On Wednesday afternoon, people in the Huntsville Council chamber spilled out onto Partners Hall. Many community members attended the Planning Council meeting to provide input on multi-residential applications in a municipality that some believe is being developed too fast, particularly as all levels of government push for more housing.
Swayed by concerns expressed by half a dozen residents, two letters, and a host of concerned attendees, the Planning Council asked that the proponents of a 96-lot residential subdivision at 206 Town Line Road West return with a plan that would not infringe on wetlands and reconsider the density of the proposal.
What councillors said
“Obviously, this is a very contentious subject area,” said Councillor Monty Clouthier. He said he did not see a lot of changes since the application was before a public meeting at Planning Council in January. “For the sightlines to be prominent and safe and everything, that the Town is supposed to lower the road and fix the improvement of the sightline on the Town Line [Road], I don’t feel that any taxpayer dollars should go toward fixing anything of that sort to make it feasible for someone else if it’s not benefitting the whole town.”
Clouthier said sidewalks are definitely needed on Town Line Road “to hook this in at least from Knotty Pine Trail up to the subdivision.” He added that the Town would probably have to put drainage in the area in order for sidewalks to go down, which he referred to as an expensive venture. Clouthier also said it is his opinion that traffic lights are needed at the intersection of Town Line and Brunel despite reports to the contrary. “I think we need that now, let alone when you start adding another 96 residents up in here that are going in and out of there,” he said, adding that in the winter, people will be going through Knotty Pine Trail. “So we’re adding more traffic right into deep residential areas, which I don’t agree with… right now I can’t support this because I don’t see a whole lot of changes,” he said, adding that he wants to see specific details about how traffic and runoff water will be handled.
Councillor Cory Clarke called it a far-reaching and complicated development and said while he appreciates the applicant attempting to make accommodations, he shares concerns expressed by area residents, concerns about the forest buffer, new and old developments, and wetlands and drainage. “But mostly, I continue to have concerns about the size and number of units for this development.” He said the last time the applicant was before the Council, it was suggested then that the density of the proposed development ought to be examined and scaled back.
“I don’t see any scaling back on the application that’s here today as far as density is concerned,” added Clarke. “This development needs to be compatible and protective of the existing areas around it, and I don’t believe it is,” he said, adding that he would not be supporting the application the way it is being proposed, at least not until he sees the density and number of units significantly reduced despite allowances in the Official Plan.
“The fact is that the property is just not compatible with the density that’s being asked for. I had concerns when I first reviewed this application, and I still have those concerns today, and I would have no issue deferring this,” said Clarke.
Councillor Scott Morrison said he did not have an issue with the lands being developed. “We need housing. The location is good, and it makes a lot of sense in some ways.” However, Morrison said he shares similar concerns with his colleagues. He said flooding is prominent in that area, and natural drainage is much more effective, which is what happens with wetlands, and said he is not comfortable with any development partially infringing on those. He also said added traffic is a concern. Morrison reiterated that he does want to see some form of development there but cannot support what is currently being proposed.
Mayor Nancy Alcock also expressed concern about any development infringing on wetlands. “I feel like we’re rehashing the same issues that were raised in January,” she said.
In terms of comments from the community, she said a couple that really resonated with her were concerns related to the loss of wetland.”From my perspective, I have always been under the impression under our new Official Plan that regardless of the size and scale of the wetland, we don’t encroach on wetlands, and so I feel any encroachment there is a problem.”
Alcock suggested deferring the application “until we get it right” and downsizing the development to avoid any infringement on wetlands throughout the entire property. ” She added that the development is akin to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. She also noted that stormwater management is critical for that property and surrounding properties and said a detailed study should be conducted before approval is granted.
Councillor Helena Renwick thanked everyone for their efforts. She said she also does not want to see infringement on wetlands. She said the lands are surrounded by residential development, so it makes sense to see development on the lands. Renwick suggested that stacked or more elevated development ought to be considered.
Planning Council Chair Bob Stone agreed with the possibility of adding height to the development to decrease the footprint. He said he liked that townhouses and semi-detached houses were being considered, a development that would be more reasonably priced for new buyers entering the housing market. “So if we condense it more and get more concentrated density, leaving more trees [and] farther away from the wetland might be a real win.” He said that, sadly, the Planning Council is more reactive to what goes before it. “We can’t design it [development]; we can only say, ‘Here’s what we’re thinking.'”
The decision
In the end, the proponents were asked to:
- Prepare a detailed stormwater management and construction mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of Town staff;
- Prepare a detailed entrance plan by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of Town staff;
- Redesign the proposed development to avoid any infringement on wetlands, maintain appropriate off-lot buffers, and
- Consider reducing the footprint of the development for a more compact housing type, which could include stacked houses to maintain more mature trees on the lands and tree buffers with surrounding developments.
