Jarlette Health Services, owners of Muskoka Landing Long Term Care Inc., were once more before Huntsville’s Planning Committee on March 15 after being told in February to meet with staff and come up with a more palatable development proposal.
At the meeting in February, committee was specifically concerned with approving a 15-metre high building addition. It also asked the proponent to reconsider a 43-metre wide docking structure along the shoreline of the Rogers Cove basin.
The proponent returned to committee on Wednesday, March 15 and provided an amended building design showing a mansard style roof, which gives the appearance of a lower elevation although the 15-metre height exemption request (up from 12 metres) remained. It also amended the proposed 43-metre wide docking structure along the shoreline of the Rogers Cove basin to 42.5 metres.
Staff again recommended that the proposal be approved but the majority of committee did not feel the same way.
“I appreciate the new design, it is attractive. I appreciate the fact that the applicant has had a public meeting and has come back as many as four times. But what disappoints me is that right from the start we asked for a reduction from 15 metres and that’s really been the sticking point for four meetings and we haven’t seen any reduction in that height,” said Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano, adding that she could not support the project.
I actually feel a little bit insulted that the applicant was sent away the number of times they were and asked to reduce the height and they’re still coming back with 15 metres Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe, who suggested that a mansard-style roof be used at the last meeting, said that seeing the proponent incorporate that concept into their design is an improvement. “I’m closer to supporting it at this point,” he said.
Councillor Jason FitzGerald said that while he supports the project in principle in terms of adding service and value to the community, he said the height remains an issue for him.
Councillor Nancy Alcock, who also chairs the committee, was away. In her stead, Councillor Bob Stone chaired the committee. Before calling a vote on the proposal, he expressed his own opinion on the issue and said: “Three times we’ve asked the proponents to reduce the height and they keep bringing the same thing, the same height back. I think we would fundamentally change the nature of Huntsville if we start to allow the buildings to dominate the nature, trees and vistas and I think it’s a slippery slope.”
In the end, the only committee member who supported the proposal was Councillor Jonathan Wiebe and the proposal was defeated. In a surprising turn of events, and prompted by the proponents, the issue was brought forward by staff once more later on in the planning meeting. Huntsville Manager of Planning Services Kirstin Maxwell said the proponents wanted to know whether committee would approve the proposal without the height exemption. A motion to that effect was drafted and approved. It will be forwarded to Huntsville council for final approval at its March 27th meeting.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
Area residents have to be pleased that the Huntsville Planning Committee sent developer, Jarlette Health Services away for the fourth or fifth time to revise the height of their proposed long term care lakeshore development. One hopes they will also revise their dock application to the currently allowed 15 meters from something less than 45 meters.
I’m pleased to read in this publication that Deputy Mayor, Karin Terziano was insulted by the developer’s arrogance in returning to the Planning Committee with the essentially the same application for an over height building after being specifically told to reduce the height. It’s critically important to remember that elected officials and their committees are supposed to run their communities, not developers from other parts of the province.
That said, I read, again in this publication, that this developer “prompted” Town staff to bring back the proposal later in the meeting after it had again been rejected. And here I always believed that municipal staff were supposed to support the views of area residents. Silly me. Developers elsewhere must be looking at Huntsville and rubbing their hands in glee that Jarlette was able to “prompt” Town staff to act on their behalf.
Further, it is my understanding that Jarlette has asked to be allowed to proceed with a portion of the redevelopment proposal, specifically the 14 market value condos to be built on eight lots on the lakeshore. Quite apart from having nothing to do with long term care, this raises another issue.
Reading the Huntsville Official Plan it’s clear that there are many restrictions regarding construction on waterfront lots. Building 14 condos on eight lots appears to breach those restrictions inasmuch as condos would be built straddling lot lines. Perhaps the developer is even now applying to consolidate those lots but, if not, any other lakeshore landowners who have been denied permission to build across property lines in the past should pay close attention to any Planning Committee rulings coming out of this application. Your last chance to comment will be at the March 27 meeting.
As I’ve observed previously, precedents once established are extremely difficult to reverse and could result in a flood of future applications to commercially develop Huntsville waterfront properties to the detriment of both the natural beauty and the tourist industry.
Michael Tindall
A past and potentially future tourist to Huntsville