Chris House of HDL Corporation and planning consultant Savas Varadas were before Huntsville Planning Council on September 13, looking for approvals to subdivide an estimated 52.3-hectare lot located at 225 Etwell Road into a total of four lots.
The lot is located in the Backlot Waterfront precinct area and has 128.3 m of road frontage. In the Town’s Official Plan, the precinct requires minimum lot sizes of four hectares with a minimum frontage of 134 metres. The severance proposed would result in smaller lot sizes—two of the lost would be two hectares in size, a third lot would be 2.2ha in size and the retained lot would be reduced to 32.2ha. In terms of the frontage, two of the lots would have 100 rather than the required 134 metres of frontage, a third lot would have 120m of frontage and the retained lot would be left with 128.3m of frontage on Etwell Rd.
“The standard within the CPP (Community Planning Permit) reflects the Official Plan requirement for 134m of road frontage which is in place to mitigate fiscally and environmentally unsustainable rural development,” noted staff in their planning report which recommended that the application be denied. “It should be noted that the property could accommodate the creation of two lots that would achieve the required standard,” added the report.
An area neighbour spoke against the application at the meeting. She expressed concern about what was being planned for the retained lot and whether future development was being planned on the property. She also noted that the lot sizes proposed are not what is required in the OP. She also said it was not in keeping with the larger lots in the area and expressed concern about the impact it would have on wildlife.
Huntsville Councillor Scott Morrison argued in favour of the application. He said smaller lots create communities in rural areas and while higher density is sought in urban areas of the municipality, eventually, the Town will run out of land in those areas and the need for housing is great.
“If you go further down Etwell Road there are a whole bunch of 200-foot lots. This isn’t inconsistent with the neighbourhood. The benefits are huge, we’re not in a housing crisis, we’re in whatever is ahead of a crisis, we’re past crisis for housing,” he said. “I know some of the concerns were about maybe we had donations from developers and whatnot, I can tell you I have no relationship with Mr. House, I have no donations from Mr. House. This is a completely unbiased opinion and I would love to see this go through,” said Morrison.
Huntsville Mayor Nancy Alcock said while she supports the application, she was around when the last OP was formulated and understands the intent of larger lots in the Waterfront Backlot designation. She said how a development impacts the character of an area has always been a consideration. “I think if you look at the entirety of the area, there are lots of properties that are smaller, that have smaller frontages and it’s a mixture… I think when we refer to character, the proposal for three separate lots actually fits.” Alcock asked the applicant to also consider impacts on wildlife such as deer if the application is approved.
Councillor Jason FitzGerald agreed with both Morrison and Alcock and noted that the District of Muskoka was not opposed to it either. He said when the Official Plan was created the housing situation was not as dire and questioned at what point the OP gets changed to “expedite these matters and make it more feasible for people to build reasonable housing…”
Councillor Cory Clarke also said he was in favour of the application, although he questioned what was planned for the retaining lot. Varadas said as far as he knew there were no future development plans for those lands and the application does not touch on that. “You can ask Mr. House directly if you want, he’s sitting behind me…,” said Varadas and looked back at House who shrugged his shoulders.
“At almost five acres per lot, I feel that the lots are not going to negatively impact the neighbourhood,” said Clarkr who also reiterated some of the arguments made by fellow councillors and said he was in favour of the application.
Deputy Mayor Dan Armour said, ‘I just feel I should say something. I think… everybody has already asked all the questions and I am in support of [this application].”
In the end, council approved the application.
Councillor Monty Clouthier declared a conflict.
You can find the planning report HERE.
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 so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Phil Lam says
With all due respect, why exactly does Huntsville have an Official Plan? Apparently it exists for discussion purposes only and is not really an Official Plan or a guide to municipal planning or development. This Council is ridiculously uninformed. Staff are hired to do a job based on experience, education, exposure; and in my opinion they do a very good job. Council…not so much.
George Hines says
The Town’s current OP definitely restricts Rutal Developement, as they want development contained the Urban section.
I just don’t understand why frontage went from a minimum of 60m to 134m
Bracebridge OP requires 100m if I’m not mistaken. This approval leaves the door wide open for others wanting to sever property with less then the 134 m requirement.
Glen Cowing says
How does creating 3 or 4 lots help with the ‘housing crisis’. The people who need the housing help will not be able to afford any of these homes.
I am not sure why Huntsville has an “Official Plan” or any building by-laws. It seems any new construction asks for, and gets an exception to the rule.
Stephanie Braithwaite says
Phil Lam. Totally agree with you! At times I wonder why we have a council and planning committee- developers get whatever they want- after a long ridiculous discussion at council. Our town is becoming extremely unattractive due to buildings going up everywhere and our beautiful landscape ruined with tree cutting etc. Housing will, I am sure, still not be affordable to those who really need it. We need to replace those “citified” thinking members on council including the mayor!!
