Council Report Template

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Community and Planning Services Committee

From: Summer Valentine Director of Planning

Date: September 19, 2019

Subject: Approval of the Adopted Town of Huntsville Official Plan

Report: CPS-17-2019-3 ______

Recommendation

THAT a by-law be prepared to modify and approve the modified Town of Huntsville Official Plan adopted by Town By-law 2019-23, in accordance with Schedule “A” to Report CPS-17-2019-3.

Origin

The Town of Huntsville Council adopted a new Official Plan on March 19, 2019 and submitted the record on March 21, 2019 for approval by Muskoka District Council.

Analysis

Background and Purpose

In 2015, the Town of Huntsville initiated an official plan review process as required periodically by the Planning Act to ensure land use planning policies are updated to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and to conform to the Muskoka Official Plan (MOP). In February of 2016, the vision, goals and objectives formulated through the review process were endorsed by Town Council as a basis for the review. In 2017, Council delegated authority to the Development Services Committee to oversee a public engagement process and the preparation of Policy Background Papers and a preliminary Policy Directions Report, ultimately leading to the drafting of official plan policies. Between 2018 and 2019, three drafts of the Official Plan were released to the public for review and comment.

District staff participated on the Town’s Official Plan Review Advisory Committee and provided technical guidance and advice on the preparation of policies that conformed to the existing MOP as well as the adopted Muskoka Official Plan Amendment 47 (i.e. the new MOP), and were consistent with the PPS.

The adoption of the Town of Huntsville Official Plan (HOP) by Town By-law 2019-23 is the result of the comprehensive review process and is comprised of updated official plan policies, along with a series of schedules and appendices, collectively intended to replace the previous version of the

Page 1 Town of Huntsville’s Official Plan once approved by the District. The purpose of the revised HOP is to provide a comprehensive framework to manage growth and physical change throughout the Town over the next twenty years. The HOP sets out updated goals, objectives and policies which will guide decision making affecting land use planning within the Town.

Circulation and Public Meetings

Through the official plan review, the Town undertook an extensive public consultation process which exceeded the minimum requirements of the Planning Act and associated regulations. This consultation process included six open houses, two public meetings, numerous working group meetings as well as meetings with community stakeholders. Notices of the open houses and public meetings were circulated to the required agencies and the public pursuant to the Planning Act. Copies of open house and public meeting notices, drafts of the HOP, background documents, and summaries of the public comments were also posted on the Town’s website.

The Town received feedback from a variety of individuals and organizations both verbally at meetings and through written submissions. Throughout the process, District staff provided written comments on the various drafts of the HOP, which addressed consistency with the PPS and conformity to the MOP. Town and District staff met on several occasions to discuss these comments and resolve outstanding issues. This has resulted in minimal modifications being proposed to the adopted HOP.

Since receipt of the record by the District, correspondence has been received from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) (attached as Appendix “I”). The comments relate to the depiction of Provincial Highways on the HOP schedules and appendices, the location of future intersections and collector roads associated with Highways 11 and 60, and concern that lands north of Highway 60 within the Town of Huntsville Urban Centre previously designated as “Future Urban” were re- designated primarily as “Business Employment”.

District staff reviewed the schedules and appendices and are satisfied that the requested changes from the MTO have been incorporated in the adopted HOP. With respect to the re-designation of the “Future Urban” area, the MTO is primarily concerned that a secondary planning exercise would no longer be required prior to development. However, the adopted HOP policies expand the ability of the Town to initiate a secondary plan for any area within the Urban Centre, where such a plan would be necessary to provide more detailed planning objectives and policies to guide development. Town staff are aware of the MTO position and will take this into account when determining secondary planning requirements for any future development proposed in the affected area.

Muskoka Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 48

As noted in Report CPS-17-2019-2 an amendment to the MOP was recommended to facilitate consideration of the approval of the adopted HOP in accordance with the Planning Act. Minor conformity issues relating to settlement area boundaries and designations between the MOP and HOP are addressed through proposed Muskoka OPA 48.

Proposed Modifications

A limited number of technical and other minor modifications to the adopted HOP are recommended to ensure that policies which address Provincial and District interests are clearly articulated. In addition to these matters, Town of Huntsville staff also requested seven technical revisions to the adopted document. The Town’s Development Services Committee has endorsed the proposed modifications as outlined in the resolution and staff report attached as Appendix “II”.

Page 2

Summary

The PPS and the Muskoka Official Plan were considered in the review of the adopted HOP. Subject to the recommended modifications and the adoption of Muskoka OPA 48, the document is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the MOP.

Financial Considerations

No impact on the 2019 Tax Supported Operating and Capital Budget and Forecast is anticipated as a result of this report.

Communications

The notice of decision will be circulated in accordance with the Planning Act and to the courtesy notice email list for this project.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s. 4.1, 4.2, s. 5.1, 5.2, s. 1.1, 1.2, s. 2.3, 2.5, s. 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 2.6 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 4.7 5.7, 5.9

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Summer Valentine Samantha Hastings Director of Planning Commissioner of Community and Planning Services

Page 3

Schedule "A"

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ADOPTED TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE OFFICIAL PLAN

A. TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS

1. Modify Section B3.1.2 by:

a. renumbering and re-ordering it as Section B3.1.4; b. deleting all references to “on an existing lot”; c. inserting “B3.1.2 and B3.1.3” immediately following “, B3.1.1”; and d. inserting the phrase “provided on-site phosphorus management and impact mitigation measures are implemented, and” immediately following the phrase “a lesser setback may be considered in the following situations”.

2. Modify Section B3.1.3 by replacing the phrase “any warm water stream” with the phrase “all other streams”.

3. Modify Section B3.1.4 by renumbering and re-ordering it as Section B3.1.2.

4. Modify Section B3.1.5 by:

a. replacing the first occurrence of the word “may” with the word “will”; b. inserting the word “where” immediately before the phrase “upgrading and installation”; c. replacing word “tertiary” with the word “new”; and d. inserting the phrase “is required, it shall be a” and deleting the word “or” immediately before the phrase “system with soils”.

5. Modify the Background Statement of Section C5 by:

a. replacing the word “east” with the word “west”; and b. replacing the word “west” with the word “east”.

6. Modify Section C by replacing Sections C5.3.3 and C7.4.7 with the following”

“5.3.3 (7.4.7) Resort commercial uses will operate under a central management for profit, be available to the travelling public, and provide ongoing services, amenities and recreational facilities that are normally provided in a resort commercial setting.”

7. Modify Section C6.2.2 by inserting the words “of a rural or waterfront nature” immediately following the words “open space uses”.

8. Modify Section C7.1.1 by:

a. deleting the phrase “year round and”; b. inserting the phrase “, and limited year-round residential dwellings” immediately following the phrase “and open space uses”; and c. replacing the “and” before “open space uses” with a comma.

9. Modify Section C7.4.6 by:

Page 4

a. Inserting an “(s)” on the terminus of the second occurrence of the word “amendment”; and b. inserting the phrase “and water quality” immediately following the word “shorelines”.

10. Modify Section C8.4.2 by:

a. replacing the first occurrence of the word “are” with the word “as”; and b. replacing the phrase “on Appendix 6” with the phrase “in the Muskoka Official Plan”.

