Applicants seeking approvals to construct a five-storey building at 5 Hanes Road were before Huntsville’s Planning Council on February 11.
The development proposed would consist of a mixed-use building consisting of 14 commercial units on the ground floor and 100 residential rental units on the floors above. The building will be located on a 1.2ha parcel of land with 121m of frontage on Hanes Road, 170m of frontage on Shay Road, and 93m of frontage along Highway 60.
According to planning staff, the development would require the following exemptions:
- Permit the following uses as additional permitted uses on the ground floor: Financial Establishment, Food Store, Retail Store, Personal Service Establishment, Service Establishment, Variety & Convenience Store, Health Services, Offices, Restaurant, Bar, Day Nursery, Educational Institution, Commercial Recreation Establishment and Place of Assembly;
- Inrease the maximum permitted building height from 11m to 18.5 m;
- Increase the maximum permitted residential density from 60 units per gross hectare to 83 units per gross hectare;
- Reduce the minimum aisle width requirement for double lane traffic from 6.7m to 6m;
- Reduce the minimum parking requirement for designated Affordable dwelling units from 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 space for every 5 units for visitors (16 spaces) to 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit and no additional visitor spaces (8 spaces);
- Reduce the minimum required parking requirement for permitted ground floor commercial uses from 1 space per 25m² of Gross Floor Area (58 spaces) to 1 space per 20m² of Gross Floor Area (49 spaces);
- Permit a loading space to be located within the building, outside the rear or side yard; and
- Reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required to have a minimum width of 3m from 20% (32 spaces) to 0% (0 spaces).
Planning staff noted that 16 of the 100 residential units are proposed to be affordable rental units for a seven-year term, although such agreements generally run for a 25-year term in exchange for height and density requirements as per the Town’s housing action plan.
Steve MacDonald said he lives in Huntsville and owns PattyMac, which is a custom home building company that employs 100 people across Huntsville and the greater Muskoka area. “These are tradespeople and professionals who live here, work here, and raise their families here. I’m also a partner at Nortterra Development Group, which is the group that’s bringing you this development proposal today.”
MacDonald said his partner, Zac, also has deep ties to Muskoka and Huntsville. “My wife is Dara Howell whose an Olympic gold medalist who was born and raised in Huntsville. This community is home for us in every sense of the word. Because we live here, we see firsthand a real and growing need for housing for hardworking people and their families. We experience it directly through out business. The employees and subcontractors we work with struggle to find housing close to where they work,” said MacDonald, adding that he and his partner saw an opportunity not just to build but to add value to Huntsville,”while respecting Muskoka’s character, heritage, and sense of community.”
What councillors said
Councillor Monty Clouthier said he likes the location as it’s not in someone’s backyard. He said it will help with housing for employees at the new Fairvern. He said additional transportation may need to be looked at with that number of apartments.
Huntsville Mayor Nancy Alcock said she likes the mixed development plan. “I love the fact, obviously, it’s rental, therefore it will qualify for a reduction in development charges, that’s great.” She questioned the seven-year term for the affordable housing component and noted that it’s a 25-year term in order to access incentives from the District of Muskoka. The planner for the applicant noted that the developer will provide it with or without incentives from the District to satisfy the bylaw requirement for a community benefit in exchange for an increase in height and density. He said if there are incentives to make it a longer period, it will be considered.
“I’m excited about this,” said Councillor Helena Renwick, who said she appreciates that the plan is to incorporate the building into the landscape. She also said she likes the concept of residential above and commercial below. “The one view that you didn’t talk about is the view from Hwy. 60… It’s going to be quite glaring from the highway,” she said. Renwick was told the principal views are looking down Hwy. 60 to the lake, and while the building will be seen from the highway, the plan is to locate it on the lower part of the land to mitigate the appearance of the height and to use earthy tones to have it blend more.
Councillor Cory Clarke said while he appreciates the applicant’s desire to build rental housing, he did not think he would support the application if it went before council for approval. “I’ve been pretty consistently, openly opposed to these types of five-storey developments, and these large, high-density developments don’t belong in Huntsville.”
Councillor Scott Morrison said he supports the project and the addition of 100 rental units in the community. He said the building will not have an impact on existing residents. He also asked for a breakdown of the types of apartments. He was told that what’s proposed is 12 studio units, 60 one-bedroom units, and 28 two-bedroom units, and the affordable rental units below-market rent will be a mix of those.
Both Councillors Dione Schumacher and Jason FitzGerald also said they would be in favour of the development. Schumacher said she liked the building is on a down slope, which would mitigate its heght and FitzGerald referenced the affordable housing component and the possibility to seek more and/or a longer term through District incentives.
