If approved, a new subdivision planned for Chaffey Township Road would have 45 fully-serviced residential lots that the proponents for the development hope to start next June.
Vista Investments Muskoka Inc., proponents of a new subdivision development being proposed off Chaffey Township Road, appeared before a joint public hearing with the District of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville’s planning committee last week to discuss their draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment request.
According to the Town’s planning report, the proposed draft plan of subdivision would create a total of 45 fully serviced, single detached residential lots with frontages ranging between 15.3m and 26.0m. The development is anticipated to proceed in two phases. The residential lots would be accessed via a new municipally owned and maintained internal road originating from Chaffey Township Road.
A zoning bylaw amendment is required to rezone the 45 residential lots to a Residential One (R1) Zone. The applicant is also requesting that two lots be rezoned to a Residential One (R1) Zone with an exception to permit a reduced frontage requirement.
The Planning Department received five written submissions concerning the proposal. One was in support and the others were from area residents who have concerns about the impact the development will have on the area. Common among those concerns is environmental impact, traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, existing poor road conditions and a lack of planned parkland.
The chief environmental concern is for Gypsy Bill Creek, which runs along the west border of the planned subdivision and makes its way into Fairy Lake. In her letter to the committee, Penny Warner warns of the damage that could be done to the creek if proper controls are not put in place. “The deep sandy banks of the ravine, along with the vegetation that maintains their stability, and the purity of the trout stream that flows through the ravine will be greatly affected and probably destroyed without the proper checks and balance put in place before these developments progress too far,” Warner wrote.
Larry Ross, President of Vista Investments, told the committee that the creek and the natural landscape were paramount in his mind when he planned the subdivision.
“I spend a lot of time on the property doing an assessment of what’s there environmentally,” Ross said. “I look for wetlands, creeks, rock outcroppings, vegetation. I take a really good inventory of what it looks like. And then my approach has always been to fit the development into the environment, opposed to going in and knocking every tree off the property and leveling the granite and starting from there. A lot of time and effort went into this design. I didn’t just draw lines on paper and call it good.”
Ross went on to explain that Lots 1 to 9 are large lots by Town standards. “Those lots were laid out with consideration to the creek and the top of the bank. Instead of starting with the road and forcing the lots in, I did it in the reverse. I wanted to make sure that I had lots of setback from the top of bank to protect the creek so the road became secondary.”
Draft plan of subdivision off Chaffey Township Road
Ms. Warner also raised concern that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) had not been completed for the proposed area of development. However, according to Kirstin Maxwell, Manager of Planning for the Town, an environmental impact assessment for the lands was completed in support of the applications. “The District of Muskoka also requested a peer review of the EIS, which was completed on September 8,” Maxwell confirmed in an email.
Before closing the public meeting, Councillor Bob Stone had this warning. “We have a proposal from Muskoka Rock coming to expand their property just north of there. We are coming to collisions between residential and heavy industrial. We need to be aware that they are coming closer and closer together and we should decide which one we want to grow and which one we don’t because they are incompatible together.”
The zoning bylaw amendment request will come back to the planning committee for recommendation to Council.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
Rob,
I failed to include in the story the fact that there is an existing NR zone around the creek.
Yes, Lots 1-9 are large; but unless some environmental conditions are registered on title, that fact alone means nothing. Probably a 15-m buffer zone (30 m, if possible) should be mandated beside the creek. Also a swale, leading to a ditch inlet, should be required at the back of each property to prevent fertilizer and other human detritus entering the creek.
Huntsville #sprawl is ever-expanding. The car-centric congestion is ever-growing. Where is the creative in-filling multiple level affordable housing? Attention to world-wide habitat loss & decreasing water quality. Attention: #planners #financiers #developers.