11. Modify Section C8.4.3 by:

a. deleting the phrase “the Town is satisfied that”; b. inserting the word “or” at the terminus of Subsection a); c. inserting the phrase “(e.g. incompatible, long-term uses have previously been established); and” at the terminus of Subsection b); and d. deleting Subsection c) and re-lettering the subsections accordingly.

12. Modify Section C8.4.4 by inserting the sentence “Licensed pits and quarries are shown on Appendix 6.” immediately following the existing sentence.

13. Modify Subsection C8.8.2 by;

a. inserting a new Subsection immediately after Subsection g) as follows:

“h) that the proposed development conforms to the District of Muskoka Growth Strategy and other applicable policies of the Muskoka Official Plan to demonstrate long-term environmental, social and fiscal sustainability.”; and

b. deleting the word “and” immediately following Subsection f); and c. inserting the word “; and” immediately following Subsection g).

14. Modify Section D7.3.3 by inserting the phrase “municipal sewage treatment plant,” immediately following the phase “adjacent to a”.

15. Modify Section E2.1.8 by replacing the phrase “have been developed or have access to and” with the phrase “abut or”.

16. Modify Section E2.1.12 by inserting the phrase and sentence “, such as public service facilities (i.e. hospitals) but only if other options are determined not to be feasible. A District Official Plan Amendment shall be required to consider such service extensions” immediately after the phrase “public interest”.

17. Modify Section E4.1 by:

a. replacing the phrase “active and inactive” with the phrase “operating and non- operating”; and b. replacing the phrase “waste disposal assessment” with the phrase “potential influence”.

18. Modify Section E be deleting the word “Public” from the title of Section E3.5.

Page 5

19. Modify Section E by inserting a new Section E3.5.3 immediately following Section E3.5.2 as follows:

“3.5.3 Municipally owned and maintained public roads are the preferred form of access for new development. The creation of new lots on and/or construction of new private or seasonal roads are discouraged except as outlined in this Plan. Where public road access is not feasible or appropriate, a private condominium road is a reasonable alternative to address municipal interests.”

20. Modify Schedule B-1 by deleting all labels and symbology for proposed roads, future collector roads, future arterial roads, and future services roads (which are now depicted on Appendix 6).

21. Modify the text, schedules and appendices by replacing all occurrences of the term “Hidden Valley Resort Recreational Lifestyle Area” with the term “Hidden Valley Recreational Lifestyle and Resort Area”.

B. MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED BY THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE

22. Modify Section C by replacing Section C3.8.3 with the following and including the policy in the Subsection entitled “Permitted Uses”:

“3.8.3 The establishment of other limited commercial uses may be considered, subject to a zoning by-law amendment or community planning permit by-law, provided that the applicant demonstrates, amongst other matters, that the use will not have a significant negative impact upon the planned function of the commercial designations. The preparation of a market impact report and other supporting studies will be required.”

23. Modify Section C by replacing Section C3.8.4 with the following:

“3.8.4 The maximum gross floor area shall not exceed 28,334 m2 (304,994 ft2).”

24. Modify Section C by replacing Section C7.5.5 e) with the following:

“e) water quality;”

25. Modify Section F by inserting a new Section F1.12.4 immediately after Section F1.12.3 as follows:

“1.12.4 This Plan may be altered to correct minor errors in text, format, numbering or schedules without an amendment to the Plan provided that the alterations do not change the effect of the policies or schedules in the Plan.”

26. Modify Section F1.3.1 by inserting “, Hidden Valley Recreational Lifestyle and Resort Area” immediately following the phrase “Community Settlement Areas”.

27. Modify Schedule B-2 to reflect the designations within the Hidden Valley Resort and Recreational Lifestyle Area as follows:

Page 6

28. Modify Schedule C to show all types of streams, not just cold water streams (CWS) and differentiate CWS and all other types using an appropriate symbology.

Page 7

Appendix "I"

Valentine, Summer

From: Fior, Kassidee Sent: August-09-19 3:59 PM To: Valentine, Summer Subject: FW: Huntsville Official Plan review

Hi Summer,

Christine wanted me to forward these comments on to you as part of the HOP review.

She was uncertain whether the comments had made it to the Town and the District, or just the Town.

Thanks,

Kass

From: Tudhope, Christine (MTO) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 3:33 PM To: Fior, Kassidee Subject: FW: Huntsville Official Plan review

Hi Kassidee

Please see below email chain with respect to the MTO’s 2018 comments to the Town of Huntsville on its Official Plan review.

Please forward to the person reviewing the Town’s draft new Official Plan.

Thanks,

Christine Tudhope Corridor Management Planner

Ministry of Transportation Provincial Highways Management Corridor Management Section 447 McKeown Avenue North Bay, ON P1B 9S9 Tel: (705) 7890456 Fax: (705) 4976926 Email: [email protected]

From: Tudhope, Christine (MTO) Sent: June-25-18 10:33 AM To: Kirstin Maxwell Cc: Halford, Melissa ([email protected]) ; Hampel, Fran (MTO) Subject: RE: Huntsville Official Plan review

1 Appendix "I" Great KristinFYI, the last paragraph should be revised as shown in red below:

General Mapping of Provincial Highways

It is also noted that the schedules you referred us to in the Official Plan identify Highway 60 as an “Arterial Road”. All schedules, appendices, maps, etc. in the Official Plan should be amended to properly reflect Highway 60 as a Provincial Highway. Highway 11, Highway 141 and Highway 60 should all both be identified with the same identifying coloured line and be indicated in all map legends to illustrate they are provincial highways and then have the appropriate highway number symbol indicated thereon.

Christine

From: Kirstin Maxwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June-22-18 10:19 AM To: Tudhope, Christine (MTO) Cc: Halford, Melissa ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Huntsville Official Plan review

Thanks Christine – we will update our transportation data to reflect the changes as noted below.

Kirstin Maxwell | Manager of Planning (705) 789-1751 ext 2351 www.huntsville.ca

From: Tudhope, Christine (MTO) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June-15-18 11:48 AM To: Kirstin Maxwell Cc: Halford, Melissa ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Huntsville Official Plan review

Hello Kirstin

As requested, the Ministry of Transportation has reviewed the highway alignments as shown on Schedules C1 to C5 to the Town’s Official Plan in preparation for the Town’s review of its Official Plan. The following comments are provided in response to the Town’s inquiry.

Highway 11: From 1.0 km north of Highway 141, northerly for 5.5 km

Under GWP 3200000 (Highway 11 Access Review) a Planning and Preliminary Design Report was completed. The objective of the report was to develop a plan for upgrading the existing fourlane highway to a fullycontrolled access freeway, with access restricted at interchange locations only. This Assessment was coordinated with the Town of Huntsville.

More specifically, the recommended plan includes a new interchange between Stephenson Road 8 and Allensville Road/Rowanwood Road; a new service road on east the side of Highway 11 between Stephenson Road 8 East and Rowanwood Road; and a new service road on the west side of Highway 11 between Stephenson Road 8 West and Allensville Road. The recommended plan is attached.

2 Appendix "I" It is noted that the future interchange referenced above depicted on Schedule C3, is in an incorrect location. Furthermore, Existing At Grade To Be Closed Accesses are not identified on Plan C3. These accesses include Stephenson Road 8 West to Greer Road as well as Allensville Road to Rowanwood Road. Please have the Town’s planning documents reflect these revisions.

