<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Huntsville\u2019s planning committee has put off planning approvals for another month for a phased condominium development at 46 Hanes Road, being referred to as the Highcrest Muskoka development.<\/p>\n\n\n
The lands at 18 Legacy Lane also form part of the development which, in its entirety, would consist of 151 dwellings. Thirty-three bungalow townhouses at 18 Legacy Lane have already been approved<\/span><\/a> as phase one of the project. The applicant\u2019s agent, Wayne Simpson, was before Huntsville\u2019s planning committee on July 14 asking for rezoning amendments for an additional 38 bungalow townhouses and two, four-storey apartment buildings containing 40 units each for a total of 80 units, as part of the next phase of the project to be located at 46 Hanes Road.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The size of the land at 46 Hanes Road is 2.5 hectares with 190 metres of road frontage. While the property at 18 Legacy Lane is 1.8 hectares in area with no municipal road frontage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe driveway for the townhouse development providing access to Hanes Road would ultimately become a street in later phases of that development. To facilitate construction of this driveway, and the first phase of the development, the Town and applicant completed a transfer of the intervening town-owned lands in exchange for lands on the western boundary of the subject lands,\u201d Richard Clark, Town manager of planning, reminded the committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In separate correspondence with Huntsville Doppler<\/em>, Huntsville director of planning Kirstin Maxwell indicated that two condominium roads would connect off Hanes Road and service the entire development. She also said it is her understanding that the multi-residential buildings proposed would contain underground parking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Planning consultant Wayne Simpson, who was representing project developer Dave Goodfellow, told the committee there would be a 10-metre setback on the east, west, and south side of the Hanes Road part of the development with a smaller setback on the north side where it abuts the first phase of the development on 18 Legacy Lane. He also said there would be a six-metre setback where the property abuts the Chartwell townhomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Simpson, his client is prepared to build a pedestrian pathway on the road allowance adjacent to the property to ensure better pedestrian movement along Hanes Road. \u201cAnd also, there have been discussions and Dave Goodfellow has agreed to work with the Town\u2026 to build at his cost a trail along the west side of the property,\u201d he said, which would connect to Kinton Avenue. \u201cSo that would be a public trail on public land\u2026 that would be constructed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Renderings were provided for the bungalow townhomes but not for the multi-residential buildings proposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The committee also heard from two area residents at the meeting, which was held virtually. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bob Mallette, president of the Serenity Place Crescent Condominium Corporation, asked committee for more time to analyze the proposal. \u201cWe are not opposed to the construction of the development as it was presented\u2026 however, we are not experts in planning in the building process and with each additional piece of information that\u2019s been shared with us, we find ourselves overwhelmed with detail which is foreign to most of the residents at Serenity Place Crescent.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mallette said some of the concerns involve the extent of vegetative buffers between Serenity Place and the proposed development. He also expressed concern regarding the proposed walking trail between Hanes Road and the back of the Serenity Place townhomes. \u201cThis would interfere with the residents\u2019 privacy and increase in noise level on Hanes, or from Hanes. Once again, these topics, along with the Town\u2019s consent to access the technical background reports received yesterday, we require further study and communication within our community.\u201d He asked for a 30-day deferral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kaye Leslie, a resident at Serenity Place for three years, thanked the board of the condominium and their work on the file, but she said she felt residents did not have enough information about the proposal and asked for more time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Leslie said she\u2019s been in touch with councillors as well as the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks about the amount of blasting residents have had to endure in the last year. She described it as horrendous and said it has literally shaken residents to the core, including their pets. She worried about damage and said when she reached out to the Ministry, \u201cthey referred to Muskoka as the Wild West, that we have no bylaws around blasting, and they can\u2019t do much.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n She also expressed concern about rampant deforestation. \u201cEverything beautiful, frankly, I think here is being destroyed and I think as community members we are losing not only probably property value when this becomes a cement jungle, we might as well be living in Toronto. But I think that, you know, what is beautiful and peaceful and the nature that we have had we are going to sadly lose even if we have a few metres of tree coverage and visual screens, whatever. It\u2019s going to be, I think, devastating to our landscape.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Councillor Bob Stone questioned the impact of four-storeys. \u201cI believe that is the maximum height of buildings that is allowed and are these buildings going to affect [the] tree line or the visual from the lake?