Planning staff is expected to continue working with the applicant and return with a recommendation. You can find their 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
I was informed by Doppler that the building proposed at 5 Hanes is being built by local developers. I apologize for not doing the required research.
And I stand by my original comment …..”council is not doing enough to protect the essence of our town.”
As for the local developers — you can do A LOT BETTER.
Someone raised the old Empire lot issue again; what the heck is going on with that lot? Why can’t the Town appropriate it to build mixed-use units there? It’s current state is embarrassing. Could Doppler explain what the hold up is?
Thank You Councillor Cory Clarke for taking your position on this proposal.
I believe many if not the majority of Huntsville residents and ratepayers are behind You.
John R. Earl
Thank you, Cory Clarke. You get it!
So now I know. ‘Affordable’ as per ” the District of Muskoka Website’ is $1,386.00 for one bedroom, plus utilities. That rate proposed for a mix of 16 of the 100 units for 7 years. “Proposed”. Subject to inflation is understood.
A comment here on Doppler spells out that to get those ‘affordable’ concessions, then the entire 100 units pays the price. No “Muskoka Look” or sunsets. Definitely no granite or deck. Just Muskoka bland for 100% of the units. And not just for a (proposed) seven years, but for the lifetime of those “earthy tones”.
Some may like this architecture. Not me. Surely there can be a little heart, soul or flavor injected. Just an opinion.
Mr. Hernen is bang on.
We whinge on and on about “affordable housing” but very few people know what that actually means or entails for a community. They also have no intention of supporting it when they see it.
As a country, we’ve chosen stagnant wages, inflation, a zero-growth economy, heavy taxes and regulation, and plummeting OECD quality of life rankings in exchange for home equity.
Anything that threatens this equilibrium, such as more homes, will inevitably be opposed by the current group of homeowners.
It’s performative nonsense, mostly from the same group of “Elbows Up” faux nationalist slacktivists.
Affordable housing, low density, amble parking and the Muskoka look are simple words you will never find in the same sentence. If you want Affordable ($1386 for a one bedroom which includes utilities as per the District of Muskoka website) concession need to be made. And many that need affordable housing don’t have or can afford a car and that is a simple fact. Lower density means less units per development which in turn increases the per unit cost. As for the “Muskoka Look” with granite stone siding, big open decks where you can sit and watch the sunset are simple not affordable units.
You decide – do you want affordable?
I understand the need for more housing regardless of the type and certainly the town needs more affordable housing rather than more million dollar lakefront condos. I also get the need for a height limit, would you want an eight story building where the old Empire Hotel stood, probably not. Aside from the various proposed concessions which as others have said could be a slippery slope for future development projects to get rubber stamped there is esthetics, I realize it is just a sketch but to me the design is just plain ugly, it would certainly fit in with that condo/commercial building east of Wendy’s.
I grew up and lived most of my life in Scarborough and this building is certainly something you would see there. Aside from the proposed planning variances could developers not come up with a more pleasing design. I don’t know what a more of a ” Muskoka ” design would look like.surely there must architects out there that could come up with a more pleasing design that would fit it with the surrounding. I am progressive enough to realize that Huntsville is changing from its small town past and people have to get used to that concept but we should be able to do better and not turn Huntsville into a Scarborough. Perhaps Council could take a road trip and drive along Kingston Rd in south Scarborough where I grew up and see all the ugly box like condos that are popping up like spring flowers and decide if that’s the look they want for Huntsville.
Well congratulations in advance to council for setting a new record for number of variances given! Because you know they will stamp this as they do with all applications, no matter the harm to town character…but hey, it’ll be “earthy tones”.
Increased density in town is helpful. Fewer, smaller parking spaces and narrower access roads is not helpful. Given the topography of that corner, and the size and scope of the project, I do not think it’s great for anyone in particular, except the developer. A modified version of this mixed use, more affordable housing would work well at Centre and Main. (Old Empire lot)
Man! Ain’t that a jewel! Neo Soviet with shades of Frank Lloyd Wright (kidding)? A couple of those beauties side by side and we have us a chicken ranch. Promise a few low/middle/questionable units as ‘affordable’ and the whole site suffers! Do they no longer teach architecture and design? Are there only straight lines and 90 degree corners to a building.
The CAD programs are supposed to aid in the design and rendering of structures. The program used for this charmer (kidding, again) must have had all the adjectives like beautiful, stylish, pleasing, modern, elegant and voguish kicked right out of it. Charm and exquisite deleted as well.
