Applicants for 295 Hwy 60 appeared before Huntsville Planning Council this month. They were seeking relief for the location and design of a retaining wall structure that was not sited or constructed according to agreed plans, as well as an additional storey (by exposing the below grade level) on one of the four buildings approved for the lands.
The property has previous planning approvals in place, some from more than 30 years ago, for the construction of a 53-unit condominium development consisting of four three-storey buildings, with buildings 1-3 containing 14 units each and the fourth building containing 11 units.
The wall
According to Huntsville Planning Manager Richard Clark, building 4 was supposed to have a concrete wall integrated into the building’s foundation “in an area where a lower level was to be below grade.” The plan was that the concrete wall, which would range in height from 1.5, to 3m, would support a three-storey building, with the bottom level below grade. The concrete wall was also to be set back approximately 3.6m from the water’s edge at its closest point and integrated with the foundation of building 4 to comply with applicable front yard setbacks and height provisions.
Council heard that due to geotechnical concerns about the building’s proximity to the water and slope stability, an alternative steel retaining wall was constructed on the lot without prior consultation or approval from the Town. “Rather than a concrete retaining wall designed to be integrated with Building #4’s foundations, the as-built wall is a steel sheet pile wall integrated with the wall in front of the parking lot to Building #4’s west, ranging in height between approximately 2.5m to 3.5m, set back approximately 1.94m from the building’s foundation, and approximately 0.5m from the water’s edge at its closest point,” added Clark.
Clark said the planning and building department and the developer had many discussions about the built wall.
The applicants were before the Planning Council, suggesting they could lower the retaining wall to a height ranging from 0.32 metres and 1.15 metres from west to east within the shoreline buffer in front of building 4, if the wall could remain in the same location. They were also seeking permission to turn building 4 into a four-storey building, rather than a three-storey building, by exposing the lowest below ground level and creating basement walkouts, which would not technically change the actual elevation of the building but rather the point from where it would be measured. It would, however, require a bylaw exemption to go from the allowed 11m to 13.5m in height.
Community feedback
The Fairy Lake Association commented on the application and said the steel retaining wall should be completely removed. It also noted that any wall that is rebuilt should be done so according to current design standards and materials. They also noted that drainage on the lot should be properly controlled and parking moved back from the water’s edge. Four area residents spoke at the meeting and expressed concern with erosion, damage to the shoreline and the retaining wall’s proximity to the water and little space to revegetate between the wall and the water.
Majority of Planning Council members look for a compromise
While Huntsville and District planning staff recommended that the application be denied, some councillors seemed to be looking for a compromise. Huntsville Mayor Nancy Alcock questioned whether the only option would be the removal of the wall and changing its location. “I’m wondering how flexible we can be,” she asked. Clark said the council could proceed via a provisional approval requiring the applicant to lower the retaining wall and or redesign it. If it can’t be redesigned, “that provisional approval is null and void and they’re back to square one,” said Clark.
Councillor Monty Clouthier said he preferred to see a steel wall rather than a concrete wall that, with time, could end up in the lake. Clark said that would not have occurred under the previous plan because the wall would have been built into the foundation. He also said the applicant had built the steel wall out of convenience rather than trying to work within the required setbacks.
Councillor Scott Morrison said he had consulted with the owner of Sandhill Nursery and was advised that the landscaping plan the applicant has in place to hide the wall will work. Morrison also asked the applicant if he would consider planting from the top of the wall down as well to ensure the wall is not visible to area residents and boats on the lake, to which the applicant seemed amenable.
Richard Clark noted that the plantings were not the issue. “I’m not concerned about some vegetation being able to grow in front of the wall. It’s whether or not it’s enough and whether or not the wall should be in that location,” he said, referring to its proximity to the lake and type 1 fish habitat.
Councillor Scott Morrison said he preferred to see the wall lowered rather than further disturb the area and noted that most of the complaints he had received were related to the size of the wall, not its location.
Council discussed the existing retaining wall at length.
In the end, the majority of council (except Councillor Cory Clarke, who voted against it) voted in favour of a provisional bylaw allowing the wall to stay in place provided its height is lowered to a maximum of .32m on the west and 1.15m on the east, and that the wall be redesigned if possible. Council did not approve the additional height for basement walkouts on building 4.
“I understand why council is trying to make this work but I don’t agree,” said Clarke. “It doesn’t go far enough and I don’t think the developer is being held accountable fully. We’re looking for ways for a compromise and capitulating to a developer. This motion doesn’t put enough responsibility back onto the developer. I think it also sends the wrong message to other developers that they won’t be held accountable by the Town of Huntsville. There is not way I’ll support this,” he added.
You can find the full planning report HERE (pdf).
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
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Good for Councillor Clark; a pig’s ear cannot be made into a purse! And Councillor Morrison, people are predominantly complaining about the location of the wall regardless of what you’ve chosen to hear. This “grandfathering” business has to go..”when we know better, we do better”..environmental protections in the 21st century are much more in tune than those (if there even were any) from the eighties. Who wants to looking at that wall for the next hundred years?