It was standing room only at Huntsville’s Planning Committee on Wednesday, February 15 as committee asked Jarlette Health Services, owners of Muskoka Landing Long Term Care Inc., to return to the drawing board for a third time. Committee indicated that while it welcomes some form of expansion on the lands, it could not ignore the groundswell of opposition to the height and density of the proposed expansion.
The proposal
Jarlette Health Services is proposing to expand its 94 long-term care bed facility by adding a retirement lodge. The lodge would include up to 120 retirement units (down from 131). The new units would be housed in a two-storey addition on the south side of its existing building, while adding another four-storey (down from five-storeys) addition to another part of the building. The proposed development would also include 14 townhouses adjacent to the Fairy Lake shoreline as well as a gazebo and a 43-metre wide docking structure (down from 60 metres) along the shoreline of the Rogers Cove basin that would extend up to eight metres into the bay. The height of the proposed addition would sit at about 15 metres (down from the original 18 metres proposed) but still in contravention of the Town’s existing zoning bylaw for the property which calls for 12 metres, according to staff. The proposal also calls for the creation of a parking lot on Helen Street.
At issue
Area residents continue to be opposed to the height of the additions proposed, noting that it would create a dangerous precedent for future developments. They also oppose a zoning bylaw exemption request that would allow for the 43-metre docking structure, and have expressed concerns with storm water retention, additional congestion along the cove with the addition of 14 boat slips, and vehicular congestion along Helen Street where a parking lot is proposed.
Lake view rendering of proposed expansion of Muskoka Landing, showing the tree line as presented in November. The proponent has since modified the development from five storeys to four.
The proponent
Jarlette Health Services maintains that the property has existing development rights which would allow a maximum of 25 per cent more units than what is currently being proposed. Proponents also argued that one large docking facility in Rogers Cove would have less impact than 14 individual docks. They maintain that if they were to move to a three-storey expansion rather than four storeys, they would have to charge higher rates in order to make the development financially feasible and would lose their competitive edge compared to fees charged by other retirement homes in the community.
The difference between retirement and long-term care or nursing beds
Unlike long-term care beds, which are typically only accessed through Community Care Access Centres and licensed by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care which also sets the rates, retirement beds are licensed under the Retirement Homes Act, 2010 and the rates charged are dictated by the market.
Despite staff’s recommendation to proceed with the proposal on Wednesday, committee remained at an impasse, especially over the project’s 15-metre height. Councillor Jonathan Wiebe further questioned the proponent as to why a 12-metre or three-storey building could not be accommodated instead of the four-storeys proposed.
“Truly we want to keep our price down because affordability is certainly an issue with a lot of our seniors, so for us staying competitive with the Traditions in town, we have to have a price point that is competitive with them or the customer walks to where they feel that they get the best value for the dollar that they spent,” according to Jarlette Health Services President, David Jarlette, who attended the meeting with his planning consultant, architect and Director of Retirement Communities Operations.
Wiebe furthered that he found himself in a difficult position, although he’d like to see some form of development happen he could not ignore the opposition coming from his ward. “I still think that there’s more work to be done in relation to the height, I believe. That’s what I’ve heard from my constituents so I think that’s where I’m going to rest on this,” he said.
Councillor Nancy Alcock concurred with Wiebe’s statement. She also noted that the proponent had come a long way by reducing the height of the proposed building expansion from 18 metres to 15 metres and reducing the size of the proposed docking facility, while adding a walking trail along the shore which would connect to the Trans Canada trail network, but asked the proponent to look at further concessions.
“We’ve made leaps and bounds in aesthetics and changes and compromises and we do appreciate all those efforts. I guess it’s can we be moving forward with this project, and the 12-metre height is the real question,” added Councillor Jason Fitzgerald.
“My problem is that between the proposed height and the overall mass of the building, it is overwhelming to try and imagine it,” said Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano.
“It’s not a massive building,” responded the proponent’s architect.
Councillor Wiebe told the proponent that as the development stands he worried that it would be defeated by committee. “I feel worried that as it stands, we are at an impasse. The height, it doesn’t sound like we can get past it,” he said. “Maybe there needs to be more of an attempt to put the living space in the roof,” he added.
The proponent’s architect said that could be explored. “In essence you would have a three-storey building with a roof appearance that is lived in,” he said.
“I think you just nailed it,” responded Wiebe.
The applicant was asked to hold further discussions with Town staff on the possibility of a new height configuration and return to Huntsville’s Planning Committee on March 15.
“Many of you have been coming out and sending letters and petitions and I want to thank you very much. This is interactive government and it’s working. Your committee is listening, so thank you very much and keep it up,” said Councillor Bob Stone as he closed the meeting. Stone took over the committee’s chair position so Planning Committee Chair Nancy Alcock could address the proposed development.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
“I still think that there’s more work to be done in relation to the height, I believe. That’s what I’ve heard from my constituents so I think that’s where I’m going to rest on this,”
Good news. Isn’t this the way government is supposed to work? Well done
While I applaud Councillor Wiebe for trying to effect a compromise; I am still uncertain if he and Jarlette’s consultant were on the same page. It sounded as if Mr. Wiebe was proposing a 2-storey building plus a roof and the consultant was proposing a 3-storey structure plus a roof. Assuming a sloped roof, how much of the living height would it occupy? Would there be dormer windows or smaller ones (like gun placements) at the bottom of the roof?
Of course, the two crucial questions have always been:
1) why cannot a 4-storey building be constructed with a 12-metre height; and
2) why is the Planning Committee being such a stickler about the number of storeys, when a 5-storey precedent has already been set?; resulting in an embarrassing eyesore on one of the highest points in town?
I wrote to you earlier expressing my concerns about the proposed Jarlette development proposal from the point of view of a tourist to your area and I must say I’m delighted that Huntsville Council responded positively to area residents concerns.
Some years ago I lived in Bermuda which has strict building codes to preserve the islands tourist appeal and forbids buildings which break the natural skyline or do not conform to the heritage style of construction. That’s not to say that a few decidedly ugly and inappropriate buildings haven’t managed to sneak through over the years but by and large the rules are closely adhered to. Where there has been a breach of those rules, it’s often been politically or financially motivated.
I’m delighted to see that has not been the case in Huntsville and applaud Huntsville Council for not capitulating to yet another out of town developer.
Sincerely
Michael Tindall.