As one of the co-chairmen for the recent update of the Town of Huntsville Official Plan, I am concerned that the intent of the plan is being misinterpreted.

The developer for the proposed apartment complex on High Street next to the Bell building has threatened the town with an OMB appeal. The town council narrowly rejected an application for a five-storey apartment for that property that significantly exceeded the building height limit as specified in the Official Plan.

Although council rejected the application by a one-vote margin our mayor, who voted in favour of the proposal, was subsequently quoted in the Forester as saying, “I think we are frankly not on a good footing to try and come up with some sort of defense for our denial. In my view it’s so clear that the application meets all of the tests from a provincial policy statement from the densification, from all of those issues. I understand there’s sensitivity in the municipality about five-storey buildings and that’s fine, but the Official Plan is clear that it does open the door for those.”

I believe that this clearly misinterprets the intent of the OP.

 The OP allows for a maximum building height of 11 meters (36 feet) which with careful design allows for as many as four floors. However, it opens the door a crack when it states, “An increased height may be considered provided the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the town through the preparation of appropriate design reports that the principals of the Official Plan are maintained with respect to visual impact and remain within the limits established by the skyline/ridgeline.”

Unfortunately this clause is interpreted by most developers as “the sky’s the limit.”

During the drafting of this clause by the town-appointed committee an effort was made to make provision for sites that were in depressions or were set against a hill or both. Turns out we made a mistake. We should have allowed no exceptions.

This clause certainly was not intended to allow for additional height in such sensitive areas as adjacent to the town hall or at the top of a high hill as in the case of Vernon View at Hanes and Centre Street.

As for the issue of compliance with the provincial policy statement and the district plan, it should be pointed out that these are general guidelines which the entire Huntsville OP embraces. However, when the smoke clears it is the Huntsville OP that governs what happens in Huntsville and it is the town council that interprets the intent of that OP, not the developers. For the mayor to suggest that the case was lost not only undermined the integrity of council, it misinterpreted the intent of the OP and supported the developer’s case against the town. The town has an excellent case if it doesn’t back down to developer threats.

 Mr. Zanetti, as chair of the budget committee, has expressed concern about the cost of defending the town’s position and, although he voted against the proposal, was contemplating backing off his position because of financing concerns. However, if the town can afford to discharge its senior employees and pay large severance costs, surely it can afford to protect the very small town character that we are trying to preserve by defending its OP.

Yes, densification of the core of the town is important and that was one of the main themes during the drafting of the new OP. And guess what? We don’t need five-storey buildings to achieve densification. Even too many three or four-storey buildings could overcrowd the core.

As a participant in updating the Official Plan I take responsibility in not providing the town planning staff with a clearly worded document that would have avoided these controversies. In supporting the developers’ application they may have felt they didn’t have the necessary tools to deny it. Or possibly they were concerned about the security of their jobs. Maybe it’s time for an OP amendment to clear up this ambiguity.

 Evan Collins,
Huntsville