Huntsville’s Planning Committee got an unpleasant surprise at its March 15 meeting when it was brought to its attention that the zoning bylaw for lands at the former Grandview Resort calls for a three storey height restriction, but the bylaw does not indicate how high a storey can be.
“I take it our current zoning bylaw, which might be a very poorly written one, suggests that you’re entitled to a certain number of storeys but there’s no actual height restriction and there’s no number placed on the height of an actual storey. Is that correct?” asked Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano.
“Yes, that’s correct,” responded local planner Wayne Simpson, who was before committee representing the initial development concept phase for the former Grandview Resort lands. “Three storeys and then in the bylaw there’s a definition as to what a storey is and there’s also a definition as to what a cellar is below the storey. So if something’s more than 50 per cent below grade, it is deemed to be a cellar. It is not a storey by definition.”
The proponents, Claude Doughty and Gareth Cockwell, plan to construct three multi-unit buildings on the lands, which would house 33 units in total. They’re seeking zoning amendments, which would reduce the westerly side yard setback from the required 25 metres to 12 metres. They’re also asking that a three-metre distance requirement between the buildings be removed. The proponents were also before committee asking for a height exemption from the permitted three storeys to a height of 15 metres (or four storeys), when measured from the finished grade on the side of the building facing the lake.
Planner Wayne Simpson and Claude Doughty, from left, were at Huntsville’s Planning Committee on March 15.
Concerns brought to committee by area condominium and property owners included the potential loss of view, especially by those in the Hilltop condominiums, although Manager of Planning Services for the Town, Kirstin Maxwell, noted that the Hilltop condominiums are located at a higher elevation. An area homeowner was also concerned that he had not been notified of the latest proposal and noted that expecting to find notice of the proposal and related meeting in the local newspaper is unreasonable as many seasonal residents don’t read it. A concern was also raised regarding blasting, as underground parking is planned which will connect all three buildings. Other concerns included loss of vegetation and the encroachment of the buildings on existing residences.
Simpson said there would be 47 metres between the closest part of the buildings proposed and the neighbouring residents. He said the setback exemption was being sought in order to better locate one of the buildings to make it even less intrusive in terms of sight lines for the condominium owners above the slope. He also said there is mature vegetation on the property, which will help mitigate any visual impact. He said the distance exemption between buildings was being requested as they will be connected by underground parking. “I think the intention of the bylaw was that you would not create a wall of buildings and it was never intended… to preclude somebody from connecting buildings underground,” argued Simpson.
In terms of the height exemption Simpson told committee that the bylaw currently allows the highest building being proposed to be constructed to three storeys and there’s no stipulation on the height of the storeys, so you could technically build loft style units. He also noted that if two storeys were below grade, they’d be considered a cellar not a storey. It appears the building proposed would have six levels.
This image, as provided by the development proponents, shows two levels of underground parking on the left with a connection to the building on the right. It also shows a third level, the amenities floor, which would be partly underground.
Simpson told committee the first two levels would be underground parking and if 50 per cent of the third level, to be used as an amenity area is buried, it would also constitute part of a cellar, as stipulated by the Town’s bylaw. That would leave the remaining three levels above ground, which would still be in keeping with the three-storey stipulation. He said by allowing the developer a 15-metre height on one side of the building, it would mean less back-fill and a more attractive layout.
Simpson reminded committee that the conceptual plan that ClubLink was proposing, before it sold the property to its new owners, showed three buildings side-by-side containing 18 units each and 113 surface parking spaces – all of which could have been developed as a right under the current zoning for the area. “What’s proposed now is again three buildings with 33 units as opposed to 54 and all the parking, except for a small section of surface parking for visitors, would be below grade. So in terms of visual impact, what’s proposed has got to be as minimal as you can expect on the property. Most of the property will be left in its natural state in terms of vegetative and forested landscape.”
The red dot depicts the height of the 15 metre building proposed.
Doughty showed committee a photograph taken from across the lake and showed the height of the current Rosewood building in relation to the buildings being proposed as well as the tree-line and other structures around it and noted, “Certainly none of them are breaking through the tree-line particularly.”
On the heels of turning down a 15-metre building height addition proposed as part of the Muskoka Landing expansion, committee was feeling uncomfortable with the same height exemption being requested at Grandview. Questions about building locations, setbacks and the proposed 15-metre height on one side of the buildings persisted.
“If we don’t approve the 15-metre exemption are you going to bury the amenity floor in order to build the building?” asked Terziano. “Yes,” responded Doughty.
In the end, committee asked that the application return next month so committee members could conduct a site visit and staff could have an opportunity to amend the zoning bylaw as it pertains to height.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
0 Comments