Huntsville’s planning committee has approved the site plan for a three-storey building at 32 Brunel Road with frontage on the Muskoka River.
The approval consists of 15 condominium units: one one-bedroom unit, six one-bedroom-plus-den units, four two-bedroom units, and four three-bedroom units, according to Huntsville manager of planning Richard Clark.
The developer is proposing about 23 parking spaces, roughly four above ground and 19 underground, according to Clark.
The property has an area of 1,849m². It contained a dwelling and detached garage and has roughly 70 metres of frontage on the river and 72 metres of frontage on Brunel Road.
Clark noted that in 2009 a zoning bylaw amendment had been approved to permit the 15-unit development with underground parking. “Additionally, a minor variance was approved in 2011 to provide additional zoning relief to permit the development within the 200-metre setback requirement between new dwelling units and sewage treatment facilities. A site plan application proposing a similar development was also conditionally approved by the Town in 2012.”
Various iterations of the plan have been proposed through the years—but on April 13, committee concurred with planning staff’s recommendation and approved an updated site plan for a total of 15 units. The approval is conditional on the landscaping being revised to remove hardscaping along the shoreline such as a retaining wall and replacing it with “suitable native plantings wherever feasible to the satisfaction of the municipality.” And that all drawings and plans be to the satisfaction of the municipality and commenting agencies.
Planning consultant for the owner, Lanny Dennis, said he did not anticipate a problem with meeting the conditions subject to the approval of the site plan. “The owners will continue to work with the Town and the District to address their comments and certainly they’re anxious to proceed with the project and one more infilling project to help assist with the housing shortfall in Muskoka,” said Dennis.
Owner Ed Wiebe also spoke to committee at its remotely held meeting. He said it’s been a long process. He started the project in 2009 with his partner Glen Smith and then the real estate market had a downturn in early 2012. But now, with the decommissioning of the sewage treatment plant and with the high demand for housing, it’s a good time to move the project forward.
“I have been doing some preliminary work as you saw in the pictures,” he told committee. “There’s an excavator onsite—we’re just doing some soil sampling now to make sure the site is suitable to accommodate the housing. We’re putting heli coils in so this will just determine the size and the amount of heli coils and once we’re approved, we’ll be ready to get started.”
Huntsville Councillor Bob Stone referred to the building as rather imposing on the river, “and from Brunel it’s right on Brunel Road, so imposing from both sides,” he added. “And yet it addresses serious housing issues and I suppose we have to get our heads around the fact that housing is so important we need to consider these things right on our river. I’m excited to hear there’s going to be some robust vegetation planted. I hope there is a whole lot shielding the building from the river and from Brunel.”
Stone also spoke to Wiebe and said: “I hope the façade of this—some efforts can be made to make it very much Muskoka-like and it’s difficult to define what that means but I think Mr. Wiebe is well-acquainted with what we like to see in Huntsville.”
Councillor Dan Armour asked whether the additional cars associated with the development on Brunel Road would require a traffic study. Dennis said that would be a requirement of the District since Brunel is a District road but he said a unit count under 50 does not typically require a traffic study.
In the end, committee approved the site plan. For more information, you can find the staff report here.
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 three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Chris Mathews says
This building is addressing our housing issues? I think not. Last time I looked the prices were $1 million. We need low income housing and also some smaller 2 bedroom bungalow style homes for retirees, but not at this price.
Paul Johnston says
This council has not delivered an official plan that would protects and promotes the beauty of Huntsville. The lake and waters are al being cut off for not only for the residents but for the visitors/tourists, who make this city wonderful. You as a council continue to promote the developers and those capitalizing on our assets. You will create a city that will be become known as the “arm pit” of Muskoka.
Murray Christenson says
I thought the Muskoka river was the “ribbon of life” for Huntsville…I guess that councilor has moved on lol! Protecting the shoreline with native vegetation? There’s barely enough room for a potted plant!
But really, it’s pretty rich for the developers to claim this helps address the housing issue here…not a single unit is even remotely in the price range of locals.
Henk Rietveld says
Muskoka’s first underwater parking garage…
Marlene White says
Congratulations! You are well on your way to building a concrete and asphalt Town for the wealthy who will need to eventually travel outside Huntsville to obtain goods and services due to lack of a workforce.
