- Good afternoon, everyone.
It's just past 1 p.m.
I'd like to call the seventh meeting
of Planning Environment Committee to order.
Please check the city website
for additional meeting detail information.
The city of London is situated on the traditional
lands
of Anishinaabek, Bodenotianay, Lenna Peiwok,
and Adewandaran.
We honor and respect the history, languages,
and culture of the diverse indigenous people
who call this territory home.
The city of London is currently home
to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today
as representatives of the people of London,
we are grateful to have the opportunity
to work and live in this territory.
And I would just like to add, on Red Dress Day,
we stand in remembrance and solidarity with
families,
survivors, and communities impacted
by the ongoing crisis of missing and murderous
indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit people,
observed annually on May 5th,
Red Dress Day is a national day of awareness and
action,
honoring the lives and those still missing.
Well, lives taken and those still missing
calling for justice and systemic change. The City
of London is committed to making every
effort to provide alternate formats and
communication supports for meetings upon request.
To make
a request specific to this meeting, please
contact PEC at London.ca or 516-661-89 extension
2425.
Just let folks know, Councillor Stevenson, member
of PEC, is zooming today. And Councillor Lewis
is a way might be joining us later on in the
meeting.
At this time, I'll look for any disclosures
of pecuniary interest.
Seeing none, we'll move on to consent items.
We have three, I'll look to committee members.
Councillor Cudi, yes, Chair, I'll move that.
Okay, I'll look for a seconder, Councillor Hill
yer.
I'll look for comments or questions on those
items.
Councillor Pribble.
- Thank you, Chair.
And through the Chair to our staff,
thank you for the Q1 report.
I do have a couple of questions.
And if you look at, again, the analysis is
showing us
that both the value number of permits
is on decline compared to last year.
I know in the analysis on the under 3.0,
you stated kind of somehow the outlook
and you also used that word stable.
Can you please kind of specify a little bit more
into the outlook feedback and also the word
stable?
How do you see that coming to the end of the year
?
Thank you.
- All good stuff.
- And thank you through the chair.
In this context, Councillor, the word stable
is intended to reflect continued permit issuance
and inspection activity without further material
decline
from current levels.
Based on the projects and process
and current issuance trends,
we're anticipating that development activity
will maintain pretty stable this year.
We won't see any, I don't think we'll see any big
accelerating moments or any declining
significantly either.
So that's what I meant by stable.
- Councillor.
Thank you for that.
Previous reports, in previous reports, we had
inspections,
and it stated 100% within the provincial
timelines.
And in this report, I do not see it as well as
the information
about the inspections and the reinspections.
Can you please highlight why it's not included
this one?
And if it will be in the future quarterly or
monthly ones,
thank you.
A good staff.
And through the chair.
So with the inspection numbers in previous
reports,
we were reflecting everything on a month to month
basis
versus quarterly.
So when we start looking at the percentage of
inspections
that were completed on time and the numbers
that were conducted versus like called in,
the statistics are getting pretty, you know,
they're not really creating a good picture
and they're not really telling us anything.
Based on the overall number of inspections,
we would be hitting 100% throughout the entire
year.
- Councilor?
- Okay, thank you for that.
I was happy to see some of the numbers,
the commercial numbers, they were up,
which I hope it certainly is gonna help us
with our unemployment rates in the future
or hopefully in the near future.
But the industry is way down.
When we started this term, we started, you know,
our price per acre was 165,000.
Now we have Innovation Park phase five,
I believe 400,000 per acre.
Do we look at other municipalities kind of where
the trend is?
if we are still competitive.
And I totally agree with our previous strategy
because again, it was set up right.
We were selling and we were successful.
I do understand where the economy is currently.
But are we looking, are we still competitive?
Do we, how do we track COVID?
So we again, so we are not behind
our other municipalities.
Thank you.
- Oh, good stuff.
- Through the chair, so we don't have the team
that actually deals with that.
So that'd be for the most part of the reality
team
and then also our industrial development team.
So we'd be happy to provide a bit of that
analysis,
but as far as the building permit process,
we can't really speak too specifically to that,
but happy to provide that through those team
members
and provide response to the counselor as well.
I will say that whenever we're looking
at industrial values and then the permits,
they are very up and down
because one significant industrial user
is usually a very significant amount of
construction value.
So they do really go up and down throughout the
years.
And we are of course working very closely with L
ADC
and bringing those new industrial users to city.
So we are, we think there's like some potential
moving forward,
but for the most part, yes, it was absolutely
accurate
to say that there has been a down tech
and industrial at this point in the year.
- Councillor.
- Okay, thank you, I will, thank you for the
answer.
I will follow up, but I really would like us to
look into it
to make sure that, again, the downturn is not
just economy,
but so we are still competitive
and we are maximizing our opportunities.
Thank you, no more questions, comments?
- Thank you, I'll look for other comments or
questions
from the Zoom counselors or to any members.
Just depending on your comment, building permits,
which essentially is what we're looking for.
We do a lot of work, so we're putting zoning
through.
It's not until shovels get in the ground
that houses get built, I was looking with
apprehension
at the report that was coming out.
So to see it down only 5.4% in building permit
activity
was pretty good.
And then the comments from Council approval's
questions
about what's gonna happen throughout the rest of
the year,
also encouraging along with the work
that all three levels of government are doing
to encourage housing get built.
It gets built even in these times of uncertainty,
economic uncertainty.
So I'll go to Mr. Mather's for comment.
