A planning application for a Huntsville property on Canal Road that was the focus of attention in 2023 due to extensive shoreline disturbance was back for a third time before Planning Council.
The lot has an area of approximately 2.15ha with 85.7m of frontage on Peninsula Lake.
Last week, the property was back at Planning Council once again. The applicant was seeking permission to reduce the setback from Type 1 fish habitat from 30m to 6m and reduce the setback on an At Capacity Lake Trout Lake from 30m to 0m to facilitate the construction of a 76m² boat port, according to the Town’s planning report.
With respect to a previously denied application for a boathouse and dock, Huntsville Planner Kelsea Shadlock said the applicant is proposing to remove the dryland boathouse on the property and reconfigure the proposal, requiring fewer exemptions.
She also said that while the non-compliant dock on the waterfront that had a projection of 23.38 meters had been removed, the applicant had received approval, which means it can be reconstructed on the same footprint.
Shadlock was recommending approval of the application with several conditions, including:
1. The Owner revegetating the 30m shoreline buffer in accordance with the final approved plans and drawings to the satisfaction of the Town of Huntsville;
2. The owner update the plans and drawings to the satisfaction of the Town of Huntsville;
3. That the Original Shore Road Allowance be stopped up and closed, and
4. That the dryland boathouse be removed.
Huntsville Mayor Nancy Alcock noted that the applicant has been before Planning Council three times seeking approval for his plans, “and at each of the meetings, we ask for the naturalization of the shoreline, and that seems to be the most important part,” she said. Alcock asked Shadlock to explain how compliance with the request could be ensured.
Shadlock noted the applicant would not receive approval to proceed with the boat port until the disturbed waterfront is revegetated to the satisfaction of the Town.
“I have a problem with the degradation of the shoreline, especially considering what we’ve made a gentleman on King Street do,” said Councillor Scott Morrison. He also suggested that the fish study paid for by the applicant be peer-reviewed. He wanted to know whether all the rock boulders, etc., would be removed so that the shoreline could be naturalized.
Shadlock said that removal is sometimes recommended, “but sometimes that’s also destructive to the shoreline, so we also recommend inter planting or other methods of revegetating,” adding that it is ‘context-specific.’ Regarding peer reviewing a study paid for by an applicant, she said the municipality does not generally peer review waterfront residential studies. “We review it, but typically, there isn’t a peer review unless it’s requested by planning staff or council.”
Morrison said he’d like to see it peer-reviewed, but Director of Planning Services Kirstin Maxwell noted that the studies are pretty straightforward.
“This is the third time that we’ve seen this application here, and I think that really speaks to the level of care and caution that this council’s tried to deal with this application. At each of the meetings we had, of course, the neighbours weren’t satisfied with the results, but in this case, the applicants scaled down the original request to something more reasonable,” said Councillor Cory Clarke. He added that although the neighbours may not be satisfied with the outcome, they can take comfort in the fact that they played a major role in having the application scaled down and the shoreline vegetation restored.
“It’s important to know, and we know this at council, that when an applicant isn’t happy with council’s decision, sometimes the applicant can bypass council’s decision and go to the Ontario Land Tribuna (OLT)… and when that happens, it seems like generally these days that the OLT very much favours the developer and concerned neighbours end up with a decision that is far from ideal. So, I wouldn’t want to see that happen here because I think that as a council we would show far more care than the OLT would,” said Clarke.
Deputy Mayor Dan Armour said while the solution does not satisfy everyone, he thanked the neighbours for being good stewards and said council does not want to see the application before it again. “It’s time, thanks,” said Armour.
In the end, the council approved staff’s recommendation.
In a follow-up conversation with Planning Committee Chair Bob Stone, he said what was done to the shoreline at that property is a good example of “everything you shouldn’t do at a shoreline.” Stone also noted that the provisional approval given to the applicant by the Planning Council ensures that the applicant revegetates the shoreline.
You can find staff’s report HERE.
Related
Shoreline alteration at Peninsula Lake property causes concern
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
0 Comments