Boat house or Hanger???

[HTHM]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4175797-illegal-muskoka-boathouse-called-an-aircraft-hangar-to-duck-environmental-rules/

 

Illegal Muskoka boathouse called an aircraft hangar to duck environmental rules Owner claimed it’s a plane hangar to skirt environmental laws

boathouse aerodromePaul Bak

This image submitted by developer Paul Bak shows a Cessna float plane docking in a structure that he insists is an “aerodrome,” not a boathouse. A judge ruled this month that Bak’s “aerodrome” designation was an invalid attempt to get around environmental rules about boathouses on Lake Rosseau.

An attempt by a developer to pass off a Muskoka boathouse as an airplane hangar to skirt environmental regulations has been quashed by a judge.

"(I)t looks like a boathouse, and at all material times it was utilized only as a boathouse on a lake," Ontario Superior Court Justice Stephen O'Neill ruled.

"We were delighted by the decision," said Seguin Township Mayor David Conn.

Paul Bak's application to build a boathouse on Lake Rosseau's environmentally protected shoreline was first rejected by the municipality in 2008. That didn't stop him from building the structure with a 1,000-square-foot upper-level living area, despite a stop-work order, according to O'Neill's ruling.

When the boathouse was almost finished, in 2012, Bak filed an application with Transport Canada, claiming it was actually an "aerodrome" to house a plane. If successful, federal regulations for such a structure would have trumped local zoning that protects the shoreline.

Bak said he will appeal the decision, which ordered the structure's demolition within 90 days.

"I fly a windsock. It will accommodate a Cessna float plane. To me that's kind of the short and sweet of it," he said. "I own and I operate an aerodrome."

But the judge's decision states that Bak, "does not own a plane nor does he have a pilot's licence."

The decision also states that a Cessna 182 (float plane) would not fit in the building and that pictures taken in the summer of 2012 "show boats and watercraft moored inside the structure."

A promotional video for Bak's property from last year shows a sumptuous lakeside manor, complete with several shots of the tree-lined vista and a floating structure referred to as the "boathouse."

Subsequent advertisements for the property labelled it an "aerodrome" and "float plane hangar."

The court decision mentions a 2011 real estate sales listing for the cottage that describes a "floatplane hangar/aerodrome" to be built on the property.

But the judge grounded the plan in his Oct. 2 decision.

The judge stated Bak purchased the property on Lake Rosseau "to tear down the old cottage, build a new cottage and construct a single-storey boathouse," and that the person who prepared the boathouse's building plans "knew nothing about airplanes and undertook no investigation of plane sizes."

Speaking Thursday from his home in Etobicoke, Bak said the structure is meant "primarily" for the storage of float planes, and provided photos of it holding a small amateur-built ultralight C-GREZ plane.

Bak added that Lake Rosseau is a getaway for wealthy cottagers who use float planes, many of whom he knows through his work as a homebuilder. As the property developer, his plan is to sell the "aerodrome" to one of the high-flyers on the lake, he said, acknowledging it would also be used for boat storage.

"The township wouldn't allow me to build a boathouse, so I decided it would be a better option to build an aerodrome, because there are many clients that I have that have (float planes)," Bak said.

Lawyer Gerard Chouest, who advised the municipality, said "federal regulations which provide for the registration of an aerodrome are very liberal."

Chouest said the Lake Rosseau boathouse could possibly fit a plane. "Only the smallest that I know of, possibly. We argued that there was no intention, no actual use as an aerodrome — that it was a boathouse. And that's what the court found."

A similar situation arose in the Township of Scugog in 2011, where a company called Earthworx Industries was dumping soil at a landfill, but managed to dodge an environmental bylaw by claiming an aerodrome would ultimately be built there.

A judge ruled there was no aviation activity at the landfill site, and questioned "the sincerity of the avowed intention to build a runway and an aerodrome," noting the company didn't announce such plans until after a stop-work order was issued.

In the Lake Rosseau case, O'Neill's ruling included a statement that might help prevent other developers from ignoring environmental rules regarding Ontario's waters.

"Lakes and rivers are not immune from slow degradation as a result of human activity. . . . Aerodromes looking like and operating as boathouses will in due course come to proliferate or at least become more prominent on Ontario's lakes, all without environmental zoning or planning oversight."

Torstar news service

 

[2 tone z71]

Nothing lining the pockets of the right person wont fix

[Fisherman]

Tear it down, teach him a lesson.

[John Bacon]

Regardless of the intended use of the structure, he built it without a permit. Isn't that sufficient reason to tear it down?

[DRIFTER_016]

Yep, rip down the $200K boathouse and teach him that yes, the laws apply yo you too.

[Terry]

If they agreed it was a hanger, I believe it totally falls under federal law and the town would have no say in it.

[2 tone z71]

that would be ideal..and a great lesson ...unfortunately its easier to ask for forgiveness then permission nowadays ...Ive been building for 20 yrs...this guy will get a light fine and a slap on the wrist

[NAW]

Yep, rip down the $200K boathouse and teach him that yes, the laws apply yo you too.

X2!