Highway 60 – From Highway 11 to Grassmere Road

Under GWP 50060500 (Hwy 60 Improvements), a Planning, Preliminary Design and Class EA was completed to identify existing deficiencies, assess and proactively plan for the future transportation needs within the corridor. A Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) was completed in 2013 (and was provided for public review) that summarizes the planned improvements.

The preferred improvements, in general, include widening Hwy 60 to 4lanes with a 1 m flush median, improvements to horizontal and vertical alignments, intersection improvements. There are no plans for any new interchanges or new intersections on this section of Highway 60.

It is noted that Schedule C2 and Schedule C5, indicate a Future Collector road to connect to the south side of Highway 60 is illustrated between Earls Road and Muskoka Road 3. The MTO has previously advised the Town that it will not allow a connection to Highway 60 in this location given the controlled access highway designation and the horizontal and vertical alignment of the highway. The references to this Future Collector road should be removed from the Town’s planning documents.

It is also noted that a future collector road is shown between Muskoka Road 3 North and Golf Course Road. You will recall that the MTO has previously expressed concerns related to the close proximity of Golf Course Road from the intersection of Earl’s Road and Highway 60. Any expansion of the urban area onto the north side of Highway 60 or new roads that would result in an increase in traffic to this intersection will require a comprehensive transportation study to ensure such increases to traffic will not impact the operational viability of the highway. Given the proximity of the intersection of Golf Course Road and Earl’s Road to Highway 60, it is very likely that the expansion of the Urban Centre into this area will require significant realignments / relocations of these public roads to accommodate such development.

Schedule A1 identifies the “Future Urban” area to the north of Highway 60. As previously advised, the MTO does not support opening up any further lands for urban development on this side of Highway 60 until a full Transportation Master Plan / Secondary Plan is undertaken in consultation with the MTO as is anticipated in the District of Muskoka’s Official Plan which states that in Urban Centres local Official Plans are to ensure that an adequate transportation system including arterial and collector roads is developed and maintained. As the Town of Huntsville’s Official Plan also states that Secondary Plans shall be prepared and approved as amendments to the Official Plan prior to development proceeding on lands designated Future Urban, the MTO is concerned that these lands continue to remain designated for “future” development until such time as the Transportation Master Plan / Secondary Plan is completed. It would be helpful if you could let us know what the Town’s plans are in this regard.

General Mapping of Provincial Highways

3 Appendix "I" legends to illustrate they are provincial highways and then have the appropriate highway number symbol indicated thereon.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any further information.

Regards,

Christine Tudhope Corridor Management Planner

Ministry of Transportation Provincial Highways Management Corridor Management Section 447 McKeown Avenue North Bay, ON P1B 9S9 Tel: (705) 7890456 Fax: (705) 4976926 Email: [email protected]

From: Kirstin Maxwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April-17-18 3:26 PM To: Tudhope, Christine (MTO) Subject: RE: Huntsville Official Plan review

I will provide the link as its easier than uploading/downloading. They are the 5 transportation schedules found here. Schedules C1-C5. Thanks for your help!

Kirstin Maxwell | Manager of Planning (705) 789-1751 ext 2351 www.huntsville.ca

From: Tudhope, Christine (MTO) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April-17-18 2:51 PM To: Kirstin Maxwell Subject: RE: Huntsville Official Plan review

Hi Kirstin

Can you forward me the schedules in question so I can have our Engineering Section review them against our latest plans. Thanks.

Christine Tudhope Corridor Management Planner

Ministry of Transportation Provincial Highways Management Corridor Management Section 447 McKeown Avenue North Bay, ON P1B 9S9 Tel: (705) 7890456 4 Appendix "I" Fax: (705) 4976926 Email: [email protected]

From: Kirstin Maxwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April-16-18 2:21 PM To: Tudhope, Christine (MTO) Subject: Huntsville Official Plan review

Hello Christine We are in the process of updating our Official Plan. Our existing OP schedules identify those interchanges along Hwy 11 and the changes proposed to them. This information was from 2006. Can you please confirm if anything has changed since then, and if so, can we have the data to add to our schedules and mapping? If you have any questions let me know.

Kirstin Maxwell, BA, MCIP, RPP | Manager of Planning Town of Huntsville | Town Hall | 37 Main Street East (705) 789-1751 ext 2351 | 1-888-696-4255 ext 2351 www.huntsville.ca

Please consider the environment before printing this email

This E-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this E-mail message immediately.

5 Appendix "II"

Town of Huntsville Staff Report

Meeting Date: August 15, 2019 To: Development Services Committee

Report Number: DEV-2019-228 Confidential: No

Author(s): Kirstin Maxwell, Manager of Planning

Subject: Official Plan Modifications and Muskoka Official Plan Amendment #48

Report Highlights

The Official Plan is in the process of being approved by the District of Muskoka, and some minor modifications have been proposed. This report provides an overview and recommendations of the proposed changes, as well as MOP OPA#48.

Recommendation

THAT: Committee endorse the modifications to the Official Plan, as noted in Appendix #1 to Report DEV-2019-228, and they be forwarded to the District of Muskoka for consideration of approval;

AND FURTHER THAT: The District of Muskoka be advised that the Council of the Town of Huntsville is in support of Muskoka Official Plan Amendment No. 48.

Background

The Town of Huntsville Official Plan (HOP) was adopted by Council in March 2019, and forwarded to the District of Muskoka for approval. Now that the Muskoka Official Plan (MOP) has been approved by the Province, the District can finalize approval of the HOP.

Discussion

A summary of the changes proposed, staff's analysis, as well as recommendations as to whether a policy change is warranted are included below.

District staff have proposed several technical modifications to clarify some policies to ensure conformity with the MOP. In addition, as a result of the MMAH modifications to the MOP, one modification in regards to waterfront residential development is proposed. Staff have no concerns with the proposed changes.

The Huntsville Place Mall provided a "Retail Trend Assessment" (Appendix 2) and requested that the HOP be amended to permit retail office uses as a stand-alone use. In addition, they requested changes to the clauses that segregated the gross floor area on the site between stand alone retail structures and the enclosed mall. Staff have no objections to combining the gross floor area for the site and no longer distinguishing "enclosed mall". In regards to expanding the permitted uses, staff are not recommending any changes. Although the study examined the limitations of shopping malls, it did not address the potential impact on other commercial centres within the Town if new uses are introduced. However, recognizing that the changing retail market requires some flexibility, staff have included wording such that additional uses may be considered through submission of a zoning by-law amendment.

Wayne Simpson requested a portion of the North Granite Ridge Golf Course be re-designated from Open Space to Residential (Appendix 3). A noise feasibility assessment was provided, noting that the noise generated by AOR in regards to these lands would meet the noise limits established by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for residential uses. Although staff appreciate that one of the conformity issues may be addressed, additional information would need to be provided to demonstrate the need for more lands for additional residential growth. In addition, as the proposed modification does not form part of a public consultation process, staff would not recommend any substantial changes to the plan in this regard.

Staff have also identified several items that were missed in the adopted plan. Schedule B-2 (Appendix 4) was updated to correct an error, as the Open Space designation on the golf course lands at Deerhurst had been omitted. In addition, the Natural Constraints Schedule C, is proposed to be amended to show all watercourses, as currently only the cold water streams are identified.

