The Ontario Land Tribunal has ruled that a retaining wall erected in 2021 along the Muskoka River on a King Crescent property in Huntsville can stay.
The property owners, Doug and Mariane Wilson, have maintained that the retention wall was erected by their contractor in order to protect the shoreline, prevent further soil erosion, flooding and damage from the wake of boats in that stretch of the river.
However the Town’s planning department has maintained that the retaining wall was built without the proper planning approvals and is detrimental to the shoreline. In an October 13, 2021, committee of adjustment meeting, the applicants were ordered to remove the retaining wall and revegetate the shoreline in order to be granted planning approvals for a floating dock. (See related stories below).
Dismayed, the Wilsons took their application to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Following attempts to settle the matter unsuccessfully, a two-day hearing was held in July 2024. This month, on March 3, 2025, the Tribunal released its ruling, essentially stating that a lower retaining wall (a height of no more than 2.1 metres from an overall height of 3.1 m) can stay, provided that revegetation occurs in order to make it less visible. The Tribunal also granted the Wilsons their floating dock.
The Wilson while feeling vindicated were also disappointed. “We’re disappointed that after all the time we’ve been in Huntsville and the things that we’ve contributed to the town in the way of employment and so on with our business, it’s just disappointing that we were treated that way,” said Doug Wilson. revegetated.
Councillor Bob Stone, who was chair of the committee of adjustment at the time, acknowledged that the Wilsons have been upstanding citizens in the community but said exceptions cannot be made when it comes to getting approvals for retention walls.
“I’m extremely disappointed with the decision, The OLT panel from southern Ontario clearly have no understanding of the fragile environment we are trying to protect in Huntsville or the importance of natural beauty upon our very identity and economy,” said Stone.
The Town of Huntsville also issued a statement regarding the finding of the Tribunal.
“The OLT’s decision in this matter was disappointing and failed to consider key policies and standards respecting shoreline buffer protection and appropriate flood and erosion hazard mitigation. The Town of Huntsville has a responsibility to protect our delicate environment, and to make decisions that preserve the integrity of our waterfront areas,” stated Kirstin Maxwell, Huntsville Director of Development Services.
“This type of development has the potential to negatively impact the health of our waterways, something our community has worked hard to preserve. We encourage everyone to contact the planning department prior to any alteration, vegetation removal, or development along a shoreline. Our staff can help guide property owners through any required permits and ensure that their proposal maintains the integrity of our water quality,” she added.
Related
Council moves to defend King Crescent retaining wall decision at tribunal
Applicants told to remove “egregious” retaining wall
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
So what you are saying (Applicant told to remove “egregious” wall, October 15, 2021), is that Mr. Wilson applied for a permit like he had for previous projects, and the Town approved it without sending someone to inspect the situation. Mr. Wilson proceeded to have his wall built, and now the Town has been pushing to have the wall removed. But the Town erred, so the Town should have torn down the wall and remediated the property to a state that would comply with the Official Plan and zoning bylaws, at no charge to Mr. Wilson. Simple as that, as far as I can tell.
At least it was made of blocks of natural stone and not (ahem) huge slabs of steel. It appears to be well designed and built for is intended purpose. Natural vegetation is no match for dozens or more boat wakes tearing at the shoreline every day. When the river level rises the wall will surely be more than effective in mitigating an unnatural erosion situation.
“After all the time we’ve been in Huntsville and the things we’ve contributed to the town”. Well boo hoo! What makes your contribution any more wonderful than others? My taxes aren’t the same as your taxes? My volunteer hours aren’t the same as yours? Lots of people contribute but don’t demand special consideration. We have more than enough descendants of ‘town fathers’ who feel entitled to more than the ordinary citizen. We don’t need more of that or them.
