At their October 16, 2024, Planning Council meeting, councillors are expected to hear an application to amend the development known as Crescent Bay Club, which is already under construction at 295 Highway 60.
The development involves a 53-unit condominium development on Fairy Lake consisting of four 3-storey multiple-dwelling residential buildings. According to previous inquiries submitted to the Town of Huntsville planning department, the development received planning approval, including setback approvals, in the 1980s.
Director of Planning Services for the Town, Kirstin Maxell, explained that the retaining wall was approved when the application went before Huntsville Council in 2021 for an updated site plan approval.
“Staff have been in contact with the developer to review what was approved and whether or not it is being constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The shoreline in this location you may recall contained Crescent Bay Lane – it travelled right across the frontage of this parcel. As part of the redevelopment, the road was relocated and the shoreline will have some plantings that will need to be reinstated, in addition,” she stated last July.
The Town of Huntsville planning department has since issued a public notice, noting that the applicant is expected to return to the Town’s Planning Council on October 16 to ask for an amendment to increase the height of building four (the building closest to the water) from a maximum permitted height of 11 metres to 13.5 metres (four storeys). An amendment is also being sought to allow “the construction of a retaining wall within the shoreline buffer in front of Building 4,” as per the planning notice.
The applicant has provided rendering of the project below.
Related:
Property left in disrepair for more than 30 years back before planning committee
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Too tall. Don’t aprove
Marcia Joiner says
I don’t think it should be aloud to be built higher. This is buildings for people with money.. where is the affordable housing?
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Unless the town is willing to approve a fulltime fire department so we are not relying on volunteers this cannot keep happening. We do not have the resources available as it is to provide services. These buildings will require ladder trucks etc in the event of fires. It’s insanity.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
If home owners on our lakes cannot place retaining walls along the waters edge to stop erosion
on their properties why should construction companies?
The town will of course allow the changes. Big business, no problem!
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
That is too tall and they’ve already completely changed the waterfront in that area. Enough is enough!
This is, or at least was, a COTTAGE community, but the natural beauty, tranquility, and charm (which draws people away from cities) is rapidly disappearing into concrete blocks with slips for noisy massive boats (many owned by people who happily create waves large to destroy the natural shoreline). The club and its neighbouring condos will have a high turn around occupancy rate due to their own destruction of what they sought in the first place!
The once dark, star filled night sky is now beginning to resemble that of cityscape. Cottagers living across from Deerhurst missed seeing this May’s once in a lifetime Arora Borealis (Northern lights) because of the light pollution. Imagine another large complex rising higher than the beautiful hills of our area. All is which will need massive lighting for parking and their multiple slips.
There is very little room for any tree lined shore and the erosion control they’ve already started is ugly and massive. Now they want to enlarger it?! There has already been an excavated beach created and room for the for the multiple slips they’re intending
Too much more building and this area will be just another polluting city on a string of dead polluted lakes which people will leave in order to find the elusive peace and tranquillity, beauty and charm of the north …
I suggest people attend this meeting and say No. Three stories is a more than generous slice out off Nature.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
What is happening to our lovely town. Do we allow anything and everything to be built anywhere.
We are losing our beautiful Muskoka look.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
This thing would look right at home on Toronto Harbor. Here it just looks ridiculous. I think there is one more development go go along this stretch of hwy 60 and once it is done you will no longer be able to see the lake at all. Not what I would prefer to live with but I suppose if we have to increase Huntsville to a million or two over the next 50 years to accommodate all those who get flooded out by rising seas this will seem like a minor, sort of tentative step along that route.
We have all kinds of brave talk about “night sky’s” but the reality is that from my yard on Lake of Bays, there is now a huge bloom of light from Baysville, even bigger from the Huntsville area. There are three high towers with bright lights on them and the cottages, sorry they are “cottages” in name only, these folks hate the dark and love lights, lights all over the place! LED lighting merely means “brighter” too.
A lot of the time these people are not even at their cottage, just run the lights for I don’t know why. Brain rinsed that this is the way to do it.
Add in the constant construction at these cottages and a few stereo’s for the heck of it and oh yes, everyone has at least one yapping dog, and the country I grew up in is fast vanishing.
By the way, a simple rule, easy to enforce for stereo’s in boats. “If we can hear it on shore at all, it is too loud and you should get an automatic fine”. The loud exhaust/prop noise is bad enough but do you really have to injure nature that last little bit with electronic sound blasted for all to hear your choice of terrible music??
I could go on, haven’t even reached cars, Sea Doos, Dock bubblers and stuff like that but I’ll stop here. You get the idea I think.
Perhaps we simply don’t deserve nature? We sure don’t seem to appreciate it.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
I vehemently agree with the previous writers. In particular, I’m wondering what happened to the importance of protecting the vital riparian zone at the shoreline to preserve natural habitat and the health of the lake??? I too am saddened – once again…
Mac Redden says
Developers know height, zoning, parking, setbacks and many other rules will be changed to suit whatever they want.
