The proposal for a huge in-water boathouse at 3567 Crescent Harbour Road led to a challenge at the Ontario Municipal Board 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 in-water structure – but by the time the case was heard by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) on March 22 of this year, the Town of Innisfil had settled with the landowner, and no longer was fighting the proposed rezoning from Residential 1-Waterfront, to Residential 1 – Waterfront Exception, or the plans for an in-water boathouse.
Lindsay Histrop and husband Richard Martin, Innisfil residents whose neighbouring property will be most impacted by the large structure, were determined to continue to fight the case at the Tribunal.
Histrop said that she was “pretty devastated” by the town’s withdrawal of its objections to the project, especially after being assured initially by councillors that the municipality would back the residents.
She also objected to the municipality now portraying her opposition as a “neighbour vs. neighbour” dispute.
Histrop has continued to move forward “all on my own ticket,” bringing her own lawyer, planner and engineer to present her case at LPAT.
Some of Histrop’s earlier allies were gone. Both York University professor Stuart Marwick and local resident Mary Jane Brinkos passed away before the hearing – which was originally scheduled for 2020 but cancelled due to the pandemic – actually took place.
Histrop was determined to continue the fight in their memory.
It’s not simply that the massive new 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. “Yes, it affects me dramatically, but it’s so much more.”
There are safety and environmental concerns that are broader than the impact on other property owners in the area, she insists.
It all began when property-owner Andrew Rivkin installed piers out in Lake Simcoe, paralleling the shoreline – piers that were protected by a man-made rocky groyne or breakwater, more than 18 metres from the 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 sq. m. of the lake bottom.
However, the breakwater that was constructed was not as shown in the application – leading to charges. As John Almond, MNRF, 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 an in-water boathouse to be built on top of the dock piers. The approximately 186.2 sq. m. (2,004 sq. ft.) accessory structure would house at least three large boats and include boat lifts to permit storage, and sit about 18’ (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 actually pushed ice on Lake Simcoe onto neighbouring properties. And at least eight of the large boulders in front of the boathouse slips have shifted position, for over a year blocking access to one of the Rivkin dock’s mooring slips.
“It shouldn’t do that. It’s moving every winter,” says 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.”
The breakwater also impacts currents and wind patterns in the lake, Histrop says, describing seeing paddle boarders and canoeists coming around the point from Friday Harbour, which lies to the north, only to run into problems.
Those paddling from the south are also forced far out into the lake, to circle around the structure – exposing them to stronger winds.
Histrop has accused the town of doing “an about-face” regarding the in-water boathouse. Contacted for comment, Manager of Land Use Planning Mary Nordstrom responded that the town has done the best it can, under the circumstances, to ensure a better outcome.
In a statement, Nordstrom noted, “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. 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 metres (60’) to 16.1 metres (53’); the length from 14 to 13 metres (from 46’ to 43’), and the area to 158.2 sq. metres (1703 sq. ft.).
As part of the settlement, the boathouse owner also agreed to keep at least 50 per cent of the extensive shoreline in a naturalized state.
Nordstrom explained that under the town’s new Our Shore zoning bylaw, preservation of natural vegetation is required – but the boathouse application pre-dates the bylaw and therefore would not be bound by the new rules.
“The proposed boathouse at 3567 Crescent Harbour Road predates the Our Shore Community Planning Permit,” stated Nordstrom, denying that approval would set a precedent. “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 that 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 also stated, in its submission, that the application conforms to the 2020 Growth Plan and Provincial Policy Statement, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, Simcoe County Official Plan, and the Town of Innisfil Official Plan.
As for the town’s role at the LPAT meeting, Nordstrom wrote, “The town attended the hearing to observe the neighbours resolve their remaining issues as between them and to support the previously reached staff-and-council endorsed settlement with the applicant as required.”
Histrop challenges the claim that the boathouse should be grandfathered as “legal non-conforming” because the application was filed before the Our Shore bylaw was passed, arguing that the structure is not legal because what was built is not what was shown in the approved drawings, and that permits were issued based on incorrect information.
For example, welded plates shown on the foundation “don’t exist,” she says; as for a “seasonal” ramp, “it’s permanent.”
She also worries that there is nothing in the wording of the settlement that would stop the applicant from seeking site plan amendments in future, that could alter the structure and negate the concessions.
At the end of five days of online hearings, and the submission of written statements, Case Number PL180564 is now in the hands of the presiding LPAT Member for a final decision, to be posted on the LPAT website sometime in the coming months.
Also filing participant statements in opposition to the application of The Beaumont Trust and Andrew Rivkin were residents Ross Pityk and David Collacutt, and the Innisfil District Association.
The 100-member IDA opposed the application for the in-water boathouse because it is “located entirely on public space, will impact lake ecology, and creates a significant safety hazard to the community and tourists.”
Nordstrom, in her statement, thanked “all residents who took the time to participate in the hearing,” but Histrop says, “It was exhausting… Five days of hell. I have to get through this ordeal. I have to hope the Chair listens. I’m hoping he will find against the appellant.”
And, she suggests, “It’s not over, no matter what happens.”
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority was contacted for comment. LSRCA spokesperson Sue Jagminas explained that the matter at this point is part of the Planning process.
“If the applicant is successful at LPAT, they will still need to request a Regulations permit from us (LSRCA). In our review, we consider Regulation 179/06 of the Conservation Authorities Act and we also follow our Watershed Development Guidelines.”
The 2014 Guidelines include a section on the Lake Simcoe Shoreline and Lakebed, with specific reference to boathouses.
The Guidelines state, “The LSRCA may permit the construction along the shoreline or within Lake Simcoe,” provided the proposed structure meets several criteria:
- the structure is a single storey building;
- the structure is firmly anchored in place to ensure that it is not affected by changing water levels;
- the structure is to be wet-proofed to the fullest extent possible (e.g. electrical outlets 0.3 metres (1’) above flood elevation);
- the structure does not include any habitable space;
- the structure is not to be serviced by natural gas, propane, oil or similar types of fuel, or potable water or sanitary.
The guidelines also require that the structure does not impede the natural flow of water along the shoreline, and that if damaged by flooding, ice or floating debris, it will be repaired or removed.
A building permit will be required, as part of the settlement agreement with the town.
Innisfil Today reached out to the appellant, contacting the lawyer for Andrew Rivkin and Beaumont Trust for comment. The appellant declined to comment on the pending 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.