MOP OPA#48 Through the Town's OP process, the boundaries of all of the urban centres, communities and special policy areas were reviewed. The boundaries approved by Council in the HOP do not correspond with those in the Muskoka Official Plan (MOP). To ensure conformity between the two plans, and ensure the HOP boundaries would be reflected in the MOP, OPA#48 has been initiated.

As it relates to the adoption of draft amendment 48 to the MOP, staff have no concerns.

Next Steps As noted in DEV-2019-92, the District initiated an amendment to the MOP to incorporate some of the changes that are linked to the HOP. The public meeting concerning the proposed changes to the MOP will be held in August, with the intent that the MOP OPA and the HOP approval be considered concurrently, shortly thereafter. Once approved, the Official Plan would be subject to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. If no appeals were lodged, the Plan would then be in effect.

Options

Committee can choose not to approve and modifications to the HOP, nor comment on OPA#48, however it would not be recommended as the proposed changes conform to the PPS and the MOP.

Council Strategic Direction / Relevant Policies / Legislation / Resolutions

Strategic Plan Vision: A vibrant, inclusive, healthy community which inspires innovation and growth, celebrates the arts, culture, and heritage, promotes recreation while developing a resilient economy founded on social caring and environmental stewardship. Health Care and Wellness Goal #3: Ensure Huntsville is seen as a safe, welcoming and inclusive community Natural Environment & Sustainability Goal #2: Integrate sustainability principles into planning and development policies and processes.

Unity Plan Economic Considerations Goal 11: Economic Development: Huntsville will promote a diverse and prosperous economy by attracting innovation, growing a knowledge-based economy, providing adequate training, developing green jobs, and offering sustainable year round employment to retain Huntsville’s youth.

Social Considerations Goal 6: Social well-being: The community will encourage and support social diversity and personal sense of well-being by improving accessibility, promoting volunteerism, striving to reduce poverty, and maintaining a healthy, safe, friendly community to live, work, and play for all ages, cultures and abilities.

Relevant Policies/Legislation/Resolutions Provincial Policy Statement Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, cP.13 Muskoka Official Plan Town of Huntsville Official Plan

Attachments

Appendix 1 - Staff Recommended Changes Appendix 2 - Retail Trend Assessment of Huntsville Place Mall Appendix 3 - Request from Wayne Simpson Appendix 4 - Schedule_B2_Corrected

Consultations

Respectfully Submitted: Kirstin Maxwell, Manager of Planning

Manager Approval (if required): ______

Director Approval: ______

CAO Approval: ______

Town Staff Identified Mods

C7.5.5 e) delete and replace with “water quality”

Add new clause (F1.12.4)

The Plan may be altered to correct minor errors in text, format, numbering or schedules without an amendment to this Plan provided that the alterations do not change the effect of the policies or schedules in the Plan

Updated Schedule B-2 (attached as appendix 2)

Modify Schedule C to show all streams, not just coldwater streams

Delete C3.8.3 and C3.8.4

New C3.8.3

The establishment of other limited commercial uses may be considered, subject to a zoning by- law amendment or community planning permit by-law, provided that the applicant demonstrates, amongst other matters, that the use will not have a significant negative impact upon the planned function of the commercial designations. The preparation of a market impact report and other supporting studies will be required.

New C3.8.4 The maximum gross floor area shall not exceed 28,334 m2 (304,994 ft2).

Technical Mods

B.3.1.3 Development in the Huntsville Urban Settlement Area and Hidden Valley Resort Recreational Lifestyle Area, excluding any component of a private sewage disposal system, will be set back a minimum of 20 metres from a coldwater stream and 15 metres from any warm water all other streams.

B.3.1.24 Where it is not possible to achieve the setbacks required in Sections B3.1.1, B.3.1.2 and B3.1.3, and where there will not be a negative environmental or visual impact, a lesser setback may be considered in the following situations provided on-site phosphorus management and impact mitigation measures are implemented, and subject to site plan control or the issuance of a community planning permit by-law approval:

a) sufficient lot depth is not available on an existing lot to meet the setback requirements;

b) terrain or soil conditions exist which makes other locations on an existing lot more suitable;

c) for redevelopment or a major addition to an existing building or the replacement of a sewage disposal system where the setback is not further reduced; or

d) where there is an established building line within the Huntsville Urban Settlement Area or Hidden Valley Resort Recreational Lifestyle Area, situated no closer than 10 metres to the shoreline.

B.3.1.42 New Leaching beds or other similar devices for distributing effluent will be setback a minimum of 30 metres from the normal or controlled high water mark of a lake or watercourse. Greater

setbacks may be required to address terrain constraints, land prone to flooding or to preserve habitat or specific features including on Harp and Peninsula Lakes as required by Policy 2.3.10.

B.3.1.5 As a condition of approval of a lesser setback, proponents will may be required to provide or implement compensating measures designed to sustain or enhance the integrity of the shoreline area including:

a) where upgrading or installation of a tertiary new sewage treatment system is required, it shall be a or system with soils that have a demonstrated ability to effectively retain phosphorous or equivalent septic abatement technologies, which may include the use of soils with appropriate elemental composition to bind phosphorous or pre-post-treatment phosphorous controls;

b) a planting program to revegetate or plant an area equivalent to the floor or surface area of the building encroachment into the required setback;

c) relocating roads or other buildings to comply with the setback requirements;

d) demolishing buildings, removing building materials or other detritus or comparable measures designed to enhance or return the environment to a natural condition; or

e) other measures may be considered where the result will be a net improvement to the environment.

The Town may require a technical report prepared by a qualified professional in support of any one or more of the compensating measures.

C.6.2.2 Development in the Highway 60 Transition Corridor designation has traditionally been a mix of residential and open space uses of a rural or waterfront nature. Due to the presence of a major Wastewater Treatment facility, development on the north side of Highway 60 has generally been limited to open space and sparse low density residential uses on larger lots. The narrow strip of land between Fairy Lake and Highway 60 contains low density residential development that is linear in nature.

C.7.4.6 New resort commercial establishments will proceed by amendment to this Plan. The establishment of all other new permitted uses will proceed by amendment to the zoning by-law or community planning permit by-law. Such an amendment(s) shall guide the scale, size and density of development, and recognize and respond to the characteristics and capacity of that particular site. At a minimum, the consideration of a new waterfront commercial use will ensure:

a) the intent of the plan will be maintained;

b) the site is suitable for the use proposed (appropriate density, intensity of use, location of buildings and structures, and type of facilities);

c) the water frontage is adequate and suitable for the use proposed;

d) adequate potable water and sewage disposal can be provided;

e) access routes are appropriate or can be upgraded to accommodate the additional traffic;

f) the proposal will be compatible with surrounding properties

g) development will be phased, where appropriate;

h) shorelines and water quality are protected; and

i) the quality of natural and cultural heritage is preserved.

Delete C.5.3.3 and C.7.4.7 and replace with:

Resort commercial uses will operate under a central management, for profit, be available to the travelling public, and provide ongoing services, amenities and recreational facilities, available to the travelling public, that are normally provided in a resort commercial setting.

