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
This isn’t really a hard decision.
* Build unit 4 as originally APPROVED.
* Remove the sheet piling or cut off below water level
* Landscape between building #4 and the waterfront .
What more needs to be said, just do it!
Well said Alan Markle! That’s it in a nutshell after everything is said and done: Who is representing us? Who, on Council, truly has the courage to speak up and say NO. Stop the waffling and capitulating…to Developers. And I agree; The Wilsons should be given consideration or else that Hard-Surface wall should come down.
Unfortunately town council appears inconsistent and ‘in the pocket’ of the big developers. They seem to bend over backwards for the big projects while throwing up obstacles for the average property owner. Town staff again appear incompetent in not monitoring what was being done at this project. I know some of the council members and I know that they are trying to do what they feel is best but this looks bad.
“Give us your input.”
“We need local feedback.”
“Help with the formulation of an official plan.”
Recall hearing comments along those lines? They are directed toward us. The citizens of Huntsville.
And then we read of this developer seeking relief for his wall; not sited or constructed according to plan. The developer displayed his own view of ‘actions speaking louder than words’. Sort of a ‘what ya gonna do about it?’ moment.
Our Planning Manager outlined what was to have been done. And it’s not like the site is in the boonies and no one could see sheet pile being driven. What the hell?? Unless the inspectors had burned up their fuel allowance, town hall knew what was going down.
And for a few comments from council.
Mayor Alcock: “I wonder how flexible we can be?” Firm. Decisive.
Councilor Monty Cloutier “preferred to see a steel wall rather than a concrete wall.” Was the councilor’s preference part of the plan? Concrete. Not steel. Subtle difference I know.
Councilor Morrison: What is the problem? I’ve consulted Sandhill!!!! Really. Those guys must be good eh? Concrete wall. Steel sheet piling. Herbaceous border. Pick your poison. And councilor Morrison, will you be putting Sandhill in touch with the ‘construction’ on Brunel Rd.? We’re talking tall flowers and long hangy-down vines for sure.
After all the vociferous people had their say, all but one councilor bent the knee to another developer. Right or wrong Mr. Clarke, thanks. And then we citizens are encouraged to speak up. Supply ideas. Present feed back.
Well, here’s some feedback. Rent a set! Do the job! Represent us.
Tear down the wall, and the unapproved building. Rebuild as per approvals. You made someone do that on the river, without apology. Mayor Alcock, you would be aware of the “white elephant” in Toronto – an apartment building, maybe 8-10 stories built along the Bayview Extension/Don Valley Parkway that was stopped in it’s tracks because it didn’t have approvals. Sat there empty a long time, but eventually torn down. Muskoka stands for the environment to be respected first. Because the Ford government destroyed environmental regulations doesn’t mean we should just allow local environmental degredation. The developer, in this case, is sadly being disrespectful to the people of Huntsville. Our council and mayor need to get themselves some courage. And what about the “white elephants” sitting on the destroyed hills off Forbes Hill Road?
Unfortunately I have to agree with many comments above.
1. If your a big money developer, just do what you want and beg forgiveness or fight it.
Heaven forbid your a small property owner, you’ll feel the full weight of the town fighting you.
2. Building approvals need to expire when no action is taken within a prescribed time. I.E. 4 years.
As said above, the new rules for building and environmental protection need to apply.
Next they’re be installing a large dock system and be back for forgiveness … the lake and environment looses every time.
How do we shake the tree to have teeth in Bylaws, Regulations and Committee ?
We need more housing. Appearance doesn’t seem to matter on brunel rd with that monster of a building blocking the river view.
It seems the precedent has been set. Build what you want without town approval and nothing happens. Clearly the developers are smarter than our town. They don’t follow the rules and they aren’t held accountable. This affects all of us living in the community including our children whom I’m worried will not have much green space left when they’re grown up. Huntsville is becoming a treeless and concrete town.
Just read the article about the condo construction on Highway 60.
My opinion is that the town should never have approved the density. However it’s done.
I admire Cory Clarke who was the only one who opposed the, illegally, constructed steel wall.
If it’s illegal then it’s illegal, remove that wall.
You’ve started something that’s most likely will snowball in the future.
I’m very disappointed!
The slippery slopes are mounting !
I would’ve thought that after decades of issue with this property that it could have been done with less drama. Developers need to be held accountable for actions they take illegally and not excused nor compromised in the rush to build non ” Affordable Housing”. I’m all in favor of exceptions & compromise when truly affordable housing is to be built for low income families.
It appears that the developer took a calculated risk and won. The Town should reconsider its position regarding Doug Wilson’s waterfront property and allow him the same courtesy. Going forward draw a line in the sand and punish those who ignore local bylaws and their own building plans.
Ya, how many reg residents wldv gottn away with doing whatever we wanted instead of wht was agreed to?!
Not ok, sends a very bad message to everyone else whos forced to follow the rules…the rules dont apply if youre a wealthy developer as per usual in Huntsville.
Tht developer broke their agreemnt, “bettr to ask forgiveness later thn ask for permission first”…nope, shldv made thm take it all dwn and do wht they agreed to…shady.
Hope youre as lenient with local residents in the future if youre not going to enforce with developers!
Totally in agreement with Mr Clarke and the last 2 comments!! Why have rules and cave in when they are completely disregarded?
At the very least the developer should have received a meaningful fine. To ignore their obligations per approval should not be tolerated. A dangerous precedent has been sent.
The big question here is why is Council capitulating with a developer who knew exactly what they were doing, which is not complying with what they agreed to.
Second question, why didn’t the building inspector not stop this construction as soon as this wall was built? If you have eyes, you saw this wall was visible very early.
I am with Councillor Clark. Why spend so much time and energy at the planning committee if you aren’t going to uphold agreements made in that process.
If Council isn’t going to demand developers adhere to the planning rules, why do they even exist?
Did we really expect any other decision?
Logic and reason?
Thank you for your comment, I totally understand where you are coming from. It was a very tough decision to make. But I made mine based on the fact that we could have the wall moved 36 inches but it would probably stay at the height it is today. While neither scenario is perfect, my main goal was to get the wall cut down. It’ll be as low as just over a foot in some places. I tried to fast forward 10 years and think of what I’d rather look at. A low wall in his current location or a high wall 36 inches back from where it is today.
We were also adamant that the landscape plan has to be vetted and that it will be done by a local contractor. We need that wall covered up so we never see it again. We also made sure that the vegetation that will cover the wall is a viable year-round solution and not just something that we provide coverage in the summer months.
Thankfully, the district is undertaking a process that will not allow old subdivision approvals like this to move forward. This is something that would never get approved today, but unfortunately we were handcuffed by a historic development plan.
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?