This building “plan” continues to see businesses not be able to obtain employees who live and contribute to town as there is no where for them to live that they can afford. Minimum wage jobs do not pay for housing and day to day costs in Huntsville.
People come to small towns to visit and live for the natural beauty. This further added to clear cut heaven for developers and more severe impacts from climate change.
A municipal election is coming. Please encourage your friends and family to find candidates who live in and understand the real world.
Allen Markle says
“And yet it addresses serious housing issues…” Say what!!! Does such a comment cause you to giggle, sob, or clutch your chest. More of the same unexciting tiers of boxes. Supposedly this fits right into the Official Plan.
Who was supplying the ‘entertainment’ when this ‘plan’ was hallucinated?
“Robust vegetation planted”. “Suitable native plantings” ( water plants I assume). “I hope there is a whole lot shielding…” These comments all seem to have been uttered, simply to use up the air in the room.
There’s not much space to work, so it appears this structure is going to be ‘screwed’ into position. No room for a catchment basin (chuckle), it just drains straight into the river. Fix up a solid sheet of barrier cloth and there you go.
Hank Rietveld: I too noted the under ground parking, but upon reflection, this could be a selling point! Imagine sitting indoors, perched on the roof of your vehicle, trying to hook that big pike that is lurking between the rear tires.
Makes you think doesn’t it.
Shouldn’t somebody?
Frances Botham says
I thought we had an Official Plan in place to protect the environment, to set up a master guideline for development and all that this entails. Why do we allow or seem to deem it necessary to continually make amendments, changes, stretching of the rules to accommodate developers?
I am not anti development, but I am totally against the threatening of our rivers and streams and lakes. Setbacks are there for a reason. Anytime there is potential for run off into a waterway, we should pay attention. Further, aesthetic appeal or perhaps call it facade control is a major issue as well. Why have we seemingly lost our vigilance? This development might be just fine, but in another location and not crammed onto the shoreline of the Muskoka River.
Peter Alexander says
This is Ontario. What a developer, wants a developer gets!!!
Rod jones says
This is totally wrong to close to road and water.Where are the extra cars going to park?Don’t know how they got a building permit but if this was a person who wanted to build a private home they would’ve got a permit
Money talks.
Faye McKnight says
This project is a hard one to swallow. It just does not make sense, literally at any level. I would ask the question, “What does the town council and planning council consider affordable ?” Does that mean the price tags per unit will be well under $500,000. per unit. This project certainly will not fall into this category. The request to eliminate the hardscape and retaining wall on the riverfront may be the light at the end of the tunnel to stop this project.
Road setbacks, waterfront setbacks. The parking underground should not be allowed at this location. What are the recommendations in case of flooding? Not sure how this project has come this far. The planning department needs to get back to planning.
Allen Markle says
You have to find the humor in situations such as this or you might start to giggle, sob or clutch your chest. Maybe all three. Maybe all at once!
When John Whiteside’s lumber and shingle mill operated on the site in the early 1900s, I’m sure John was careful to not store anything there that could have been used at the Fetterly/ Jacobs/ Cottrill mill, further downstream.
Any ‘sober second thoughts’ about this proposal could be the cause of heavy drinking.
Will there be the need here for an ‘egregious’ wall here, to prevent erosion?
Might time bestow a pet name on the structure? Can imagine a few myself.
Just random musings.
Looks like everyone will get to enjoy a lovely weekend. ‘Bout time!
Barry groomes says
Well an underground parking that will double as inside pool. That’s a brilliant idea. But the part that gets me tho is any bother person has to set back from waterfront so many meters and not allowed to cut a tree down or even build a resting wall within the waterfront set backs, but yet this developer is allowed to underground parking and a 15 unit building??? Another thing is years ago we had a 100 year flood and I had a customer that wanted to rebuild a cottage that was flooded and we tried working with the town but they wouldn’t budge from the height the building needed to be above the flood mark. The new building would have been 11 ft above the ground and that was the bottom of the floor joists. Meanwhile when the cottage flooded the water came in about a foot over the floor for a total depth of about 54” above the ground. The towns rules stated 11’ above ground I’d where construction could start. So tell me how does a development get approval for underground parking along the same river??
Sequoia Henry says
All I can say is shame on the town council and shame on Ed!
We need to change the narrative here in Huntsville! We need to support the people who live here! The working class! No more condos or cottager BS! We have homeless in Huntsville we have huge environmental issues!!!! what is wrong with you people