Proponents of Muskoka Landing expansion asked to return to the drawing board on height issue

Neither an 18 nor a 15 metre high Muskoka Landing addition seemed to fly with Huntsville’s Planning Committee on Wednesday. They were concerned with the impact the height and look of the proposed building addition would have on one of Huntsville’s most cherished vistas.

That is the site of the existing Muskoka Landing Long-Term Care facility. Its owners, Jarlette Health Services, are proposing a significant expansion to the home’s existing building, which currently contains 94 long-term care beds. A proposed addition to the building would accommodate an additional 101 retirement home units, down from the 130 originally proposed. The number of parking spaces has also been reduced from 153 to 131 spaces, as a response to concerns expressed by the community when the application was first heard in May, according to staff.

The expansion project also calls for the construction of 14 town houses adjacent to the Fairy Lake shoreline as well as a 60-metre wide docking structure that would see boats parked perpendicular along the shoreline of the Rogers Cove basin. A property on Helen Street, to be accessed through Rogers Cove Drive, would be used for overflow parking and the proponents are including a walking trail along the shoreline that would connect Rogers Cove Drive to the trail adjacent to Highway 60.

Staff noted that the majority of concerns expressed at the meeting in May, such as proper vegetative buffers, storm water management, light pollution and parking surfaces, can be addressed at the site plan approval stage.

Those in attendance at the November 16 meeting, however, made a distinction between long-term care beds and retirement home units and argued that what Huntsville really needs are more price-regulated long-term care beds controlled and funded by the Province, not retirement suites that many of Huntsville’s elderly residents can’t afford. But the planning consultant for the applicant noted that long-term care beds are approved by the Province and said he did not think more would be approved anytime soon for Huntsville.

Councillor Karin Terziano said that while she agreed with the affordability argument, she did not think the type of accommodations proposed was part of the planning approval purview.

Other concerns expressed by a Helen Street property owner included the environmental impact of the boat slips on the shoreline, a parking lot in a residential neighbourhood and the impact of more traffic, both by vehicle and boat, on his neighbourhood and lake in general. He also urged committee to stick to its guns and uphold its zoning bylaw, which calls for a maximum building height restriction in that area of 12 metres, not the 18 metres being sought by the applicants. He put together a rendering of what the building would look like from the lake, which really seemed to get the attention of Councillor Jonathan Wiebe – especially when it was held up against the proponent’s rendering.

Wiebe asked why the two were so different. “The only comment I would have is that I think that the perspective from the lake is at a different angle in the two,” said Kirstin Maxwell, the Town’s Manager of Development Process who recommended in her report a maximum height of 15 metres instead of the 18 proposed by the applicant.

Councillor Karin Terziano asked Maxwell for her rationale behind the recommendation.

“I wasn’t comfortable with 18 metres because it is a very significant height, however 15 metres, in my opinion, seemed more palatable from both directions, from Highway 60 as well as the lake,” responded Maxwell. “As we discussed earlier, it’s all perspective on where you’re looking at something [from]. I don’t think that if you’re out in the middle of the lake, a 15 metre height would not have the same impact to any degree that would be really disturbing,” she said.

Still Councillor Wiebe said he did not feel comfortable making a decision without further information. “I would not feel comfortable saying, yes let’s adjust what we’re willing to accept from our Official Plan – which you know a lot of work has gone into – and be confident to know that that is an acceptable resolve.”

Councillor Nancy Alcock concurred, although she did commend the applicants for working with the lake association and addressing a number of concerns. She also said she liked the walkway proposed along the shoreline. “From my perspective, I agree with Councillor Wiebe because I feel… 15 is that OK, is that good? I’m not sure. Should we stick with 11 or 12, whatever it is? I can’t support 18,” she said, adding that it is a needed project and thanked the proponent for embarking on the expansion but also noted that it is significant expansion for the community. “I think it’s a good location but I’d like to be happy about this project. It’s significant for our community,” said Alcock, who asked that the proponent take another look at the configurations proposed and seek input from the community.

Councillor Terziano also agreed. She said the message from the committee has been loud and clear from the beginning that an 18 metre addition is too high. “I am happy to table it as well and see if they can work on something that is going to be good for everyone,” she said.

Committee also received numerous letters of opposition and a petition, with 37 signatures, against the requested height exemption.

Councillor Bob Stone chaired the meeting during the discussion to enable Chair Nancy Alcock greater freedom to comment on the development.

Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.