This story has been updated with a new map of the property.
The Town of Huntsville is moving closer to transferring municipally owned land to the Muskoka Community Land Trust (MCLT), paving the way for a major affordable housing development that could eventually include up to 150 homes.
A staff report presented to the General Committee’s June 24 meeting provides an update on the proposed transfer of lands at 40 Florence Street West and Abraham Road, confirming that Town staff have finalized a Letter of Intent outlining the terms for the transfer.
“We’ve been working through a significant number of technical matters when it comes to the ownership of all of the parcels. The lands consist currently of six parcels that we need to consolidate into one to make sure that it stays as one piece as part of the letter of intent that we’ve all agreed to,” explained Huntsville Director of Development Services Kirstin Maxwell.
The report notes that a Community Planning Permit bylaw amendment is now in effect, allowing increased density for the project. The amendment permits up to 150 dwelling units, reduces the required number of parking spaces from 165 to 124, and increases the maximum building height from 11 metres to 14 metres.
Before construction can begin, however, several conditions must still be met. These include a formal agreement between the Town and MCLT that will guarantee at least 40 per cent of the units remain affordable housing, confirmation of available water and sewer capacity from the District Municipality of Muskoka, and approval of final stormwater management and servicing plans.
The Town has also obtained an appraisal of the property, which places its value at approximately $1.5 million.
Staff identified an ownership issue involving an adjacent parcel proposed for transfer that is currently owned by the District Municipality of Muskoka rather than the Town. Efforts are underway to resolve the discrepancy before the transfer proceeds.
The report also addresses the future of the communications tower located on the property. A blanket easement will allow the Town to relocate, reconstruct or remove the tower if necessary, while additional easements will ensure District access to a nearby pump station. Staff are also awaiting Bell’s response on whether communications equipment can be co-located elsewhere before determining if the existing tower must remain.
Meanwhile, progress is being made on the development itself. A site alteration and tree-clearing permit has been issued for the first phase of construction, and both building permit fees and Community Planning Permit fees have been waived. Staff estimate the Phase 1 building permit fees alone would have totalled approximately $264,000. As a not-for-profit organization, MCLT is also exempt from paying development charges under provincial legislation.
The development is planned in three phases. Phase 1 would consist of a four-storey building containing 46 residential units. While an application has been submitted, MCLT is continuing to complete the technical studies required to support the Community Planning Permit application. According to the report, the existing communications tower and guy wires are not expected to interfere with the construction of the first building, although an engineering review will confirm that nearby construction will not affect the tower’s structural integrity.
The Letter of Intent also includes provisions protecting the Town’s long-term interests. In addition to preserving access to the communications tower, it gives the Town the option to reacquire the property at no cost, with that right secured on title.
Town staff are now working with the Town solicitor to finalize title issues, easements and restrictive covenants. Once those matters are resolved, ownership of the lands will be transferred to the Muskoka Community Land Trust.
“When we get through all these hurdles, we’re finally going to be where we need to be, and it’s a big thanks to our director,” said Huntsville Councillor Scott Morrison.
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 so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Councillor Morrison:
1. I think it’s difficult for most of us out here to get an idea of what sort of numbers you might be speaking of. might it be possible for you to give us an idea of possible rents for a single person on ODSP (income approx. $1,400/month), or a senior on CPP (income approx. $2,100/month)?
2. I’ve not read the report as yet, but with respect to the District-owned land, might it be possible to offer the land to them for the Housing program? This could allow for rent-geared-to-income housing, along with the other social supports the District can provide.
3. Might it be possible for there to be a larger number of accessible units rather than the usual minimum? It’s so difficult for people in chairs to find an apt.; Having truly universally accessible units with roll-in showers , would allow people who use wheelchairs to truly have a home, and would let seniors with mobility problems “age in place”..
And for Marcia Frost: I think you should be more careful about how you characterize the people who live in Housing. You wrote that “for the privilege of sharing walls with addicts, drug dealers and mentally ill people who scream and fight all night and steal the gas out of your car whn youre asleep”. I won’t deny things like these never happen-things like that happen in market-rent bldgs too. Not all buildings are alike, and the vast majority of tenants respect the rules and other residents.
would allow for “aging in place”
Hi Nancy,
Sorry for this long response.
I think Dan is referencing the old program where we used to use the affordable housing definition from CMHC for our Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP). But we changed that methodology in 2024.
When I was on the housing task force for the district, we determined that the system we were using was not the best way to determine what an affordable rental price should be for Muskoka.
Before 2024, our affordable‑rent caps were based broadly on CMHC’s average market rent and staff judgment—effectively ‘below market,’ but not tied to a specific point in the rent distribution.
In 2024, Council moved to a clearer, data‑driven framework: we now set affordable rents at defined percentiles of our Alternative Average Market Rent, which better reflects what lower‑income households actually pay and can afford.
This tightens the link between data and policy: rents are no longer just “a bit below average,” but are pegged to a consistent point in the local rent curve, which makes the affordability level clearer and more defensible.