Happens all the time.
Almost every time.
Developers buy property in areas not zoned for what they have in mind knowing the zoning will be changed.
Instead of changing their development to suit the rules.
Why even have a planning department when developers do all the planning?
Might as well save some taxpayer dollars and close the planning department.
Might as well save some taxpayer dollars and eliminate councillors as well.
It’s not like they represent residents at all.
Just developers.
They just blindly approve whatever developers want to do.
Skip that step and save us some bucks.
Corinne Island says
Approval of this amendment is a slippery slope, allowing this extra story to one builder will open the doors to all other builds.
Teresa Ferrante says
Regarding the site plan amendment, the developer is asking for a 4 story building where the Huntsville bylaw limits the building to three stories. What is not clear is that the retaining wall has already been built but the developer has placed it too close to the water. The developer is asking permission from council to leave it in its present location. Do we really need this wall closer to the water than it needs to be? ABSOLUTELY NOT
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
It is amazing that a rusty steel wall on a lake shore is acceptable but a decorative wall on the river front to remediate erosion is not. A town and district councillor has demanded that the decorative wall be removed. Go figure eh
George Riley says
In residential new construction an owner on a new build is inspected numerous times by builder inspection to ensure builder is adhering the builders approved plans. Changes are not usually allowed. Going from 3 storey to four storey is a major change and should not be allowed after the fact even with amendment to plan. Acceptance of changes is a slippery slope and should be avoided.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
This is Barrie plain and simple, Huntsville is gone and this council needs to be held accountable. We have a mayor with an inability to say no to anything.
Mac Redden says
Developers know height, zoning, parking, setbacks and many other rules will be changed to suit whatever they want.
Instead of changing their development to suit the rules.
Happens all the time.
Almost every time.
https://southmuskoka.doppleronline.ca/muskoka-lake-township-moving-forward-with-comprehensive-zoning-by-law/#comment-73777
Cottagers know if you are rich changing the shoreline, massive tree cutting and building gigantic docks and boathouses will result in only a minor slap on the wrist/destruction fee, if anything.
Are greasy palms involved?
Seems like it.
For example: “Blight on the lake: The fight over a mega-cottage in Muskoka”
Much better to ask for forgiveness/an amendment than ask for permission
While if you want to extend your little dock from 6 to 8 feet you are denied.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
The readers have every right to be upset about this horrible wall on Fairy Lake. All of council and staff are also not happy with the wall. Keep in mind that we are a bit handcuffed by a plan that was approved in the ’80s. Believe it or not, the original approval even allowed for the developer to fill in the lake 20 ft out from the property line. Thankfully, that is not happening. Also, we are now canceling dated development plans, in fact three were canceled just this year for Huntsville.
But just as a point for clarification, the developer is not looking to build a higher building than what was originally approved. Staff is simply working with the developer to discuss the location and size of the wall. If the wall is shrunk in size the building will exceed the allowable height from the ground. But there’s no discussion about building a taller building than had already been approved in the ’80s. And if there was, I certainly wouldn’t vote in favour. But I would really love to see a smaller wall with a really amazing vegetation plan to make sure we never see it. Stay tuned, this is definitely a meeting worth watching if you have the time.
liz wren says
“Retaining wall to be lowered to suit basement walkouts.” Basement walkouts at 286.2m elevation. Isn’t Building 3 (the furthest east) already built on floodplain? What was the lake level in the 2017 flood when Deerhurst Drive broke apart?
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Councilor Morrison, as stated in the article,” The Town of Huntsville planning department has since issued a public notice, noting that the applicant is expected to return to the Town’s Planning Council on October 16 to ask for an amendment to increase the height of building four (the building closest to the water) from a maximum permitted height of 11 metres to 13.5 metres (four storeys).”
They are clearly trying to build higher…what are we all missing here?
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
It is definitely a confusing situation. The building will be the exact height that was approved in 1986. The issue is that the measurement of height is being taken from the top of the current wall. If the wall gets cut down, then the height doesn’t meet the 11 m bylaw. The town’s planning staff is working really hard to find a solution that conforms with the bylaw. They’re also seems to be an issue with the location of the wall. It will definitely be an interesting discussion at planning Council, I’m looking forward to hearing all of the information before making any decisions. There will be a detailed staff report and a presentation from the developer at that meeting, I suggest that the public should certainly try to tune in.
liz wren says
Murray, I think they are applying to lower the retaining wall and surrounding landscape, in order to add another floor at the bottom of the building, with walkout basements. Thus not increasing the height. Not sure if that floor was always planned and they just want to give the basement condo owners a better view, or if they want to sell more units, or if the originally planned building size didn’t fit on the parcel because of … oh I don’t know… erosion or something. I would be worried about these basement condo owners so close to the water’s edge complaining about ‘high’ lake levels meanwhile it’s normal.