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clark did confirm that the proponent was seeking permission for 16-metre high buildings instead of the current 11 metres allowed. He said a visual impact assessment was conducted and \u201cdue to the height of surrounding trees it wouldn\u2019t be visible from many of the vantage points that we\u2019d be worried about. It is more closeup views that would be changed, so Hanes Road you would see, depending on what vegetation was removed, you\u2019d see [from] bungalows there,\u201d as well as from adjacent developments, he noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Councillor Jonathan Wiebe said he was in support of deferring planning decisions for another 30 days. He said committee should see the visual impact the proposed buildings would have. \u201cWithout knowing the height, size, massing \u2013 without being able to see that, I think it is in fact premature to approve it,\u201d he said, adding that it seems that somewhere there has been a breakdown in communication. \u201cClearly there is a large group of folks who don\u2019t feel that they\u2019ve received all the up-to-date information and so as their councillor I\u2019m going to be putting forth a motion to defer for 30 days.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano said whether the committee defers planning approvals remains to be seen, \u201cbut either way this is a public meeting, so I think it\u2019s important that we ask all of our questions today.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Terziano wanted to know why the developer is asking for a height exemption of 16 metres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI just want to point out that the tallest of these two buildings will be 10 metres lower than the top of Vernon View \u2013 so the equivalent of three storeys,\u201d said Simpson. \u201cWe\u2019re looking for 16 metres, the maximum height, not that it would be exactly 16 metres but there\u2019s a penchant to put some green space on the top of one of the buildings and it would be more of a common space for people in the building to be able to share so we would need some sort of structure on the top\u2026 and it wouldn\u2019t be the full length of the roof line but there would be some sort of access\u2026 elevator access to the location, some sort of room shelter and we would be able to use the roof as part of a green space amenity area for both buildings”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Terziano said she did not find the answer satisfactory and \u201cI\u2019m probably going to very much support Councillor Wiebe\u2019s motion to defer now. Not that that was my intent originally because I don\u2019t want to create a hardship for the developer but there\u2019s just too much grey area on the height of these buildings and what they\u2019re going to look like.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n She also clarified comments made about Huntsville being the Wild West as it pertains to blasting. \u201cWe don\u2019t control blasting\u2026 as a municipality. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s because we\u2019re in the Wild West, I hope it\u2019s not. Municipalities, in general, don\u2019t control blasting, do they?\u201d asked Terziano of municipal staff.<\/p>\n\n\n Maxwell said the issue has come up in the past, which prompted her to research the topic \u201cand it does not appear that any municipalities do control blasting and the concerns that were raised are normally dealt with through the Ministry of the Environment,\u201d she said, adding that the municipality is able to control things like noise for which it does have a bylaw in place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Committee chair Nancy Alcock questioned whether other municipalities ask for blasting information, such as when it will occur and whether there is follow-up with respect to issues around blasting. Maxwell said she is not aware of municipalities asking for blasting plans but did note that whoever is doing the blasting has a responsibility to ensure that they are addressing any offsite impacts. She also said they have an opportunity to conduct pre-blast surveys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Councillor Dan Armour asked Simpson if a pre-blast assessment had been done. Simpson said the Ministry has maximum thresholds for seismic readings and a pre-blast survey had been done ahead of time. if there is damage as a result of blasting it would be the responsibility of the developer to remedy the situation. He also said every blast is monitored and the records can be made available to the municipality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Councillor Stone said he too is in favour of deferral and said he hopes the developer comes back with visuals of the proposed buildings and how they\u2019re going to make them look \u201cMuskoka-like.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mayor Terziano said there are aspects of the development that can be controlled through site plan approval and while she\u2019s comfortable with that, she is not comfortable with approving a 16-metre-high building. She proposed to remove that as a condition and perhaps consider it at a later stage. \u201cI mean I understand why the developer needs to get going and I also understand some of the concerns, but I think most of the concerns are going to be through site plan, aside from the height.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Simpson said the current bylaw allows for 11 metres which is not what the developer is looking for. \u201cCouncil recently approved greater heights than 11 metres for the development on Campus Trail. So, I think it would be punitive if the Town took out the requirement and then left it at 11 [metres],\u201d he said, adding that it would be better to return to committee with more information in order to satisfy councillors about the look of the buildings, \u201cmaybe that would be the prudent thing and if that means a deferral, I think so be it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Committee deferred decisions on planning requests for another month. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You can find the planning report here<\/span><\/a> (pdf).<\/p>\n\n\nDon\u2019t miss out on Doppler!<\/h5>\n