The town has a problem with its’ application of regs. They display little consistency. The constructions mentioned by Kathy Kay are cases in point. Flagrant violations of what are supposed to be general codes. Look at the retaining walls in these cases and tell me they look ‘natural’. Is the Wilson wall even local stone? Mother Nature sure never built like that! Totally artificial. And will the vegetation be willow and alder with local fern and sedges or a bunch of shrubs and non-native plants from Lord knows where?
When we last commented on this topic, it was an all out scramble to save a butternut tree. Now it’s more about erosion. So should the entire shore-line, from the Bay to the Lake be rebuilt? Why not? It seems now you can just go ahead as the Wilson’s did and then cry to the OLT, who could care a tinkers damn what
happens along the river.
This little action took place about 200 meters from Town Hall and I imagine there were barges and back hoes involved. No permit secured. Nobody noticed ’til the deed was done!!! Incredible.
And from down town it was “I know nothing! I hear nothing! I see nothing!”
I pass the Wilson property on my boat daily in the summer. It is just beautiful.
I am not an environmentalist. However, it is the most outstanding piece of shoreline on the Muskoka River.
Thank you for pushing back. Enjoy your property.
Lynne Doyle
If you cared so much for Huntsville beauty and nature you would not have approve all these new subdivisions that the wild use to use. Deer, raccoon, birds etc.
Disappointing to hear Town Council members slamming this project. I expect, as was noted, that revegetation of the slope, secured by the solid stone wall, will provide both the aesthetic and natural benefits desired. I find it incredulous that this property seems to be targeted, when someone like Bob Hutcheson is allowed to build out into the river, when that huge condo by the high school destroys the shoreline to keep the river out of the parking garage, when the huge development on Hwy 60 build humongous steel pile barriers and Town Council says “oh well”. Refusing to enforce these supposed water’s edge protections on such obviously outlandish projects, then to harass another individual land owner, is reprehensible. If Town Council wishes to slam one, then slam them all. One has to take out their shoreline protection project, then they ALL have to do the same. I would suggest that following guidelines for acquiring permits be applied universally. Make up your mind!
Way to go Wilson family for standing up for your rights
The fact that the owners think that they deserve special treatment because they own a local business and provide employment opportunities in town is ridiculous. Planning approvals should be impartial. It is not clear from this article, but it sounds like the retaining wall was built along the shoreline without approval. If this is true, it is a black and white scenario. They are wrong and the OLT is wrong. The town has every right, and should require the owners to remove the wall. I don’t like our planning department and I don’t agree with many of the exceptions that the council approves (directly against their own staff approvals), but this just seems like a clear violation of the permit process. Maybe I don’t have the full story. Anyone who thinks they can build anything on a shoreline in Muskoka without a permit has been hiding under a rock for 30 years.
Shame on you Mr Stone for not accepting one of the few good decisions made by the OLT
Maybe now council should look at changing some of the grandfather clauses that allow the major eyesore at Crescent Bay
What a shame it is that the Wilson’s had to go to a more responsible level of governance to get the authorization that in hindsight should have been given. Council and the planning department should take note of the rights that the citizens they are supposed to serve actually have.
Great and smart decision by OLT. Perhaps planning and local politicians will smarten up and listen to public and electors
It’s a sad state when business people think they can buy their way into bending the rules.
This kind of of attitude where builders and owners figure that if they go ahead and do something they can worry about the consequences later because they can fight it out court was supposed to stop. Didn’t anyone know what was going on before this was completed?
We wish to thank the many citizens and boaters who have commented positively on the subject of our retaining wall over the time past. Now after over three years we can proceed with our landscaping plans to enhance our waterfront. Many thanks everyone.
Congratulation to the Wilson’s! Though I don’t really like the look or philosophy of the erected wall, I feel the Wilson’s were unfairly targeted by a somewhat hypocritical Council. I wonder how the Tribunal would judge the Fairy Lake wall (Crescent Bay)..but that won’t happen because Council approved it. It smack of cronyism and elitist baloney. And let’s not even get into the hectares of forest that have been decimated on Council approval.