I agree with Jenn Sprague in as much as it is great it is sited low down. But not for the reason she states. A little lower couldn’t hurt.
And what signed, legal document tells us that there will be affordable units at all? We had a ‘university’ built here with no contract or guarantee. Maybe a promise! And where is that promise now? Show a legal guarantee and I’ll believe it.
I have mentioned before the duplex in a field. The building permit in exchange for a green grower operation to supply a food bank. Council was fond of this “outside the box” thinking. We have the duplex as a rental, but as far as I know, the food bank got naught, or next to naught. Was any record kept?
How many hoops is the town willing to leap through or how many concessions allow, just to get ‘affordable’ housing? If the ‘Official Plan” has a set, they must really be hurting. But maybe I’m too demanding! Maybe this project should be allowed to stand for it’s inherent beauty alone!
Just kidding again!
And I think you got your turtle too far from home.
My wife and I live here, and work in the tourism industry. We have heard from our guests, visitors, and clients that Huntsville has changed. They have asked for recommendations on other towns to visit.
These types of heartless builds, with an insane amount of exemptions are a leading cause.
Yes. We need housing. But we can do better.
I get upset with the town when developments like this expect multiple exemptions, but others struggle to get permits for additions and garages despite having large lots, and supportive neighbors.
We are losing our character and our tourism. We can do better.
This should not be rubber stamped by council!
The developers are asking for way too many concessions, variances, reduced parking, egress and access, height etc etc.
Just because ‘they’ say they want to make some of the units for affordable housing, as a carrot to entice council, doesn’t mean they will. This is a big NO!
The intersections of Hanes, Center and HWY 60 have poor designs from the last development and need better planning as well.
Council needs to enforce the by-laws for developers, not encourage fast tracking sprawl.
The bylaws are intended to address and respect the needs of all residents, pedestrians, vehicular traffic, infrastructure, emergency services, etc.
Least of all, ‘Earthy Tones Facade’ does not represent good planning or character!
this may be a dumb question, but how much parking allowed for the ground floor businesses or are they considered visitor parking? 25/100 classed as affordable would be better, but hopefully not heavily weighted towards compact studio and one bedroom units. also need more accessible units to accommodate wheelchair users. I like the idea of asking for car charging stations as well. Is there good transit from that area? Maybe some careful landscaping with fire smart principles can help with the look.
Great idea and location although it will definitely stick out coming into Huntsville from highway 11. My concern is the amount of parking being reduced.or eliminated, assuming rental units being occupied by locally employed individuals.. I do not believe our Huntsville transit can provide the type of service needed to service all local employers. Yes one apartment may not need a space but another may need 2 parking spaces as their employment is out of the core. Will they provide spaces for all type of bikes? And supply charging outlets? My thoughts.
I think the ratio of 16 subsided units out of the 100 can be bumped up to 25…so 25%. If its any higher, it becomes a ‘project’ and runs the risk of becoming like govt housing. I like that its being built in the lowest part of the landscape so the building height wont be an eyesore.
Should he interesting to see what retail spaces will be below. Please, NO PIZZA PLACES!
You had me at “designated Affordable dwelling units”! Could a compromise be made between 7 and 25 years for the Affordable allocation with some of the “incentives” applied? This would give future Affordable/mixed use development time to rally and, with incentives, incentive to do it.
I think this is great – because we really need these rental units and I like the mixed use and the location. My biggest concern is the parking. Personally, I walk everywhere in town – but very few people do that. Even though this is located a short distance from the grocery store, etc. and I like the idea of less people owning cars – this is a pipe dream and everyone wants there own car here. I strongly suspect that the minimal amount of parking (commercial, resident, and visitor) will become an issue and people will be scrambling for places to park. People will end up parking in the mall lot – which could become an issue.
Beware the slippery slope of 5 stories .. Future Developer’s/Planners will have a field day with this . What is today’s price for ” AFFORDABLE Housing ? What are the proposed rental costs ??
Designing buildings is not easy but we should encourage developers to be creative and not accept less. There are award winning designs for multi unit housing projects where construction costs are always a primary driving factor. Good design pays off.
Can the building mass be broken up in some way? Could windows and cladding be more interesting? Can it truly respond to the landscape, environment and community? Could parking be addressed with landscape screening? Are there colour palette and material options other than the current and soon to expire trend of black and brown with a stone base?
This is a great community. We should expect more.
Looks amazing! But so many exceptions to the rules. And only 16 out of 100 for affordable housing. I think the developer can do better.