Muskoka District Planning Committee is considering an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) application that was adopted by Huntsville Planning Committee.
The OPA application is made by Leishman Developments, to develop 10 luxury homes at 411 Brunel Rd, tucked in behind several rural residential properties on Brunel Rd. Town of Huntsville Planning staff recommended that this OPA application be denied, but the Town Planning Committee went ahead and adopted it. The OPA is now at the final approval stage with the District of Muskoka. The District Planning Director is recommending that the OPA be denied; however, an option to approve the application has been provided to the Planning Committee with the modification that two minor studies be completed. The developer has already dug and capped a well on the property and cleared several areas of vegetation. A troubling coincidence since then is that the groundwater supply for at least 3 residences abutting the property has been deemed unsafe to drink by Public Health. If this OPA is approved, it will likely have significant impacts on our environment, wildlife habitats and traffic congestion at the North Mary Lake Road-Brunel Road intersection. As well, the OPA application does not conform to local, regional and provincial planning practices and policies. This development does not provide affordable housing in Huntsville – 1 million dollar + homes on lots half the size required in the Huntsville Official Plan, flies in the face of Huntsville Council’s priority to provide affordable housing.
The District Planning Committee meeting is Thursday, December 19th, at 1:00, in Bracebridge. We encourage Huntsville residents to attend the meeting in person or online, to hear the Planning Committee deliberations and the final decision.
We sent the email below to District Planning Council members.
December 16, 2024
TO: District Chair Lehman, Councillors Bochek, Edwards, Peppard, Smith and Strength.
Good morning,
My name is Sharlyn White. My husband and I live at 391 Brunel Rd, Huntsville.
We’re writing with regard to “Amendment 4 to the Town of Huntsville Official Plan (Leishman Developments Inc.) Report CPS-14-2024-2”, that will be heard by the District Planning Committee on Thursday.
We urge you to support Option One (Recommended) of the Planning Director’s report which denies the application.
We’re opposed to this development. We submitted letters and spoke at Huntsville Planning Committee meetings in January and July, when the OPA application was heard. Both times, Huntsville planning staff recommended that the application be denied; however, it was adopted by the Committee in July. Mayor Alcock supported the OPA application, moved an amendment to the original amendment and voted in favour of adopting the application as amended.
We trust that you have read the sizable report. Our letter to Lisa Marden, District Planning Director, is included in that package. Attached are copies of our letters to Huntsville Planning Committee, that are not included in the report. Our concerns and issues remain the same.
Option One (Recommended) outlines the very substantive reasons why the application should be denied. The analysis outlines the several deficiencies, unresolved concerns, incomplete technical studies, and the non-conformity to the PPS, the MOP and the HOP.
Option Two recommends that the application be approved with the modification of adding (i) a noise and vibration study; and (ii) an aggregate study in accordance with section H of the Muskoka Official Plan.
We’re confused that, with the considerable outstanding issues of major and practical importance, how this application could be approved with the addition of two fairly minor studies. Those two additional studies do not resolve the overall inappropriateness, incompleteness and non-conformity of the application. Why have Official Plans if a developer can proceed even though he doesn’t comply with the OPs and the PPS? We don’t understand how this OP application can be approved, given its conflict with sound land use planning principles and the various related local, regional and provincial policies.
And so, we ask again that you deny the application.
Thank you,
Sharlyn White & Harry Oswin
Huntsville residents
Related
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
Congratulations to the group of neighbours who banded together to fight Huntsville’s amendment to allow this development at this time, without sufficient assessments from the developer and Huntsville Council largely voting against the advice of town staff. The District vote to deny was supported by Huntsville’s Bob Stone and District staff advice recommendation which Mayor Nancy Alcock, acting as District Planning chair also acknowledged. Concerns about possible impacts of recent developer activity on neighbouring water supply were also reported.
Good to hear about unanimous disapproval at District. Sad, indeed, to hear about “NO TRESPASSING”. Was that necessary of just pi$$ed off?
We live in a neighbourly neighbourhood. There are few fences. Where there are fences, it’s wildlife fencing and we have openings cut in them to access each others yards. We sit together around our fire pits, we have impromptu refreshments together on our patios, our doggos are all pals and wander back and forth between yards.