C.8.4.2 Primary and secondary mineral aggregate resources are as identified on Appendix 6 in the Muskoka Official Plan or through site analysis, and are located within the rural designation will be protected for extraction by only permitting compatible land uses to occur on or in proximity to those resources once it has been demonstrated that they would not prevent or hinder future extraction.

C.8.4.3 Uses other than industrial extraction of aggregates may be permitted within areas of, or in close proximity to, primary and secondary aggregate resources, where a technical report demonstrates that:

a) the Town is satisfied that extraction would not be feasible; or

b) the proposed use would serve a greater long-term public interest (e.g. incompatible, long- term uses have previously been established); and

c) incompatible, long-term uses have previously been established; or

d) issues of public health, public safety and natural heritage impacts are addressed.

C.8.4.4 The continued operation of existing mineral aggregate operations with potential for future extraction will be recognized and protected from incompatible uses. Licensed pits and quarries are shown on Appendix 6.

C.8.8.2 The development of new estate residential subdivisions will generally not be permitted, except through an official plan amendment based on technical reports that demonstrate that the development meets the following criteria:

a) that there will be no negative impact to the long term fiscal health of the Town; b) that the lands can be efficiently and adequately serviced; c) that a substantial portion of the lands can be maintained in its natural state; d) it be demonstrated how any negative impacts to the environment can be mitigated. e) How the proposal addresses the climate change goals of the plan. f) that the lands are within reasonable proximity to municipal and emergency services; and g) that the lands are within reasonable proximity to employment and commercial services. h) That the proposed development conforms to the District of Muskoka Growth Strategy and other applicable policies of the Muskoka Official Plan to demonstrate long-term environmental, social and fiscal sustainability.

D.7.3.3 Where a new land use is proposed adjacent to a municipal sewage treatment plant, waste stabilization pond, or hauled sewage lagoon, or a sanitary sewage disposal site, as identified below, the District of Muskoka shall be consulted and any concerns resolved to their satisfaction.

In general, uses of land within these areas should be limited to passive recreational and open space uses.

E.2.1.8 Areas identified in the Muskoka Official Plan as “Single Service Area” include lands that have been developed or have access to abut or and are presently serviced with only municipal water or sanitary sewer services. Areas identified in the Muskoka Official Plan as “Future Service Area” include lands that have been developed and which are not presently serviced by full municipal water and sewer facilities. This Plan contemplates the eventual servicing of “Single Service Area” and “Future Service Area” with both municipal water and sewer services. In the meantime, the provisions of Section E 2.1.7 apply to any development in this area.

E.2.1.12The extension of municipal water and sewer services outside the boundary of the Huntsville Urban Settlement Area, the Hidden Valley Resort Recreational Lifestyle Area and the Highway 60 Corridor Service Area will not be permitted except where such works are undertaken to address failed services, to remedy public health concerns, and facilitate the installation of works deemed to be in the public interest, such as public service facilities (i.e. hospitals) but only if other options are determined not to be feasible. A District Official Plan Amendment shall be required to consider such servicing extensions.

E.4.1 There are a number of active and inactive operating and non-operating waste disposal sites located in the Town. Generally, the area within 500 metres of known sites is identified as a potential influence waste disposal assessment area. The specific assessment area may be larger or smaller as determined by the authority having jurisdiction.

Rename the Title of Section E.3.5 to exclude the word “Public” and add a new Clause

E.3.5.3 Muncipally owned and maintained public roads are the preferred form of access for new development. The creation of new lots and/or the construction of new private and/or seasonally maintained roads are generally discouraged except as outlined in this Plan. Where public road access is not feasible or appropriate, a private condominium road is a reasonable alternative to address municipal interests.

Provincial Mods

C7.1.1 The waterfront designation identifies and describes the overall low-density shoreline area, which is composed of year-round and recreational-residential dwellings, waterfront commercial and open space uses and limited year-round residential dwellings, and is related to the recreational, tourism, eco-tourism and aesthetic opportunities presented by a significant water resource. Waterfront areas are important to the image, vision and economic vitality of the Town. The ecological character, health and function of the waterfront are recognized as integral to a resilient waterfront community.

TATE ECONOMIC RESEARCH INC.

Mr. Gerald Asa The Effort Trust Company 242 Main Street East Hamilton, Ontario L8N 1H5

May 21, 2019

Re: Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary Huntsville Place Mall

Dear Mr. Asa:

1. Introduction

Huntsville Place Mall (“HPM”) is an enclosed shopping centre located in the Town of Huntsville. The owners / managers of HPM, Effort Trust, are investigating potential leasing and redevelopment options for HPM. The Town of Huntsville is preparing a new Official Plan (“2019 OP”). The 2019 OP includes policies that relate to HPM.

It is the purpose of this report to provide an overview of HPM, industry trends and to comment on the implications of 2019 OP policies as they relate to HPM. Specifically, we have reviewed and commented on polices 3.8.1 and 3.8.4 of the 2019 OP, as described below in Section 3.

2. Huntsville Place Mall Overview

HPM is an enclosed shopping centre totalling approximately 162,500 square feet, gross leasable area. HPM opened in 1986 and was originally anchored by a Metro supermarket and a Zellers department store. The Zellers closed in 2013 and has since been retenanted with Winners, Sport Chek, Dollarama and The Brick. The Winners, Sport Chek and Dollarama opened in 2014. The Brick opened in 2017.

HPM has struggled with poor tenant performance, particularly in the interior portion of the mall. Currently, there is 15,600 square feet of vacant space at HPM.

8 King Street East, Suite 1013, Toronto, ON M5C 1B5 416-260-9884 www.tateresearch.com

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

The interior portion of the mall (excluding the Metro and the former Zellers space) represents 44,500 square feet of the total 162,500 square feet at HPM. The interior includes 15,600 square feet of vacant space, representing an interior vacancy level of 35.1%. This figure is well above normal levels of 5.0% to 7.5% that are considered to represent a healthy, balanced retail centre.

Figure 2-1 Huntsville Place Mall Site Plan

Source: Tate Economic Research Inc, as provided by Effort Trust.

3. Huntsville Official Plan Commentary

The Town of Huntsville has adopted the 2019 OP and it is subject to approval by the District Municipality of Muskoka. The 2006 Official Plan (“2006 OP”) had two designations for the major shopping centres in Huntsville: Shopping Centre Commercial and Gateway Commercial Campus. The 2019 OP consolidated these two designations into one designation, referred to as Regional Commercial. The following section examines changes in the land use designation and its impact on the ability of HPM to respond to changes in the retail environment.

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

3.1 Official Plan (2006) – Shopping Centre Commercial & Gateway Commercial Campus

In the 2006 OP, the Shopping Centre Commercial designation applies to HPM and the Gateway Commercial Campus designation applies to SmartCentres Huntsville. The land use designations include restrictions which are intended to ensure HPM operates as an enclosed shopping centre and SmartCentres Huntsville operates as a power centre.

Section 4.6.4.5, of the 2006 OP, which relates to SmartCentres Huntsville, states:

The Gateway Commercial Campus development shall not be developed as an enclosed shopping centre with interior common areas.

Section 4.6.3.4, of the 2006 OP, which relates to HPM, states:

The maximum gross floor area located outside of the enclosed shopping centre shall not exceed 5202 m2 (56,000 ft2).

