Town council has approved additional restrictions tied to a proposed four-lot waterfront development on Cedar Lane after a lengthy debate over environmental protection and shoreline use in the High Falls/Wilson’s Falls area.
The issue stems from a rezoning application and related vacant land condominium application approved earlier this month by the Town of Bracebridge’s Planning and Development Committee. The proposal would permit four single detached residential lots on roughly 24.52 hectares (60.59 acres) of land along the Muskoka River.
Town staff said the development is being processed as a vacant land condominium because the lots would share common elements, not because a condominium building is planned.
Residents raised concerns over the impact the development could have on wildlife habitat, shoreline preservation, steep slopes, water quality and the narrow waterbody. Several residents also voiced opposition during the public meeting process.
At a recent council meeting, councillors voted to approve an amendment introducing additional restrictions on the property, including limits on the types of shoreline structures permitted, dock sizes and the number of docks allowed. Staff said the conditions would go beyond the typical restrictions normally applied to shoreline residential properties.
Coun. Debbie Vernon, who introduced the amendment, said protecting wildlife in the area is critical and urged council to take a proactive approach.
“Protecting wildlife in that area is vital,” Vernon said, describing the property as a special area deserving additional safeguards.
Mayor Rick Maloney voted against the amendment, cautioning council against singling out one property for heightened protection.
“I’d be very cautious in pointing to this particular piece of property and saying it needs to be protected,” Maloney said. “We need to be very careful about how we approach this.”
Maloney argued the entire area is environmentally significant and said any broader discussion should include policy decisions surrounding shore road allowances throughout the region. He also noted the proposal would help increase local housing stock.
Town clerk Lori MacDonald said council could pursue a broader policy framework in the future regarding shore road allowances and public access.
“If council decides that in this case, the shore road allowance should be maintained by the public, there is nothing to prevent the property owners from coming forward in the future and asking council to change their decision,” MacDonald said.
Coun. Don Smith supported the amendment despite acknowledging there are currently limited shoreline restrictions in the area.
“If we let this one slide by then it’s just one more we’ve allowed to slip by,” Smith said.
Coun. Brenda Rhodes said the amendment would significantly reduce permitted shoreline clearing and dock sizes.
“Every homeowner has the right to enjoy the waterfront but … on other waterfront properties there’s been more clearing in my opinion than I would have liked to see,” Rhodes said.
Councillors Barry Hammond, Barb McMurray and Mayor Maloney voted against the amendment, but it was ultimately approved by council.
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 six times per week!
Click here to support local news
Sad to see Mayor Maloney and Councillors Hammond and McMurray vote against protecting the precious Muskoka River shoreline. Why would they do such a thing? Why are they supporting special interests instead of the interests of the people of Bracebridge? Let’s keep this in mind at this fall’s election. When they come to you asking for your vote ask them why they are doing this.
Not very often do I see council disagreeing on things, so this good to see that discussion is happening and things aren’t just agreed to. Also I think the town should never sell off the shore road allowances because they were created for a reason. In my opinion all waterways that are not landlocked should always have public access. And could the mayor not use his strong mayor powers to rule on this?