A controversial zoning amendment that paves the way for a major expansion of the Muskoka Landing long-term care facility tops the agenda of Wednesday’s planning committee meeting.
The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment that would allow for an addition of 101 units – down from the 130 units originally proposed – to the existing building, the development of 14 townhouses adjacent to the shoreline area, an increase to the parking area, and new docking facilities.
Further, the applicant is asking that the redeveloped building be 18 metres in height. Section 4.2.1.5 of the Town’s Official Plan states that the height of buildings in the Urban Area should not exceed 11 metres (36 feet).
It is the proposed height that remains the most controversial aspect of the rezoning application. The Town has received many letters from concerned neighbours and citizens as well as a petition against the 18 metre height signed by 37 people. Many are expected to fill the council chamber on Wednesday.
According to the Planning Committee agenda, staff requested additional information on the visual impact of the proposed building when viewed while travelling east on Highway 60 past Hanes Road. According to the agenda notes, the applicant responded by providing new renderings showing the proposed building addition at 18 metres in height in relation to adjacent buildings. Based on the information provided, staff now feel that a maximum height of 15 metres would be more in keeping with the intent of the official plan.
Accordingly, staff are recommending approval of the proposal, with the exception of the height request of 18 metres. They are recommending that the height of the structure be restricted to 15 metres.
See Doppler’s earlier story on the proposal here: Residents alarmed with magnitude of expansion proposed for Muskoka Landing.
The Planning Committee meeting is on Wednesday, November 16, starting at 9:30 in the Council Chambers. This rezoning application is first on the agenda.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
In my humble opinion, this entire protest should be filed under “T” for “tempest in a teapot”. Several points should serve to make this obvious:
1) with our aging demographic, we should be encouraging every long-term space possible. I wish that the developers had fought harder for their original 130-unit proposal. Although “aging at home” is far preferable, few of us will escape long-term care at some point; and having a less expensive alternative to the majority of private institutions is most welcome;
2) I fail to understand all the concern about height and the appearance of a tall building. A precedent was set some years ago to allow a five-storey building, and viewed from Highway 11, “it doth overstride this narrow world like a Colossus”;
3) the major concern should be for the disruption of Type I fish habitat during dock construction. Perhaps, the dock should be shortened, or reconfigured to run parallel to the shoreline;
4) leaving the shoreline buffer vegetation undisturbed, while providing dock access, is a further problem. Dock access should be restricted to one central path (paved and gently sloping) to provide for wheelchair/scooter access; and
5) the larger parking lot will require a stormwater management plan to prevent increased, channelized, salt-bearing flows from exiting precipitously into the lake.
Fight the important battles, people; not the ones you cannot, and should not, win.