[captpierre]

sounds like this guy is not hurtin for cash

[Bearss]

Give the guy some credit, he more than likely followed the DFO Operational Statement for Dock and Boathouse Construction and clearly followed the The Dock Primer A Cottager’s Guide to Waterfront-Friendly Docks to protect fish and fish habitat during and post construction. What else can you ask for?

 

 

[Fisherman]

Regardless of what regulations he followed, it was regected, therefore it should be removed. If you or I did it, the bulldozer would have long come and gone.

[Old Ironmaker]

And where I am a permit to construct a "garage" will not be accepted, however a permit to construct an on shore boathouse will if it meets specs. All the boats in the neighborhood have four wheels and with at least two doors. I love it.

[aplumma]

We have agricultural buildings here a place to store larger pieces of equipment separate from the house. nod nod wink wink.

 

 

 

Art

[wkrp]

I think that this debate should be put in front of the Senate.

[Roy]

I don't think that the senate wants to get into this right now. It would require a decision and all kinds of yuckie things like research and actual work. They'd probably even have to do all off this here in Canada...NO TRAVEL!

[irishfield]

If they agreed it was a hanger, I believe it totally falls under federal law and the town would have no say in it.

The Province, Counties, Townships, City and towns have no constitution capacity to assess any planning power over an aerodrome, as they fall totally under federal jurisdiction. Now if he had of landed there first.. that bay instantly became an aerodrome automatically and had he then built it (without the living quarters) he would have been scott free. The fact he was dumb enough to apply for a boat house permit first... well.. he's dumb. That said.. if they can't prove it actually causes any environmental damage and there are boat houses on either side of him to prove on his part it doesn't cause damage they can't make him tear it down. If it fits the airplane in the picture.... it's a hangar.. as it means mine will fit inside!

 

You do not need a building permit to build a hangar in Canada... and if you want a big garage in your back rural yard just get the Toronto Helicopter training school to land in your back yard first..... before pouring the footings.

[Jon]

As someone who deals with permitting fairly often, my guess is he went the beg for foregiveness route.

 

In terms of DFO approval, the Operational Statement for Boathouses has a few size limits associated with it:

• it is a new, repair or rebuild of an open-faced crib dock or boathouse built entirely on natural bedrock or sand bottom with a total combined footprint (for both existing and proposed cribs) of 15 square metres (161 ft²) or less,
• the total surface area for the entire dock and boathouse, which occurs in a location below the ordinary high water mark (HWM) (see definition below), including both existing and proposed structures combined, does not exceed 50m² (538 ft² ), unless the structure is built entirely over natural bedrock or sand bottom (not supporting aquatic vegetation),
• the combined width for all existing and proposed shoreline improvements on land and in water (docks, boathouses and beaches) is less than 25% of the property’s riparian area width (shoreline frontage width).

I don't think this one meets the Operational Statement and given that the municipality didn't permit it, it may not have gotten DFO approval (Letter of Advice or Authorization).

 

Jon

[moxie]

Tear it down, teach him a lesson.

 

 

Yep, rip down the $200K boathouse and teach him that yes, the laws apply yo you too.

 

 

X2!

I understand these points but really? $300 Billion in debt in this province and we go after one of us? A guy who has taken risks and sacrificed god knows what to build himself a small empire and we pound on him. He's easier to pick on isn't he? Just sayin'

Edited October 27, 2013 by moxie

[Fisherman]

 

 

 

 

I understand these points but really? $300 Billion in debt in this province and we go after one of us? A guy who has taken risks and sacrificed god knows what to build himself a small empire and we pound on him. He's easier to pick on isn't he? Just sayin'

If you let one go, it lays a precedence, the rest will copy.

[lew]

 

A guy who has taken risks and sacrificed god knows what to build himself a small empire and we pound on him.

 

If he broke the rules he needs to face the music, doesn't matter how hard he worked to get where he is.

 

If he didn't break any rules, then congrats on having a beautiful home.

 

Of course if he's a politician, then it's all good because rules don't apply to them.

Edited October 27, 2013 by lew

[Bernie]

Have nothing against someone that wants to build a dock or even a boathouse for that matter. Not really much different than a garage at a house.
But it needs to be done in an environmentally friendly manner and with some taste to the surroundings.

Plus the building codes themselves.

Most crib docks actually create habitat, not sure why there is so much against them.

As fishermen, you all know this.

In this case, I have no sympathy for the fellow. I'd be inclined to make him tear it down.

If they don't, it will certainly set a precedent in the future.

[Canuck2fan]

If it sets a precedent then he wins twice.... He is a developer after all and will probably welcome the opportunity to assist any of his clients in doing the same thing. For a whoppingly large fee of course, as there will be legal costs to recoup.

 

Of course he will not have to tear it down because he is obviously loaded and will just work every angle until the township gives up fighting it. Once the judge gave the order it should have included a 30 minute bidding process on who could do the work to rip it down and for it to be completely destroyed and cleaned up in less than one week. Court judgements are useless without enforcement.

 

The other sad thing is why so much creativity has gone into fighting the township instead of helping it prosper.

[outllaw]

cant help but chuckle.