Despite Huntsville planning staff’s recommendation to deny an application to amend the Town of Huntsville Official Plan in order to proceed with a 10-lot Estate Rural Subdivision, a majority of councillors voted in favour of the amendment at their July 10 meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n
The property in question is located at 411 Brunel Road. It has an area of about 5.2ha and approximately 64 meters of road frontage on North Mary Lake Road\/Brunel Road. It is presently vacant. The minimum lot size in the 10-lot subdivision proposed would be 0.4 hectares and a minimum frontage of 30 metres, which would service the lots and connect with Brunel Road. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to a report from municipal planning staff, Huntsville’s OP “does contemplate a form of rural subdivision referred to as a \u201cRural Estate Subdivision\u201d but generally discourages it. Under those policies, the Official Plan directs new estate residential subdivisions to proceed by way of official plan amendment, subject to appropriate site conditions. Specifically, each lot shall have an area of 1.0ha and 60.0m of frontage on a year-round maintained municipal road.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While there are similar lot sizes in the vicinity, staff noted that they are historical developments and not within a community settlement area. They also noted that the application was brought forward last January and deferred by council pending additional studies, such as a hydrogeological assessment and a noise and vibration assessment. Council also directed staff to have the supporting studies peer-reviewed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Staff also subsequently recommended that the applicant address policies involving known deposits of mineral aggregate resources on the land, based on planning policies in the OP and the Provincial Policy Statement, which require protection of known deposits and limit development that “preclude or hinder the establishment or expansion of operations or access to the resources.” Staff noted that the applicant opted not to address the recommendation, thereby leaving the matter unresolved. However, the applicant’s planning consultant, Savas Varadas, noted that it was not part of the council’s initial request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Planning staff noted that while the hydrogeological study, which was also peer-reviewed, concluded that “the aquifer would yield suitable quality groundwater for the 10-lot development,” a septic suitability assessment was not provided. Staff noted that while it was agreed that a septic suitability assessment for the development could be completed and provided for subsequent planning applications to ensure smaller lot developments using onsite sewage systems proceed at a density and scale that will not result in the degradation of groundwater resources, it is staff’s opinion that the study should have been done as part of the OP amendment request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The peer review of an environmental impact study noted that greater buffers ought to be required for a watercourse and wetland, which resulted in the applicant reconfiguring the lots to accommodate the suggested setbacks, although issues related to further setbacks had not yet been resolved, noted staff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Varadas noted that the application before the council was simply to amend the OP in order to proceed, and further discussions, such as buffers and setbacks, would follow. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The Official Plan policies exist to inform smart growth, ensuring intensification rather than dispersed development. Section 8.8 of the plan highlights appropriate circumstances for estate residential development to minimize impacts and long-term fiscal consequences for the Town. In this instance, these lots are half the required size and the property is within two concession lines of the urban settlement area,” said municipal planner Kelsea Shadlock. “Although there is development of similar size surrounding the property, these are historic developments and are not within a community settlement area.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She said the development “could exacerbate existing issues in this area and lead to costly infrastructural and servicing interventions. Therefore, the application would appear not to follow sound growth management principles or good planning,” said Shaddock. “It is staff’s opinion that this application does not meet the majority of the Official Plan policies to permitting an estate residential development in the rural designation and is not consistent with the PPS (Provincial Policy Statement). As such, staff would recommend that the application be denied.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Five area property owners spoke at the meeting and expressed concerns related to the development’s impact on the rural character of the area, the removal of mature vegetation, the development’s impact on the watercourse, traffic flows on Brunel Road, groundwater, and stormwater runoff, and the impact on significant wildlife habitat. Other concerns included the lack of fire hydrants in the area in case of fire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One resident told councillor that she did not want to see the rural nature of her neighbourhood change because council was allowing an amendment that shouldn’t be allowed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One person spoke in favor of the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Councillor Monty Clouthier who represents the area said he did not like the entrance proposed and would have to support those who are against the subdivision. Councillor Scott Morrison said while he understood the concerns, he had to make a decision about what it best for the entire community. “If we don’t allow any development, nobody is going to be able to afford to live here.” He also said the time to say no would have been in January and that it is unfair to have the applicant spend thousands of dollars to complete studies only to deny the progression of the application. Morrison noted that what was before council was approval to allow the use but that there is much more work to be done to address concerns and said that would follow. “Nobody likes to see development in their backyard, I totally get it, but in my opinion this is more responsible than what could happen way down the road…”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Huntsville Mayor Nancy Alcock called it a complicated application. She said the applicant can, by right, develop two lots, and he is essentially seeking eight more. She said surrounding development does matter. “If this was in a community settlement area in Utterson or Port Sydney, this development would be acceptable.” She said one could argue that it is not but added that “historically, the whole surrounding area has been developed as if it is a community settlement area. We have a school. We not only have a Montessori school, but we also have a public school… we have neighbouring subdivisions with much smaller lots in three different areas. And in fact, having been through the last Official Plan process when we were defining what the community settlement areas are, we talked for quite some time about the Brunel Locks,” she said, adding that historically it has been seen “as a bit of a settlement area.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She said she does not support development sprawl either, “but in this case, it’s more in-fill than it is sprawl because you have neighbourhoods with smaller properties on either side.” She added that there are a number of issues that can still be addressed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Councillor Jason FitzGerald thanked everyone for the discussion. He said planning staff is bound by planning rules which is the reason Planning Council exists. He said he did not think that the property would ever be used for aggregate resources due to the location and noted that there are so many other aggregate resource operations around. “So I don’t see any requirement to have that study done… It’s a long process ahead to make this happen and we have a lot of planning tools and a lot of building tools to control what happens there. I guess my favourite part of the conversation from the public is the nature and the butterflies and the milkweed. I have an acre property in Port Sydney. Two-thirds of it is milkweed, so we can all do that on our own properties. We don’t need someone else’s property to propagate milkweed and help the butterflies…” he said. ” Lot size is not an issue with me because how many discussions have we had around this table about the housing crisis that we’re in,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Deputy Mayor Dan Armou said he struggled with the decision, as he’s sure everyone else has. Councillor Cory Clark agreed. He said most council decisions are tough. He said conditions should be included. Councillor Dione Schumacher concurred. Councillor Bob Stone said he also struggled with the decision. “I can’t imagine having ten new wells and septics right behind my house all of a sudden, and I’m disappointed the developer hasn’t done the septic suitability assessment, yes, but I’m told by staff that that will be coming and will probably be peer-reviewed as well.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the end, the majority of Planning Council, except Armour and Clouthier, voted in favour of the amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n