I should say that my number of 30% below market rent is oversimplified because I wanted to give a digestible number. The actual formula is much more complicated and is based on percentiles of rent distribution. The percentile is different for each size of unit. It starts at 30% for a studio and goes up from there.
This actually highlights part of the problem that Bill Beatty was referencing. There is no clear definition of affordable housing across the board. Even the district has two different definitions. And each region and municipality could have a different definition based on their housing needs. So there could literally be a thousand different definitions across the country which is very confusing for the general public
Dan’s first comment is correct. That is the affordable housing definition for our rent geared to income. These are two different programs. This one is for district subsidized housing and is not yet being considered for the land trust project. Unless we utilize the district head lease program, an initiative that we brought the housing task force.
Why are two councillors giving different information?
Just to clarify In the District of Muskoka, “affordable rent” is defined as rent that costs 30% or less of a household’s before-tax income.
Additionally, for specifically designated affordable rental units built through District initiatives, rent is set at 20% below the Average Market Rent established by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. So we will need to see where the MLT rents fall. It could be different for each unit based on total household income.
Who would these builds be offered to?
What financial assistance would be given if any?
Any priorities? Large families, retired individuals , young people just starting out, people just changing locations, speculators, jobless people, people needing health assistance etc.?
I am trying to get the drift of this thing.
Thank you.
The objectives and time line for the Sabrina Park Affordable Housing Development, as outlined to council in July of 1918 is a no-go. It seems while the dwgs. and the talk show was a snap, the actual doing the job just snapped back. The project won’t be finished in 2029, or anytime it seems. Another ‘brown land’. Wonder how that property fell into the hands of the town?
Rumor has it that for a toonie (shades of train station) you can get the site and complete it at your expense. Good deal? I can’t imagine the town would ever run out of deficiencies you would need to bring to standard. Today’s standards. You’d be back to checking for protected fishes and frogs and newts and efts as was done first time round. I think what is there is a flatten and be done.
This ‘new’ project is like that second, different pitch. From ripping a wet land apart, to denuding a hill. I imagine the power saws are having new chains fitted as I write. There is a copse to decimate. Let’s get it to it. We can really get that done.
We won’t need to worry about fishes and frogs (maybe tree frogs) up there. Just birds and bats and denizens of the night. And where the water goes when it drains off the hill. Not slowly as now when the forest dries itself out. Now it will be in a rush; off shingles and concrete and asphalt.
This is a pretty formidable hill. In younger days, walking over it was a test. It was said some cyclists would go to the top and peddle hard down toward the school, running all the stop signs. Wonder if such a practice will return?
This second run at such a project will be under close scrutiny, There’s a fine example of how it can turn out if ——what happens?? Do we have an accounting of what went wrong? Might be handy to know where the pitfalls lurk. Could help to keep this attempt from being strike two!
Councilor Scott Morrison is interested in the ‘Beer Lake’ brown land that the town doesn’t own. But the Sabrina Park brown land, I guess the town must still have an interest in. And the comment “When we get through all these hurdles, we’re finally going to be where we need to be”.
By gosh, don’t we surely hope?
Thank you for your comment. Please see the link to the Town’s definition of affordable housing in the first paragraph of the story.
Affordable rents need to be geared to income, not market rates.
I think many are very wary of the word “affordable” since noone EVER defines it and everyone has their own idea of wht it means.
Rent-geared-to-income “affordable” or $800,000 “affordable”????
All I can assume is itll be more luxury builds as always in Huntsville…while our rent geared to income housing list is now a 10yr waitlist..for the privilege of sharing walls with addicts, drug dealers and mentally ill people who scream and fight all night and steal the gas out of your car whn youre asleep…sorry but tht IS the reality of the ghetto style geared income housing we hav in Huntsville presently….ask me how i kno😖
Wld be nice to have somthng for the wrking poor who desperatly need it🤷♂️
Hi Gord, the Muskoka Community Land Trust is independent from the town and the district. However, myself and Tatiana Sutherland both sit on the board, Tatiana is our chair. She is a member of council for Bracebridge, I am a member of Council for Huntsville. And we both sit on District Council.
There has been a lot of involvement with the town and the district and all legal agreements have been drawn up to make sure that the town is protected. One of the reasons I got involved was because the town was transferring land to the land trust. There would be some exciting announcements coming soon, can’t wait to get shovels in the ground.
Bill, the district is defining affordable rentals as 30% below market rent. We just got a grant from the district that will make sure that a significant number of these units will be held affordable in perpetuity. We will also have other units at market rent and some that will be in between. A mixed rental development has the best chance for long-term sustainability of both the land trust and the project itself.
Who are the people in charge of MCLT? Is the Town and/or District going to have control to prevent another Sabrina Park ?
Basic question…..Affordable to what annual income bracket ? 50 to 80 K or 1,000.00 plus ? Are they all rentals or is ownership possible ?….9 Council members and possibly 9 definitions of affordability !