An application to close the shore road allowance which would benefit a property on Echo Bay Road abutting the Town-owned park known as Tyland Park was put on ice.
Staff were recommending the sale and although the municipality’s Original Road and Shore Road Allowance Closure Policy allows the municipality’s Director of Legislative Services to approve such applications, staff decided to bring the application before Huntsville councillors at their March 1 General Committee meeting because the municipality is the adjoining landowner, councillors heard.
“I appreciate that staff don’t just go ahead with this as it’s right next to our Town-owned park,” said Councillor Bob Stone. “We sell our shore road allowances when there is no possible use for the public to use it. This is right next to a park and could/is potentially a larger waterfront piece for our park. I have empathy for the property owner next to it who wants to purchase it but I’m not necessarily in favour because it is, right now, a much larger public waterfront and I am not in favour of closing public waterfronts.”
Huntsville Mayor Nancy Alcock said she was also torn about approving the application for exactly the reasons raised by Stone. “I’m assuming that the applicant is doing this because they are right beside the Tyland Park and they really want to be sure that they’re separating their private… property from the park usage. My question though is, it would increase the size of the public area but is that in the intention of the municipality? We’re not using that area right now as part of the Tyland Park property and if we refuse this then one would suggest that we’re refusing it because we intend to expand Tyland Park along the waterfront in front of this property… If we’re not intending to do that then we’re just saying no.” Alcock added that after thinking it through, it means the onus is on the municipality to then put signage there to say the park extends across the waterfront. “Is that what we’re intending to do?” she questioned.
Deputy Mayor Dan Armour said he agrees with Stone. He said the municipality recently removed a dock from that area and there was quite a bit of push-back from the public. “I know there’s a gentleman who still lives in that area, I think he’s been working with the Director actually, on trying to find a water access for everybody on Echo Bay and Fairy Avenue, etc. So, I don’t know if I’m really ready to just sell the property off.”
Prompted by a question from Councillor Helena Renwick, Jessica Boyes, Legal and Agreements Coordinator for the Town, said the shore road allowance in question “doesn’t have anything to do with Tyland Park itself… the boundaries will end at the end of their private property and Tyland Park will remain as is.”
“We have no, I feel, right to do that to a homeowner… just because we happen to have a park beside [them]… to take away their ability to purchase their shore road allowance.,” said Councillor Jason FitzGerald, calling it ridiculous and noting that if it happened to him he’d consider relocating and leaving the community. “We have what we have and we should be happy that we have provided that and we’re looking at more ways to provide them [public water access points] but not at the expense of people’s personal enjoyment… and that’s why we have the policy to purchase the shore road allowance,” he said. “I would tend to agree with some of those comments,” added Councillor Cory Clarke.
Huntsville CAO Denise Corry told councillors that a public dock was removed from the area and there are ongoing discussions to replace it. “It’s a little difficult at that location because of the topography of the land, not saying that it couldn’t happen but it’s a bit difficult. But there are discussions ongoing with respect to the replacement of the dock,” said Corry.
Director of Operations and Protective Services Tarmo Uukkivi confirmed that the assessment is ongoing and a wider shore road area could be necessary.
Alcock said that given that the municipality is in the assessment phase with respect to water access at Tyland Park, she did not feel comfortable making a decision on the sale of the abutting shore road allowance.
“At this point, I would say can we hold off, and then once our assessment of the area is done, then we can relook at this option at that time,” said Councillor Dione Schumacher.
Committee postponed making a decision as to whether to sell the shore road allowance at 271 Echo Bay Road, until after public consultations take place regarding Tyland Park in April.
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
I don’t believe any public road allowance around lakes should be sold to be private. The land owner that wanted to buy this road allowance should have bought a different property if he wanted private lake shore.
I believe that originally shoreline road allowances were provided in the Provincial surveys as a method to allow access to all the lots. The logic was that if a concession or side road allowance came to a water body, then the person needing access could traverse around the water body on the shoreline road allowance. Unfortunately these shore road allowances did not allow for changed water levels when a lake was dammed or for topography in general so these shore allowances are in many places non workable for their original intended purpose.
Also this need has long ago sort of fallen by the wayside as most crown lots have now been privately purchased in our area. Other, more practical access has been provided.
It is worth noting that the municipalities never purchased these right of ways. Rather they just sort of assumed the power of ownership and now sell this land off at a tidy profit.
Logically, and to be fair, the lake shore road allowance should simply be appended to private land directly behind it, at no cost to the landowner. The policy is pretty much fixed that nobody else can buy it anyway and the taking of money by the municipality is simply a convenient money grab by that municipality, an entity who never invested any money or effort in the ownership of this shore land at any time. It is for them, simply a windfall of cash.
It is worth considering this context when ownership is discussed and $$ are demanded.
What about personal enjoyment of the people on the “dry” side of Echo Bay Road? These public access allowances were once considered essential for the benefit of all. There’s so little accessible waterway public access already. Happy to see council standing up for the rest of the residents on that street. I’m sure something can be done to create a safe path to the water there especially as a previous well loved swimming spot a bit downstream was removed by the town in the area. I’m also hoping cooperative discussions with neighbours on both sides of the park will resolve any concerns. It has the potential of being a lovely space.
Please dont sell shore water allowance. Public access is more important.
The property is owned by tax payers. If its public property with water access then in my opinion the town has an obligation to act on behalf of the majority rather than accomadate one landowners request. Public access is being cut off more and more as the town allows obscene amounts of development and destruction. Allowing only those who have the financial means …or the ear of council, to enjoy municipal parks and water access.. is offensive and unacceptable.
Don’t sell shore water allowance. The back lot properties deserve public access.