We have openings in our fences at the back of our yards, to cut across the abutting field area, that is now owned by Leishman Developments, to get to the Lance’s Loop forest trails. We take our dogs for walks in the forest almost every day, 365 days a year. Those fence openings have been there forever – long before we moved here.
When Leishman Developments bought the property, we got written permission to continue to walk cross the field – to trespass. It takes about 3 minutes for that short distance across the field to the forest. And we hang out in the field in the summer to monitor the milkweed and nurture the Monarch butterfly’s growth cycle.
On Monday morning, a piece of lumber was put across the fence opening at our back yard, with “Private Property” and ”No Trespassing” signs posted. Yes, that’s perfectly within Leisman Developments’ right. Just not a very neighbourly neighbour…
We’ll now drive to the North Mary Lake Road access to Lance’s Loop for our forest walks. Almost everyday, our 7½ year old golden retriever walks the perimeter of our property, our neighbours’ property and along the fence line on Leishman Developments’ property, making sure everything’s okay and that the pesky squirrels are minding their own business. It’s hard to explain to her why she can’t go beyond our back fence anymore. She can’t be the 100% neighbourly neighbour she was. We’ll have to put fencing back across the opening, that will also close off the wildlife corridor to the river. It all makes me sad.
Sharlyn White
So… well… Leishman Developments OPA application was DENIED unanimously by District Planning Committee yesterday. A couple of Committee members asked Mayor Alcock questions for clarification. No other discussion, it was over in about 20 minutes.
Leishman Developments has the right to appeal to Ontario Land Tribunal, which must be done within 20 business days. Would it be successful? Maybe not because it simply does not meet provincial, regional and local planning policies and regulations and there’s so much opposition from neighbourhood residents. .
Huge kudos to the small group of Brunel Road residents who recognized the wrongness of the proposed development and fought a strong fight. Their stick-to-it-iveness is amazing.
And to the followers of the Doppler, who were unrelentless in expressing their opinion – rest assured that Huntsville Council heard you. You’re all rock stars! Congratulations.
Sharlyn White & Harry Oswin
Sadly, the opportunity to make money from more luxury development beats the opportunity to meet real community needs for affordable housing- rental or for ownership, or a future liveable community. Developers will only follow their noses to more more money but presumed Official Plans are meant to be guides to priorities for the community. This decision by Huntsville continues to give their power to others. Is it really likely that the District will not just rubber stamp Huntsville’s acquiescent development approval? ‘
Why pay for Planning staff or for an Official Plan when the recommendations are not followed? Who sits on this Planning Committee?
This reckless disregard for the official plan is a trademark for this council and the lack of leadership directing the planning committee. This lack of management by council/mayor will destroy the fabric of Huntsville and Muskoka municipality. It is time residents speak loud and clear to all councillors, Huntsville and Municipality. If we do not rebel then we get what we deserve and Huntsville will become the “Barrie” of the north. So sad.
How does this type of thing keep happening? I’ve lived in Huntsville for nearly 30 years and every Town Council has had two things in common: disregard for their own official plans, and complete surrender to developers’ wishes.
It’s tempting to blame developers, but they have learned that it is best go ahead with their plans without approval. Council will, for appearances, make them jump through a few little hoops, perhaps scold them a.little (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) and always, in the end, give their blessing.
We may believe there is a vision and an “official plan” but there is no vision and no plan when it can be “amended” by anyone with a chainsaw and a backhoe.
Quoting from the article and asking a couple of questions. We’ve seen this before, had it criticized, yet it continues.
“the OPA application does not conform to local, regional and provincial planning practices and policies… lots half the size required in the Huntsville Official Plan … flies in the face of Huntsville Council’s priority to provide affordable housing”
“Why have Official Plans if a developer can proceed even though he doesn’t comply with the OPs and the PPS?”
Why have planning staff, who recommended the application be denied, if they are not listened to? Why no consequences to developers who strip land before being approved?
Seriously, why does this happen? There is actually an answer to the question. Is it a back room answer or is it transparent? We’d really like to know.
Wow! How did THIS happen….
The fact that the land has already been stripped bare and a well dug reeks of arrogance on the part of the builder. And if the vote is NO on Thursday what then? The land scape is now destroyed . The residents of Brunel Rd can breathe easy that the construction was stopped this time. But the views out their windows will be a constant reminder of the power of the mighty buck and spineless committees . I hope they win their challenge.