Recognizing that studies and the development of land are expensive, Councillor Morrison told those around the table: “To be honest, the developers have done a lot of work… so I think to be fair to them, we should make a commitment to try and get this back to the table sooner rather than later for the residents and the developers to get an answer and a resolution quicker,” said Morrison adding that Town staff will have a lot of work before them, but he hoped it could be as expedient as possible. “I think there is appetite around this table to get development on that lot, and I know they’re [developers] going to have to spend some money here, but just to know that when you do come back, we’re supportive of some development there so it’s not like you’re going to spend the money and we’re going to say no development,” he assured.
Committee Chair Bob Stone agreed with Morrison. “As soon as we get the information, we’ll get you on a docket right away.”
You can find the full planning report by clicking HERE (pdf).
Related
Community members express concerns with 96-unit subdivision proposed on Town Line Road West
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
It is time for all residents to recognize that Huntsville is being destroyed by a haphazard council and planning committee. I understand the need for housing but not reckless planning. A good example is the condo built on Brunel right by a sidewalk. This creed for developers must stop until we have quality long range vision for Huntsville. We do not want to look like Barrie and thus we will be recognized as the “armpit of the north”. This council no longer represents residents but supports developers. This needs to stop now.
As a resident at one of the many properties adjacent to the subject lands, I would like to thank the attendees at the recent meeting, especially those who openly voiced their concerns regarding the shortcomings in the application to develop. Mr. Gallagher for the applicant spoke with confidence but offered little new.
The report submitted by the Town of Huntsville, via Doppler, states that there were only half a dozen objections to the proposed plan. Well, I would like to add at the least another 60, because there were at least 60 people outside the meeting room who viewed the proceeding on the TV monitor in the hall and who enthusiastically applauded to the objections voiced by concerned members of the public inside.
I am especially grateful for the valid comments submitted by the Former Mayor Ms. Karin Terziano, by Ms. Kim Gordon, by Ms. Peggy Peterson, by a gentleman whose first name is Alex (I did not hear his last name) and others. All concerns were submitted most eloquently while spelling out the details which trouble the neighbours of the subject lands.
Water shed and storm water management provisions. Cutting of trees will no doubt increase the flooding of the subject area as well as of the neighbouring areas.
Density of the proposed subdivision. I must confess I did not know that there are 96 homeless families in Huntsville. Councilor Bob Stone proposed higher buildings. Higher buildings, Bob? Really? That goes well along with the plans to turn Huntsville into Barrie of Muskoka. Why not flyovers and a tunnel under Main Street and King Willim Street to alleviate the occasional traffic congestion during the holidays?
Will this developer, and the others who are about to come, contribute towards the costs of further expansions of the hospital (yet to be bult) and expansions of health services in general? Contractual assurance in this regard should be given.
Will this developer employ local tradesmen for construction and outfitting of the subdivision or will they bring their own workforce from Alberta? Again, the developer of subject lands should give contractual assurances that only local Muskoka workforce will be employed.
However, I am grateful to our hard-working council for not rubber stamping the application as it is and for the deferment of the same. The developer and their consultant must do a lot better to satisfy the concerned public about the outstanding items.
I think another concern here is the impact on the town’s infrastructure and who will pay for these changes. We cannot continue to see these massive tax increases to build infrastructure to support development in the immediate Huntsville area passed on to rural landowners.
My taxes currently sit at upwards of $3900 a year and each time tax levies are increased at one side or the other of 5% the tax bills increase exponentially. My wife and I see the biggest single threat to our ability to stay on the property we’ve owned for 47 years as being the ability to pay our property tax. I know I’m not alone in this situation. My road looks like a test track for army tanks, my councillor is not responsive and seems to seldom participate in meaningful discussions at council.
Why should out of town core residents or anyone in Huntsville being footing the bill for developers and business in town?
The continued system of funding of development in Huntsville needs a review because the rest of us will be taxed out of existence. Perhaps the profitable accommodation tax should be directed towards these issues as the motel industry is growing in Huntsville and has cost taxpayers money to service. Let’s start taking a closer look at how funds are spent in town, be more sceptical of the need to support core business’s at the expense of rural taxpayers, and let’s have the books opened on how the town is spending money.
What’s the big secret? What is there to hide?
Perhaps hold votes on infrastructure spending is the answer?
I think the bathroom debacle should not be forgotten too easily, these blunders could affect how donors look at their decisions to donate in the future.
Above all, if a developer’s plans require upgrades to infrastructure then they should foot the bill. When did this town become a charity organization to support the profit of developers?