — it appears that they also built a large artificial pond on the south side of the property. Has this ever been investigated? These issues should be remedied. I can’t imagine that permits were granted for any of the above.
It is the responsibility of town government to ensure that water systems remain intact. I hope they deny this application and ask the owner to reclaim the shoreline to sustainable standards.