Plans are moving forward for a new retirement community for Huntsville. It would be located at 203 Highway 60.
Lakeside Place Retirement Community would comprise an estimated 150,000 square-foot building envelope with about 120 units to be located 10.5 metres from Fairy Lake, explained project partner Chris Napior, who referred to the development as a labour of love.
He said the units would vary in size—anywhere from 350 to about 750 square feet. The building will also comprise common areas and other amenities as part of the vision.
The proponents were granted a 10.5 metre setback from the water in 2003. The standard setback is now 30 metres, but Huntsville Planning Committee learned through a series of discussions with the Town and the developer’s solicitor that the setback is still valid, despite opposition from area residents.
As for the height of the building, Napior said he is seeking a 1.2 metre increase from the standard 11 metre height. It would have varying effects depending on where you view the building from due to the nature of the lands.
In a recommendation that went before committee in July 2017, staff recommended that committee approve the following:
- A reduction in the setback from type 1 fish habitat from 30m to 10.5m;
- The maximum building height shall be 15.1 metres, except that no portion of any building within 41.7 metres from the high water mark of Fairy Lake shall have a height of over 12.2 metres; and
- No more than 61 per cent of the proposed building footprint shall be 15.1 metres in height.
But committee did not approve that recommendation. (You can find the story here.)
The decision now rests with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), formerly the Ontario Municipal Board. At a closed session meeting last week, Planning Committee emerged with a resolution saying it would not defend its decision to deny the height exemption request at the LPAT—committee would have to expend funds and hire experts to defend its decision, and committee would not be able to call on municipal staff to defend their decision if staff’s recommendation was to approve a planning application while committee denied it.
Napior said the appeal was expected to be heard at the LPAT on November 29, but it is being rescheduled.
In terms of the development itself, “We’re going to make it as affordable as we can. There is a shortage of quality housing… the demographics of the baby boomers is a hockey stick going almost vertical,” he said, adding that although he does not currently live in the community, he’s put his heart and soul into the project as three generations of his family have called Huntsville home.
“We’re very excited to move forward with this finally,” said Napior.
Related story: Residents oppose proposed Highway 60 retirement home development
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
Rob Millman says
Kudos to Planning Committee! I have complained in this space often enough when they have granted approvals in the face of staff opposition. It is only fair to give them credit when they stand up for the environment in the face of huge investment dollars. (I apologize, in advance, for the tenor of my comments.)
.
There are so many things wrong with this proposal that it is difficult to know where to start. Firstly, I believe the 10.5-metre setback cannot be grandfathered beyond two (2) years without the proponent demonstrating evidence of good faith by proceeding in some fashion. (Clearly, this did not happen; ergo setback = 30 metres.) Secondly, the District wanted evidence of improvement in water quality and protection of the Type 1 fish habitat; among other requirements. Where is their approval? Thirdly, this constant waffling on building height (usually between 12 m. and 15 m.) is irksome: Why do we even have an OP, if it becomes a mere afterthought on a whim? Fourthly, where is the report from a environmental consultant regarding the fish habitat? And finally, where is the report from a seismologist regarding the effects of blasting for the underground parking?
.
Owing to Premier Ford, we no longer have an Environment Commissioner. It is, therefore, doubly incumbent upon the Town to be their own watchdog.
.
I have heard figures as high as $50 M in construction costs: Does this mean that the proponent should be granted “carte blanche” to desecrate a beautiful corner of Huntsville? This proposal is far too grandiose for its location. IMHO, it is ugly from both the water and the highway. Even the so-called vegetative screen is about 50% deciduous: what happens in the 3 non-spring seasons? I guess that we discover that the Emperor truly has no clothes!
Murray Christenson says
I tend to agree with Mr Millman, particularly on the set back. If they want to walk the deal on the 30 meter setback, let them…they won’t get less than that on any other lake in Muskoka.
Hugh Holland says
With the continuous calls for retirement living facilities and affordable housing, we need to be careful about being too picky about the rules. A 10.5 meter setback is 35 feet which is more than Rogers Cove and Rogers Cove looks and works just fine. A 30 meter setback is 98 feet and means that all the narrow properties along Highway 60 will sit idle and never be developed. As long as there is good water and sewer services, good storm water management and good aesthetics from both the lake and the highway it would be an attractive asset. This project would add to our tax base to help pay for roads and other services. Being near the hospital, it would also help to anchor the hospital.
Susan Bobyk says
I feel the 30 meter set back is necessary. They need to protect the environment and also protect the building/underground parking from flooding. But more importantly, can the Huntsville sewage system handle this sort of development? The lakes down river do not want sewage spills coming our way nor do we want to see it popping up on highway 60!