3.2 Official Plan (2019) – Regional Commercial

In the 2019 OP, HPM is designated Regional Commercial. The Background Statement of the 2019 OP states:

The lands designated Regional Commercial function primarily as regional serving retail shopping centres servicing the urban, rural and waterfront areas within and beyond the Town. The shopping centres may be enclosed or a group of buildings clustered into a campus environment. These designations contain retail development for which the Central Business District is not a viable location by virtue of floor space requirements, parking requirements or other factors. These designations may also contain other suitable uses that are ancillary to this role and complementary to the Central Business District. The Regional Commercial area will have a high degree of urban design.

The Background Statement allows for retail commercial uses in the form of enclosed shopping centres or buildings clustered in a campus environment. The 2019 OP sets out permitted uses and other requirements within the Regional Commercial designation:

Permitted Uses 3.8.1 Permitted uses include a full range of retail and personal services. Office uses will only be permitted as an accessory use to an otherwise permitted use. 3.8.2 The permitted uses will be contained within large single tenant retail buildings and buildings with groups of tenants all designed in a coordinated campus environment with a high degree of urban design. Lot and Density Requirements

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

3.8.3 The maximum gross leasable area for an enclosed mall shall not exceed 23,132 m2 (249,000 ft2). 3.8.4 The maximum gross floor area located outside of the enclosed shopping centre but on the same site shall not exceed 5,202 m2. 3.8.5 The Regional Commercial development at Highways 11 and 60 will be phased. The ultimate gross floor area of all buildings shall not exceed 24,155 m2. Prior to any expansion beyond the first phase, Council shall require the preparation of a market impact report and other supporting studies. 3.8.6 The Regional Commercial development at Highways 11 and 60 shall generally consist of two large anchor outlets, each having a minimum gross floor area of 4,645 m2. 3.8.7 Department Store Type Merchandise (DSTM) retail stores located on a Regional Commercial-designated site outside of an enclosed shopping centre shall have a minimum gross floor area of 464 m2. However, not more than five DSTM retail stores may also be permitted, on a Regional Commercial designated site outside of an enclosed shopping centre, to have a minimum gross floor area of 186 m2 subject to rezoning zoning by- law amendment. Council may require preparation of a market impact report in support of such zoning by-law amendment.

3.3 Official Plan Conclusion

Section 3.8.4 of the 2019 OP restricts the gross floor area located outside the enclosed mall to 5,202 square metres (56,000 square feet). This policy reflects the 2006 OP which differentiated between the Gateway Commercial Campus and the Shopping Centre Commercial area. Section 3.8.4 is no longer relevant or required for HPM. In addition, Section 3.8.4 has the potential to restrict the redevelopment of HPM.

Office uses at HPM are restricted to accessory uses. Given the challenging market conditions for retail centres in general (as outlined below in Section 4) and HPM in particular (as outlined above in Section 2), there is no rationale to restrict the opportunity for a wider range of office uses at HPM. This restriction has the potential to limit the redevelopment options for HPM.

4. Retail and Shopping Centre Development Trends

Shopping centre development continues to evolve to respond to retail trends and reflect the most effective way to meet consumer demand. This section of the report outlines some of the implications of evolving market conditions on the development industry in general and the impact of these conditions on HPM.

4.1 E-Commerce E-commerce is one of the most prominent trends influencing the retail industry. In the retail real estate environment, the impact of E-commerce on existing retail

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall nodes and the future demand for retail is perhaps the most discussed topic. As such, we have discussed E-commerce below.

Amazon, the US online shopping service that was established in the 1990s, represents the forefront of E-commerce. To help understand the effect Amazon has had compared to traditional retailers, Figure 4-1 compares Amazon’s US sales and Walmart’s US sales over the past 10-year period from 2008 to 2018.

Figure 4-1 Net Sales Revenue of Amazon & Walmart ($Billion USD)

350 325 300

275 $318.48

250 $307.83

$298.38

$288.05 $279.41

225 $274.43

$264.19

$260.26 $259.92

200 $256.97 $238.92 175 $232.89 150

125 $178.00 $ $ BILLION (USD) 100

75 $135.99

50 $107.01

$34.20

$88.99

$24.51 $19.17

25 $74.45

$61.09 $48.08 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Amazon Sales Walmart Sales

Source: Statista 2018, modified by TER.

As shown in Figure 4-1, Amazon’s US sales have grown from approximately $19 billion in 2008 to $233 billion in 2018. This represents a growth of approximately 1,115% over a 10-year period, or 112% annually. In comparison, Walmart’s US sales have increased from $239 billion in 2008 to $318 billion in 2018. This represents a growth of 33% or 3% annually. Due to Amazon’s significant growth over this period, the online retailer has become the largest player in the E- commerce market.

Overall, Amazon, and other E-commerce platforms, have impacted the growth of traditional “bricks and mortar” retailers. Demand for retail space on a per capita basis, is in decline.

4.2 The Evolution of Retail Formats

Retail centres continue to evolve to reflect changing consumer preferences. HPM was designed and opened in the 1980s, when enclosed shopping centres

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

were the preferred shopping format. The following section comments on the evolution of retail formats.

4.2.1 Previous Retail Formats

In the 1960s through the 1980s, the majority of retail development was in the form of enclosed shopping centres. HPM is typical of a shopping centre development at that time with its enclosed format and supermarket and department store anchor tenants.

The majority of retail development in Canada (including Huntsville) over the past 30 years has either been in the form of grocery-anchored neighbourhood centres or power centres. Both forms of development have typically been single storey centres with a building to land coverage of approximately 25%. This development format reflected the automobile-oriented consumer, as well as the supply of commercial designated land, which in the past has been abundant.

Figure 4-2: Retail Concept Lifecycle

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

4.2.2 Decline of Lower Tier Enclosed Community & Neighbourhood Centres

As shown above in Figure 4-2, the market share of enclosed shopping malls has been declining in the past three decades. Lower-tier enclosed community and neighbourhood centres make up the bulk of this decline as upper-tier regional malls have generally stayed strong due to their focus on high-end / destination retail.

Community centres, such as HPM, were first impacted by the emergence of power centres. Power centres offered an alternative to the traditional enclosed mall format and were cheaper to operate as they featured lower land costs, rents and lower common area maintenance (“CAM”) costs. They also provided opportunities for “big box” stores, many of which could not be accommodated in existing enclosed shopping centres. Power centres were particularly attractive to middle-tier retailers that historically operated in community and neighbourhood sized malls.

The challenge for community shopping centres is further exacerbated by the diverging retail market, which saw consumers increasingly desire more value- oriented or high-end retail stores. Middle-tier retailers, which made up a significant portion of community mall tenants in locations such as HPM, relocated to a less expensive retail format or disappeared from the Canadian retail market altogether. Examples of tenants that have left HPM include Bluenotes, Bentley, Ardene and others.

4.2.3 Redevelopment Opportunities

Many community scale shopping centres, including HPM, have been in decline. Many of the existing community and neighbourhood malls built between the 1960s and the 1980s are located on major intersections, with good local and regional access. These prime locations contribute to the opportunity for redevelopment of these sites.

In the case of HPM, the opportunity for redevelopment reflects market conditions of the existing centre. Effort Trust has been successful with the re-tenanting of the former Zellers space with large format retail tenants who were likely attracted by HPM’s locational characteristics. These types of tenants would not likely have opened at HPM as “in-line” stores within the mall. In the future, it will be important to provide flexibility for the continued evolution of HPM.

