It may be time to amend the Town of Huntsville’s 2019 Official Plan (OP) when it comes to the development of homes on seasonally maintained roads.
Currently, Huntsville’s OP does not permit such development, yet applicants often go before planning committee asking for an exception. And while planning staff recommends that such applications be denied, committee generally tends to approve them.
Such was the case for a 20-acre vacant property located on Estonian Camp Road. An application before planning committee on May 11 sought a zoning exemption to permit a single detached dwelling on the lands with frontage on a seasonally maintained road.
Town planner Kelsea Shadlock recommended that the application be denied. “The Official Plan requires all new developments in rural areas, with the exception of recreational uses such as hunt camps, to front and be accessible from a year-round publicly maintained road,” she told committee. “Rural residential development should be encouraged to be located in areas where there is existing rural residential development fronting on municipally maintained roads, access is readily available to community facilities such as schools, and demand for public services such as fire, police and home care can be optimized.”
Shadlock told committee that the property is located about 500 metres from the nearest year-round, municipally maintained road. She added that other landowners who have faced a similar issue have agreed to upgrade the road to municipal standards at their sole expense, and the Town has subsequently assumed the road and maintained it on a year-round basis. She said in this case, the applicant is not proposing to upgrade the road.
According to Shadlock’s report to committee, the application was circulated to the Town’s operations, building, and fire departments. She said the operations department expressed concern and recommended the road fronting the property be upgraded. “They also provided comment that there is no winter maintenance on Estonian Camp Road and minimal summer maintenance.”
Building department staff recommended that if the application was approved, the property either remain seasonal or all buildings be equipped with sprinklers. “They also provide that the owner of the property shall enter into an agreement acknowledging that road maintenance, emergency service, and district services will not be provided to [the] site which shall be registered on title,” she added.
As for the fire department, in her report Shadlock noted: “The Fire Department recommended that automatic on-site fire protection in the form of ‘fire sprinklers’ be installed in all residential structures even though these may not be required by legislation. Fire department access routes, whether being a roadway or a driveway, must also be maintained clear of snow accumulations, tree and brush overgrowth etc. with a minimum clear width of 4-6m, an overhead clearance of 5m and designed to support the loads of fire apparatus. Additionally, they provided all rural residents keep a 10m space around every structure clear of any trees and/or combustible vegetation in order to make the structures less vulnerable to wildfire.”
Planning consultant Wayne Simpson was before committee on behalf of the applicants, who he said had an agreement of purchase and sale pending the ability to build a dwelling on it.
“Obviously we’re disappointed with the recommendation of denial,” said Simpson who reminded committee that an identical application had been approved by committee and ratified by council in 2020, despite staff’s recommendation to deny it.
“At that time Scott Aitchison in his role as realtor spoke to planning committee at that time,” recalled Simpson. “The staff recommendation at that time by Elizabeth Reimer was recommending denial but council did approve it ultimately and there are some good reasons.”
Simpson said there is a strong sense of community in the area. He said the road was originally built by the Estonian Camp and is maintained collectively by the neighbours. He also argued that the road is in better shape than many other roads.
Committee chair and Deputy Mayor Nancy Alcock, who had handed over control of this meeting to Councillor Jason FitzGerald, asked planning staff whether an agreement removing the Town from all responsibility had been put in place when a similar application was approved in 2020 [when she also chaired the committee].
“We subjected the property to site plan control so that there was wording in the agreement that would reflect that the Town was not responsible for any road maintenance on the road,” responded director of planning services Kirstin Maxwell.
Alcock also wanted to know whether such an agreement would be registered on title in case the property is sold. Maxwell confirmed it would be.
“In planning applications, we don’t look at precedence, but it is interesting to note, and I’m glad it was brought up [that a similar application had been approved],” said Councillor Bob Stone. “But in this instance, I see no reason not to let them build here just because we don’t have winter maintenance. They’re doing it on their own, we do have minimum maintenance for summer travel on the road and we have a lot of these properties, and we need to say ‘okay, if you’ve got a large property and there’s reasonable access to it, as long as you understand we’re not providing any municipal services, then welcome to town.”
