The way the Town of Huntsville approves planning applications could significantly change as early as this August.
The third and final bylaw for the Community Planning Permit (CPP) system was approved by Huntsville’s planning committee on July 13.
The CPP will combine several planning applications—zoning, minor variances, and site plan control—into one application, thereby expected to significantly streamline the process.
Paul Lowe, representing one of two consultant firms working with staff on the implementation of the system, noted that the same amount of detailed analysis and review would be required when considering applications under the CPP, but the process would be quicker.
Municipalities have an obligation to respond to planning applications within a certain period, otherwise, they can be taken to the Ontario Land Tribunal and planning decisions could be made for them.
Lowes gave committee a brief synopsis of the benefits of the CPP. He said the system gives municipalities more control over the type of conditions they want to see imposed as part of the planning permit approval process. Conditions such as regulating the removal of vegetation and trees and site alteration.
“You cannot apply conditions on a zoning bylaw, although the Municipal Act allows for it, the government has never imposed the regulations to allow for that. So, it [the CPP] allows the municipality to impose additional conditions that have to be met before the permit is issued or finalized,” said Lowes, adding that it is also beneficial for applicants because applications would be processed faster and there is no third party appeal. Only the applicant can appeal a decision.
The CPP contains three types of permit approvals: staff approvals, staff approvals with notice, or council approvals. If an applicant wants to amend the CPP, similar to zoning bylaw amendments, they would have to go through a public hearing process, said Lowes.
Under the CPP, what is currently referred to as zones or zoning—regulations that govern how real property can and cannot be used in certain geographic areas—would now be replaced by precincts. i.e. Residential Precinct, Waterfront Precinct, etc.
Lowes summarized some of the changes in the third and final draft from the second draft presented in April. Many of those changes were prompted by several public meetings on the CPP.
- Clarifications regarding the Development Precinct which are lands within settlement areas that have not yet been zoned. Those lands have been classed under Development Precinct which means further study and analysis is needed before precincts (or zoning) is applied to them.
- Additional clarification was provided regarding vegetation and tree removal. The focus of the CPP is to address clearcutting and the protection of significant natural areas. The definition of clearcutting is cutting an area of one hectare or greater unless supported by an approved Forest Management Plan. Vegetation removal is exempt from the bylaw except where there is clearcutting or within ten metres of abutting roads, adjacent to water courses and wetlands, and within certain natural features. There are also exemptions for firewood and personal use.
- Further clarifications have been made regarding site alteration and the placement of fill. Anyone using more than 10 cubic metres of fill is required to get a permit.
- Requirements have been added for sensitive land uses adjacent to pit and quarries, railways and rail yards.
- Requirements have also been added for development within hazardous wildland fires.
- Provisions have also been added for community benefits such as allowing a multi-residential building to build higher and increase the allowable density if it benefits the community, as per council determination.
- Provisions have also been added for new water access only lots. Applicants must demonstrate that they have appropriate mainland parking.
- Parking requirements have also been slightly reduced for multi-residential buildings from 1.5 parking spaces per unit to 1.2 parking spaces per unit, plus one parking space for every five units.
- Under precincts where restaurants are permitted, seasonal outdoor patios have been added as a discretionary use, accessory to a restaurant.
- – An allowance for minor development has been added within flood zones.
- Symbols have also been added to the mapping of precinct to make them easier to identify.
Manager of planning Richard Clark also walked committee through some of the mapping changes to reflect existing site-specific exemptions and conditions throughout the municipality.
He calculated that the CPP could be in place sometime in August, provided there were no appeals.
Planning staff also requested an additional $15,000 to roll out education material, material that Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano thought should have been available while consultations were taking place. Deputy Mayor and committee chair Nancy Alcock agreed, but noted that the drafts changed with each update so it would’ve been difficult to do.
Two community members asked committee to hold off on approvals, at least until after the municipal election. They also noted that the final changes to the draft bylaw were not available at the library, which made it difficult to examine in such little time, particularly for those without computers.
Planning consultant Wayne Simpson also spoke on behalf of his clients ClubLink Corporation and North Granite Ridge Golf Course. He was objecting to the development precinct category being applied to parts of both properties. He argued the category is too vague and does not indicate what the development rights of those lands are. That may make it difficult to sell those lands, should the owners ever want to, because a developer would not know what’s allowed.
In the end, planning committee unanimously approved the third and final draft of the CPP, which will be forwarded to Huntsville council later this month for ratification.
It also approved an Official Plan amendment to allow for the CPP, to be forwarded to the District of Muskoka for approval.
You can find the presentations here (pdf.) and Lowe’s presentation here.
Thank you for the comment Tamara de la Vega.
Given that this is a municipal election year, specifically October, and with Council’s projection of affirming this permit/bylaw by August, isn’t this cutting it short?
All land decisions are Council’s and should require 3 full readings, (separately) such that the public has notification & opportunity to properly respond.
This document would circumvent that by allowing town bureaucrats to make decisions!
Doesn’t this seem like it would allow the Town to ‘skate’ around an OLT/OMB outstanding land issue, potential conflicts of interest and broken provincial rules with impunity?
Karen,
You may want to read the report from the planning staff. You will find a link at the bottom.
Would this new municipal instrument be a work around of Ontario’s rules for existing subdivisions? And is there an imposed provincial time limit to have this ratified, given this is a “lame duck” council time?
To be more specific: Is Huntsville’s non participation of it’s duties for an ongoing OLT/OMB Stephenson Township land developers’ case have anything to do with this?
The way you’ve stated it is clear. It was not so in the article. Thank you. It will be good (late, but good) to limit clearcutting. Now I need to look up the size of a hectare!
Dear Mr. McLennan,
I’m not sure where your confusion lies. Clearcutting cannot be done without a permit unless you have a Forest Management Plan in place. Should you have any further questions, follow the link to the report which contains the final draft of the bylaw.
Thank you for reading Doppler
Excellent report.
“clarification was provided regarding vegetation and tree removal. The focus of the CPP is to address clearcutting and the protection of significant natural areas. The definition of clearcutting is cutting an area of one hectare or greater unless supported by an approved Forest Management Plan”. Clarification? Please. What does this mean can be done and not done?