4.3 Retail Trends Summary

Retail development is being impacted by many changing trends, including E- commerce. Demand for ground oriented retail space is being reduced. Store modules are shrinking and commercial development is focusing on service uses, including offices. Existing shopping centres, such as HPM, require the ability to adapt to changing market conditions and respond to tenant (and ultimately customer) preferences.

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

5. Case Studies

Many older centres are undergoing redevelopment to address the changing retail landscape. This often involves “de-malling”, which is the reduction or elimination of the interior portion of enclosed shopping malls. A selection of examples are highlighted below:

5.1 Simcoe Mall – Simcoe Ontario

Simcoe Mall was an enclosed shopping centre located on Highway 3 in the community of Simcoe, in south western Ontario. It is owned by Effort Trust (the owners of HPM). Prior to its redevelopment, Simcoe Mall totalled approximately 115,000 square feet GLA of retail commercial space. The mall was anchored by a 42,000 square foot Canadian Tire and a 29,000 square foot A&P supermarket. It experienced considerable vacancies in the interior portion of the mall.

Simcoe Mall – Pre Redevelopment Simcoe Mall – Post Redevelopment

Simcoe Mall was redeveloped in 2013, eliminating the enclosed portion of the mall. The redeveloped centre includes 112,000 square feet of retail commercial space. The mall is anchored by a 77,000 square foot Canadian Tire. Other major tenants include Winners, Sport Chek and Dollarama. Simcoe Mall has been operating at 100% occupancy since its redevelopment.

Simcoe Mall – Pre Redevelopment Simcoe Mall – Post Redevelopment

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

5.2 Brookdale Centre – Cornwall

Brookdale Centre is located on Highway 2 in Cornwall, in eastern Ontario. Highway 2 is the main exit off Highway 401 in Cornwall. Brookdale Centre was constructed in the 1960’s as an enclosed shopping mall. It was anchored by a Food Basics supermarket and a Woolco / Walmart store. The Walmart relocated to a free-standing location near Highway 401, creating considerable vacancies in Brookdale Centre. The property was redeveloped in 2000 and converted into an open concept shopping centre (formerly referred to as a “strip mall”), as indicted in the graphic below. The redeveloped centre includes 267,000 square feet of retail commercial space. It is co-anchored by a 128,000 square foot Lowe’s home improvement centre and 47,000 square foot Food Basics supermarket.

Brookdale Centre – Pre Redevelopment Brookdale Centre – Post Redevelopment

5.3 Don Mills Centre – North York

Don Mills Centre in North York was a 462,000 square foot strip mall built in 1955. The mall was enclosed in 1978 and was anchored by an Eaton’s department store and a Dominion / Metro supermarket.

Redevelopment of the commercial component of the site was completed in 2009 by Cadillac Fairview. Don Mills Centre was transformed from an aging suburban shopping mall into an “outdoor lifestyle”, pedestrian focused shopping centre with two office towers. Residential uses are also proposed on the site.

Prior to Redevelopment Current

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

5.4 Case Study Conclusion

This section has highlighted several examples of enclosed shopping centre redevelopments in Ontario. These enclosed shopping centres have been successfully de-malled and converted into open concept centres. As demonstrated in the Don Mills example, office uses have become an important component of some retail commercial centres and contribute to the evolving mixed-use function of redeveloped centres.

The case studies examined have indicated shopping centres that have been redeveloped to result in reduced vacancies, increased service levels, greater employment, new investment and improved urban design. The case studies outlined in this letter would not be permitted in the HPM context given the restrictions included in the 2019 OP.

6. Conclusion

HPM is an aging enclosed shopping centre which has struggled to create a vibrant retail environment. The decline of community shopping centres, partly due to retail trends such as E-commerce, the diverging market and shrinking store sizes, have created challenges for enclosed malls in general, and HPM in particular. Approximately 35% of the space within the enclosed portion of HPM is vacant. HPM has been successful in re-tenanting the former Zellers space in HPM with large format retail tenants. HPM is considering redeveloping the mall, which could potentially include the addition of office uses and more retailers located outside of the enclosed mall.

Section 3.8.1 of the 2019 OP, which applies to HPM, states: Permitted uses include a full range of retail and personal services. Office uses will only be permitted as an accessory use to an otherwise permitted use. It is the opinion of Tate Economic Research Inc. that Section 3.8.1 could restrict the opportunity for HPM to redevelop into a successful commercial centre. Section 3.8.1 of the 2019 OP should be revised to include offices as a permitted use at HPM.

Furthermore, Section 3.8.4 of the 2019 OP, which applies to HPM, states: The maximum gross floor area located outside of the enclosed shopping centre but on the same site shall not exceed 5,202 m2. It is the opinion of Tate Economic Research Inc. that Section 3.8.4 restricts the opportunity for HPM to redevelop into a successful commercial centre. Section 3.8.4 of the 2019 OP should be deleted.

Tate Economic Research Inc. Retail Trend Assessment / Official Plan Commentary – Huntsville Place Mall

We would be pleased to further discuss our findings of this letter, as required.

Yours truly, TATE ECONOMIC RESEARCH INC.

James P. Tate Sameer Patel President Vice President

SIMPSON __& ASSOCIATES

Planning and Development Consultants July 17, 2019

BYHAND & EMAIL

Kirstin Maxwell, MCIP, RPP, A/Directorof Planning and the Development Services Town of Huntsville 37 Main Street East Huntsville ON P1H 1A1

Dear Kirstin,

Re: Request for a change to the Official Plan the Land Use Designation applied to part of the North Granite Ridge Golf Club property in Lot 21, Concession 5, former Stephenson, in the Community Settlement Area of Port Sydney.

When we last discussed North Granite Ridge Golf Club's ('NGR’) request to have the land use designation on part of Lot 21, Concession 5 (Stephenson) changed from ‘Open Space’ to ‘Community Residential’ you said that would be possible if a noise assessment was completed to demonstrate that the proximity of the proposed residential lands to the industrial operation of All Ontario Recycling would satisfy current Provincial Guidelines (NPC—300).R. Bouwmeester & Associates (’RBA') was subsequently engaged by NGR to prepare a noise feasibility assessment.

The Assessment is attached. For the purpose ofthe Assessment the subject site was categorized as a Class 3 Rural Area (the most stringent for noise analysis purposes) with a daytime noise limit of 45dBA(l). Using the worst-case noise emissions (according to the 2016 report prepared by Cambium Inc. for the adjacent industrial use) RBAconcluded that the predicted noise levels along the north limit of the NGR site will be 35dBA for ’steady—state conditions’ (crushing and scrap handling) and 39 dBA| for ’impulse noise’ (scrap loading/packing). These levels both meet the MECP noise limit. Author Ralph Bouwmeester, P.Eng. concludes that "the subject site [i.e. the NGR lands in Lot 21, Conc. 5] is acoustically feasiblefor residential purposes”.