Councillor Dan Armour questioned whether a special zone could be created for similar properties that go before committee.
“We would have to ultimately review the Official Plan and go out to the community to determine whether on not an Official Plan amendment would be appropriate that would permit this additional form of rural development,” said Maxwell.
“I think I’ve said it before, fundamentally I disagree with continually going against our Official Plan, especially on the non-maintained roads,” said Mayor Karin Terziano. “I understand exactly what Councillor Stone said, that there’s probably no reason not to allow somebody to build there but I think the route we have to take is to change our Official Plan and deal with it once and for all. Because honestly, I’m tired of the same application coming forward, staff recommending denial based on what our Official Plan says, and us overturning and approving them all… I just don’t think we should be doing this every meeting. Right now I’m not going to support it. I think we need to force the change as opposed to just approving them.”
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe said requiring a fire sprinkler system should be a given. “I really think that what’s happening here is we are starting to hone in on what some of the absolute necessities should be if we go down the road of having a new designation…,” he said.
In the end, a majority of committee approved the application subject to site plan control and the requirement that a fire sprinkler system be included.
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
Time for residents to show their distaste for this ridiculousness. Regardless of signing forms acknowledging that Police, Paramedics and Fire Services will be significantly, significantly delayed, what happens if the residents of this inaccessible property are injured or die due to lack of first responder access? I imagine the Town will be held responsible in some way shape or form. There is a reason the Official Plan is in place. Don’t change it to accommodate these asinine requests. Review it to make sure the opportunities to approve an exemption are limited. Strengthen the language. Call out these Councillors who think they know better than staff. Staff are well qualified to provide guidance; some of these Councillors…not so much. They make decisions ass-backwards in this town.
Why have an Official Plan and ignore it? Change the Official Plan first, when time and circumstances require it. Seasonal roads exist for seasonal occupancy like summer camps and hunt camps. The Official Plan has already determined why year round residency is inappropriate. For example, in future, buses may be required to pick up school children, as required by law under the Education Act. These exemptions set precedents which create uncertainty and doubt about fairness in the community.
Would the members of council please outline what in ( epithet) this Official Plan really is? Under scrutiny it seems to be a rather involved document, that sort of outlines all the things that one has to work around, to get permission to disregard the ‘Official Plan’! Curious.
If it is a small landholder or individual, mess with the OP at your peril! An ‘egregious wall’. An out of position taxi stand. Altering a public beach site. Here come the horsemen!
But if you stick a rental unit on an unsevered lot, in a field, that’s thinking outside the box! Buildings that blend into the surroundings as fly crap does in a sugar bowl; apparently that’s within the OP! Build so close to the river, and on a lot so small, that there’s the chance someone may be able to pee across it! Would an individual even have been allowed to put a house there?
So, level with us (I don’t feel I’m alone with my curiosity), but if I am, then please enlighten me. Do you, as a council, really agree with how all this is ‘developing’, or are there extenuating circumstances. Is there nothing you can do to control some of this? Would lawyers get involved? As tax payers, we have the right to know you are representing our interests. If not…….?
Now, if someone wants to build up at the lookout, would they have to maintain the road themselves? Could they blast? Toward or away from the river? Who would have to install the sewer and water?
Okay! that’s all pretty silly. Right? Right!
But pretty much akin to what I see befalling my town.
Silly. If it weren’t so sad.
The fact that the Official Plan can be bypassed is exactly the problem that Huntsville Council has created. If a builder/developer requires a variance to the Official Plan then they need to apply for the plan to be changed. Huntsville cannot be constantly be approving variances otherwise Huntsville will continue to grow with no image except a haphazard layout. Why have an official plan or even planning staff if the planning committee does not follow their own staff. Huntsville is currently having a consultant develop a brand strategy and in parallel the planning committee is destroying an image this town could have. What a travesty.