Allen Markle says
Phil Lam: Right On!! I’ve posted on Doppler before, that the OP for our town is simply the starting point for negotiating ‘variances’. It is not a limitation, but the suggestion to “Gentlemen. Start your engines. Let’s get these changes made. Not to worry about that OP “.
We are asked to submit suggestions to help formulate the town’s OP. Wry humor? Makes me wonder why I would do that anymore.
It seems that a ‘developer’ only needs to sit behind a suit and “shrug his shoulders” to get approval. I’m not so sure an individual citizen would fare so well appearing before our council. (Lots of pent up “Nos?) Or is it just that council has neither the money, inclination or desire to stand against so called ‘affordable housing’, developer’s lawyers, all brandishing the Ontario Land Tribunal.
If that’s the case, why doesn’t council just say they have no control over ‘developers and their developments’? It may well reduce the distain some may harbor toward council and its perceived (actual?) inability to manage those developers and development in the area. Makes one wonder why indeed we need the council. Maybe just a direct line to the OLT gods? No waiting. No questions.
But then we might be denied some perplexing and grimly humorous on-goings. Like directing that all water access points be catalogued as public knowledge and then apparently, commence to sell them off? The area around the Centennial Center looking like an ill kept field!! Or a donated two-holer turned into a s*#t -show. ‘Though, the other day I think I saw some ‘movement’ in that area, so maybe by spring and to the tune of a few hundred grand it will come to pass. Will it all be on CCTV? Hope so.
It’s not really funny. We expect some leadership. We vote for the people we feel represent us, our views and aspirations. But what we get is clear-cut and blasted and bulldozed. Development approved and passed unanimously by those who voted. Because developers, who are just in it for the money, simply shrug.
Merrill Perret says
I agree with Glen. These lots won’t do anything to ease the housing crisis, but it’s a convenient excuse for developers. Sounds good: “We’re helping ease the housing crisis. Aren’t we good citizens?” I’m surprised they didn’t include inflation, supply chain issues and labour shortages.
Marcia Frost says
Yup, SAME old, more over-priced developmnt!
Nothing for the wrking poor who live/wrk in this town….jst keep building massive houses and condos for the wealthy who’v all moved up here.
Keep plowing under the beautiful natural areas, jst keep killing the lakes with pesticides so peopl frm the city dont hav to be inconvenienced by big season, jst keep driving out all our poor wrking class peopl who make this town run.
Noone cares, almst noone even voted and look who got in becaus the newer residents DID go and vote for othr city folks to run our town!
So now we’re stuck with greedy developer-loving, small minded and short sighted peopl to run ths town….theyr certainly NOT going to help us littl guys….muskoka is for sale to the highest bidder and everyone else can jst get out and let thm destroy everythng that made this twn special. Turn it into toronto, we’r def on the way.
If you cant pay a million dollars for a place to live you dont belong in Huntsville anymore…end of story.
Stanley Moulson says
This will do nothing to alleviate the housing crisis. None of these homes will be rent geared to income. The biggest need is for 1 bedroom and Bachelor apartments. Less than a year under their belt and our new administration is already off the rails.
Evan Turner says
It is obvious to anyone looking at the acceptance of this submission by Council that it will have no substantial impact on the housing situation in Huntsville. Council members should refrain from using real and serious local issues to justify decisions that have no actual impact on those issues.
If Council is serious about dealing with the housing situation, changes to planning should be implemented to require developers to include substantial additional provisions for building moderate to low cost housing within their developments.
Lots of money is being made building subdivisions in the area. Spreading a little of it around to help the little guy would only be helpful to the whole community.
Brenda Begg says
I agree with the comments. Building more houses won’t do it. We need affordable housing. YESTERDAY. There are many businesses that need employees but the employees need affordable housing. YESTERDAY. We’ve said it again and again and again and there’s no headway. Honestly, it’s like throwing Jello at a wall; it just doesn’t stick! I don’t have a solution but there must be one.
An aside, but it’s related: I might add that we all agree that employees need and deserve a .living wage. We were recently in France on a tour. We were told by our Tour Director to not tip the restaurant employees because it’s not expected or needed because they are paid a decent living wage. We were very surprised to hear this. Could Ontario take a page from their book? BTW: food portions were generous (including generous portions of wine) so the employers weren’t cutting corners in order to pay their employees a decent wage. And, there wasn’t any time limit on dining (i.e. we were not told that we only had 2 hours at our table and then we needed to exit). I don’t know how France (and other European countries) restaurant owners are able to do this, but not Ontario restaurant owners. Puzzling.