We understand that the Town will be asking the District to make modifications to the adopted Official Plan prior to it being approved. We also understand that Council has granted the Development Services Committee the authority to make such requests of the District on its behalf. Accordingly, we ask that Schedule B-2 in the adopted Official Plan be amended to show the NGR property in Lot 21, Concession 5 (Stephenson) as being "Community Residential”. While the 11‘“green and 12”‘tee deck encroach onto Lot 21, we see no reason to not use the eastern

3-76 King Wllllall] $1., Huntsville, Ontario PIH IE4 Tel: (705) 789—909Z F21x:(7O5)789—QO94 limit of Lot 21 as the dividing line between the ’Community Residential’ designation and the ‘Open Space’ designation that will continue to be applied to the lands occupied by virtually all of the 18-hole golf course, including all buildings.

Given the poor state of the golf industry in Canada, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the golf course will never be expanded into the vacant acreage in Lot 21. To support the fairness of the change, we again point out that the land use designation proposed for the two hundred acres owned by others immediately to the west (i.e. Lots 19 & 20) is ’Community Residential’.

In my professional opinion, applying the ’Community Residential’ designation to part of the golf course property will best achieve the policy objectives for the Port Sydney - Community Settlement Area, which include strengthening and supporting the vitality, growth and prosperity of the Community Settlement Area through ”intensification, redevelopment and regeneration”. The primary function of the communities is "residential settlement”. Section D4.2.2 states that ”Port Sydney will continue to grow as a retail, service and tourist centre and low—density residential community primarily through infill development within the community boundaries”. The golf course property is centrally located within the boundaries ofthe Port Sydney Community Settlement Area.

Because the subject property within Lot 21 has limited frontage on South Mary Lake Road, the Town can be confident that any residential development on the property will proceed only by a plan of subdivision and/or a plan of condominium. Therefore, during the anticipated comprehensive planning approvals process all the matters to be addressed under Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and those stated in section 4.2.11 ofthe draft official plan will be considered to ensure that the character of the Settlement Area is maintained. Any residential development on the subject lands will also have to proceed with private individual services. So, demonstrating neighbourhood compatibility and the sustainability of the services will be just two of the many matters to be considered when a future development application is submitted.

Your consideration by orchestrating the request for a modification by the District is appreciated. Ifyou have further questions, concerns or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Truly, WAYNE SIMPSON AND ASSOCIATES

./Weayne Simpson, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner

Cc. Councillor Nancy Alcock,Chair, Development Services Committee Councillor Dione Schumacher, Stephenson Ward Dave Hough & Brian Hough, NGR

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Spider Lk ! !

MORGANS RD

! ! HW Y

! S ! U G Rose Lk M RA M ND

E V

! I ! R EW

L DR E

N N

I L

H E

! !

T A

T R

T !

! W

D I N O

P O A

S D S L A A H N

E I

! D D L ! S FISH LK RD D L D P E A 0 N LO R 6 T M TOWNSHIP OF PERRY WY V D N A

H L R

U L

! E DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND ! O Y R M D RD

D ROWANWOO S

K ! ! Y L IN E D

BOUNDARY RD D R

R D D R C

N H

O A R L E Town of Huntsville T O CR

P N !

L A 2 !

9 D N V R R 5 O O L H C Y D Y T N S E R L W W A N o v a r W E L

E N R A H H !

L D ! V Official Plan C N D I S A V K T R O S R O ST B E S R GEO RGES U S B CT

1 L

! T 1 ! C

I S Y E H i d d e n V a l l e y K W S

! N !

1 D 1 R

W A

3 ! ! B Schedule B-2 TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE H 2 G

T R LN TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE N I Perch Lk R E TOPS E A DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA X A D TR E N E S M D U DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA

O I ! V H !

I B P E LU W C Land Use - Community

! R ! O D O EER HURST DR K

S !

O ! Settlement Areas and N

! Y ! ROSE LK R 5 D WATSON LN C T STEP C E H 3 HENSON RD 8 TEPHENSON RD 8 R W A S

5 O 2 N

3 A M L E T Hidden Valley Resort P 2

I R S

GOLDEN PHEASANT DR 8 ! E D ! E E X B Novar Inset Map T RH I U D N A E RS Y X T H R S W U

M L E R W M N IT K D 7 Y

1 P

D 1 ! Peninsula Lk S ! T

R N Recreational Lifestlye Area E R

N H D O GE P RID S K

E OA

! T ! S N R T ERHU E S DE

T ! !

S JONES LN TUR Land Use Designations: NBULL

LN D N

! R ! Y We s t MS BA S THO Fairy Lk R i v e r f r o n t P l a t e a u D R

! ! A B Hidden Valley S D M R O

! E ! H T Deerhurst Village SWA N E LLO 1 R WD 1 G ALE Y

RD W

! H ! TOWNSHIP OF LAKE OF BAYS Resort Commercial

SWAL F DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA

Hidden Valley Inset Map LOW ! DA ! I LE RD E L D Recreational Resort Residential S

! N ! Open Space

RD 7 E

N ! O ! STEPHENS

Deerhurst Overlay

! ! Port Sydney / Utterson / Novar

Mainhood Lk ! ! Community Commercial

! !

C S Community Business

D L T

A S

O R

O K S

! W E ! O S H Community Residential

T L O

N R W

N ! Mary Lk ! Restricted Rural

U t t e r s o n R

! ! C

S Institutional

T B

H E

G L

L !

! SPRUCE DR E E

H V Open Space M I L E

A L W I R N LN OS E S H YS R D A

L D ! ! V O 1 BIL A 4 L O Y 1 LENDELWOOD LN D RD MUSKOKA RD 10 D TEA HW INES R

R L

D T

C LN

HOTHS !

R A

M General Features:

! ! T DO ALL WN PIN T S E R E S

RD D OR ! ! G

Provincial Highway Parcel Fabric

! !

ST CH Arterial Road Community Settlement Area UR

CH ! T

7 ! RIS 0 CH 2

IT ST Urban Collector Road Special Policy Area

X ! N D ! A E RG OW MO N M EM

! V Y L ! I N L M Rural Collector Road Geographic Township L AR A Y L

G K C

! E R ! H I L Local Road Waterbody L

! R

! D

! Private Road

! !

! Railway

T ! F

S A

! L ! N L O L I S V S R Trans Canada Pipeline

IE ! A ! Y W

L T ! L R A N D

P o r t S y d n e y S O

! T ! S JENNER CT

D ! E

R ! D

! D D ! E R G R

E ! E ! R

R B

! D !

! A

! D

E E

! D

I A !

R S D

B 1 E 1 G

Y D

! I

W ! R

H B

Muskoka River (north)

! ! STEPHENSON RD 4 W HWY 11 SOUTH MARY LK RD CLEARWATER LK RD

! K ! L

D R ²

R E

A E

K D

O ! ! R K

U A

M H 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2

D !

A L !

O W

A d I

H Kilometres

oa R !

r o ! ct le ol C

e r !

tu u ! F For boundary interpretations, please contact the

R d D Town of Huntsville, Planning & Development Department.

E ! o N ! The map is a public resource of general information R I

r P

o t E and is not a plan of survey nor is it suitable for c N

e l O !

l navigation. This road network information has been L ! o

C generated or adapted from Ontario Road Network Database.

t ! The Ontario Road Network Database is the property of u !

D the Government of Ontario and is used under licence

S from the Government of Ontario.

! K

C A

M Print Size: 30"x36" (2.5'x3')

! RUSNICK RD

! !

! ! !

! !