An Innisfil woman says she has been left high and dry by the town following the construction of a large boathouse on a neighbouring property.
The proposal for a boathouse on Crescent Harbour Road led to a challenge at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and prompted the Town of Innisfil to change its bylaw for shoreline areas, creating the new Our Shores Community Planning permit process.
Innisfil council originally sided with neighbours opposed to the structure, but by the time the case was heard by the now-renamed Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) on March 22, the town had settled with the landowner and was no longer fighting the proposed rezoning or the plans for a boathouse.
Lindsay Histrop and Richard Martin, whose neighbouring property will be most impacted by the structure, were determined to continue to fight the case at LPAT.
Histrop said she was “pretty devastated” by the town withdrawing its objections to the project, especially after being assured by councillors that the municipality would back its residents. She also objected to the town now portraying the opposition as a “neighbour-versus-neighbour” dispute.
Histrop has brought in her own lawyer, planner and engineer to present her case at LPAT.
Some of Histrop’s earlier allies are gone. Both York University professor Stuart Marwick and local resident Mary Jane Brinkos passed away before the hearing took place. It was originally scheduled for 2020, but cancelled due to the pandemic.
She was determined to continue the fight in their memory.
It’s not simply that the massive boathouse will block the sunrise view of several neighbouring properties, she says, or that the in-and-out boat traffic has already impacted Histrop and her family’s use of their own docks and swimming area.
“They have consistently boated over our beachfront to access the docks since they were installed despite repeated promises not to do so,” claims Histrop.
There are safety and environmental concerns that are broader than the impact on other property owners in the area, she says.
It all began when property owner Andrew Rivkin installed piers in Lake Simcoe, paralleling the shoreline and protected by a man-made rocky breakwater, more than 18 metres from shore.
At the time, the installation wasn’t opposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, which had jurisdiction, because the individual piers for the dock impacted less than 96 square metres of the lake bottom.
However, the breakwater was not as shown in the application, leading to charges.
As the ministry's John Almond noted in 2018, “the construction of the breakwater was not in accordance with the work permit issued for the work. Charges were laid and the contractor paid a significant fine.”
In 2014, as trustee for the Beaumont Family Trust, Rivkin put forward a proposal for a boathouse to be built on top of the dock piers. The approximately 186.2-sq.-m. structure would house at least three large boats and include boat lifts to permit storage, and sit about 5.5 metres above the water.
Histrop brought testimony to show that the stone breakwater presents a hazard to navigation and may have caused damage to neighbouring properties. She says the stone shoal designed to protect the piers has pushed ice on Lake Simcoe onto neighbouring properties. At least eight of the large boulders in front of the boathouse slips have shifted position, and for a year and a half blocked access to one of the Rivkin dock’s mooring slips.
“It shouldn’t do that. It’s moving every winter,” said Histrop, whose planner used a mapping tool provided by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority to determine both spread and impact.
The area affected now totals one-quarter of an acre, she says.
“It’s growing. It’s getting bigger. The rocks are moving every season," said Histrop, who added the breakwater also impacts currents and wind patterns in the lake.
Mary Nordstrom, the town's manager of land-use planning, said the town has done the best it can to ensure a better outcome.
“While council did not approve the original boathouse application, the town’s settlement with the applicant achieved concessions that may not have otherwise resulted via the LPAT hearing alone," Histrop said. "These concessions include reduction in the projection of the boathouse from the shore, reduced area of the boathouse, restricting entry to the south side of the boathouse, and re-establishment of naturalized vegetation along the shoreline.”
The boathouse’s projection into the lake was reduced from 18.2 to 16.1 metres; the length from 14 to 13 metres, and the area to 158.2 sq. m.
As part of the settlement, the boathouse owner also agreed to keep at least half of the extensive shoreline in a naturalized state.
Under the town’s new zoning bylaw, Nordstrom said the preservation of natural vegetation is required, but the boathouse application pre-dates the bylaw and therefore would not be bound by the new rules.
“Any future boathouse applications will need to conform to new standards, developed in consultation with the community, that provides for compatible structures along the lake,” she said.
The town’s submission to the hearing noted construction of the existing dock and the impact of the breakwater are “not matters that were within the town’s jurisdiction or control” at the time of construction and, therefore, are beyond the scope of the application.
The town has also stated the application conforms to the 2020 Growth Plan and Provincial Policy Statement, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, Simcoe County Official Plan, and Town of Innisfil Official Plan.
As for the town’s role at LPAT, Nordstrom wrote: “The town attended the hearing to observe the neighbours resolve their remaining issues... between them and to support the previously reached staff-and-council endorsed settlement with the applicant as required.”
Histrop disputes that the boathouse should be grandfathered because the application was filed before the Our Shore bylaw was passed and what was built was shown in the approved drawings. For example, she says the “seasonal” ramp is permanent.
At the end of the five-day hearing and the submission of written statements, the case is now in LPAT's hands for a final decision, which is expected in the coming months.
Also in opposition are residents Ross Pityk and David Collacutt, as well as the Innisfil District Association.
The lawyer for Andrew Rivkin and Beaumont Trust declined to comment pending the outcome of the case.
However, the arguments in favour of Beaumont Trust have included that there is no legal right to a view for the neighbours of the property; and that the breakwater and dock previously constructed within Lake Simcoe “are not matters that were within the town’s jurisdiction or control,” and therefore should not be considered as part of the zoning-bylaw amendment.