- Yeah, through the chair, just one matter
that we did want to just bring to your attention.
This is since the following the March 30th date
on the building report there.
And just wanted to highlight that there is some
concerns.
I just wanted to note that since the federal
eventual announcement on March 30th related to
the potential lowering and
development charges. There is a hesitancy for
applicants to actually want to have
their permit issued. The reason for that is that
they're just a fear that they
might lose out on that reduction of the DCs. So
we're very hopeful that there
will be a future announcement from the province
and the federal government in
just the timing of when that those reductions or
at least more
background on the programs.
I have flagged this personally several times to
the CMHC because this is the most critical
time for us to get those permits across the
finish line and having that clarity for people
to know that if they get their permit in their
hand, that they're not going to lose
out on any future incentives is very important to
everyone involved.
So what we're very much focusing on from the
building division side is trying to get as
as many permits to as close to issuance as
possible.
And then when those announcements are made
and people want to pull those permits
that we're in the position to be able to issue
them.
So I just wanted to flag that as an issue
but we're gonna do everything we can
and doing that advocacy as well
to ensure that we can get these permits issued
and also move towards our housing targets.
- Thank you Mr. Mathers there.
That's one of the challenges
when you hear funding announcements made
but without details so then people hold on
It almost has the opposite effect that is
intended.
Do you have any feel for when we're gonna hear
further details on that?
- Through the chair, we haven't had a specific
timeline
that's been provided, but they are aware of the
concern.
So that's always the first part of that awareness
.
And then, so our hope is that in the next couple
months
that there'll be some type of announcement.
If that was the case, we'll be very well
in a great position to be able to issue those
permits
and move forward with them.
But if it gets closer to that September date,
it's gonna be much more difficult.
So our hope is that it will be in the coming
months.
- Thank you.
I know the mayor is speaking to those levels
of government specifically to Minister Flack,
which I will be following up with as well,
based on those comments, Mr. Mayor, thank you
very much.
I'll look for any other comments or questions
regarding consent items.
We have a motion moved in second, so I'll call
the vote.
- Councillor Cudy. - Yes.
- closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you, I'll just inform folks
that Deputy Mayor Lewis is now online.
So moving ahead to 3.1, this is regarding 2120
and 2204 here on street.
I'll look for a motion to open the PPM.
Councillor Hillier, and I'll second it,
and we'll call that vote.
Any votes, yes?
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you, so I'll look for members of the
public
would like to address committee on this item.
- I'll ask the clerk if there's anyone online.
No, there's nobody online.
I don't see anyone going to the microphones.
It's all a look for motion to close the PPM.
Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hellier,
and we'll call the vote.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, I'll look to the committee now
for looking for a motion.
Councilor Cuddy.
- Thank you, Chair.
This is my word, so I'm gonna speak to it.
I appreciate staff coming forward with this
recommendation.
This is a great area out there for development
and I'm looking forward to seeing new activity.
It was just out the other day on Robins Hill Road
,
and I look over vast fields of potential
development,
and I think it's a great opportunity,
so thank you, staff.
- Thank you.
- So are you moving that, Councillor?
- Yes, some of that.
- Thank you, I'll look for a seconder.
Councillor Hill, your seconds.
I'll look for comments or questions on this
motion.
Seeing none, we'll call the vote.
- Close in the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you, moving on to 3.2.
This is regarding 299 to 309 spring bank drive.
I'll look for a motion to open the PPM.
Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Kiley
,
and we'll call the vote.
- Close in the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you, I'll go to the applicant.
The applicant would like to address the committee
.
Please sir, give us your name, you have five
minutes.
- Through the chair, Adam Lagrue,
I'm here from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants
.
We're here on behalf of the property owner
in regards to the Zoning By-law Amendment
before us at 299 303 and 309 Spring Bank Drive.
like to thank staff for their work on this file
for preparing the recommendation of approval.
And we are supportive of their report and the
attached bylaw.
We're available to answer any questions.
Public or council may have.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for members of the public
like to address the committee on this item.
I'll have to clerk if there's anyone online.
Clerk indicates there's nobody online.
I don't see anyone coming to the microphone.
So I'll look for a motion to close the PPM.
Councilor Cuddy seconded by Councilor Hillier.
We'll call that vote.
- Close in the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- So now I'll put this on the floor for Councill
or Cutty.
Here I'll move the staff recommendation.
- Thank you and Councillor Hillier has seconded.
I'll look for comments or questions regarding
this item.
Seeing none, we'll call the vote.
- Close in the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Thank you.
Moving on to 3.3, this is regarding 945 bluegrass
drive.
I'll look for a motion to open the public
participation
meeting.
Councillor Cutty seconded by Councillor Hillier,
and we'll call the vote.
closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero
.
- Thank you.
So we'll go to the applicant, is the applicant
online?
Oh, there she is.
Hi, I'm sorry, I saw a picture of you on my
screen.
I thought you were online.
Please give us your name, you have five minutes.
- Thank you, good afternoon Chair,
committee members, and attendant Councillors.
My name is Alia Richards, and I'm a planner
with Selenka Priammo Limited.
I'm joined by my colleague, Matt Campbell,
as well as Harrison Jarlette,
the president of Jarlette Health Services.
I'd like to extend my thanks to Melanie Vivian
for her work on this application.
We have reviewed the staff report
and appreciate and agree with the recommendation
for approval.
I would like to start by clarifying
what this proposal is and what it is not.
This application is for a long-term care home
and an apartment building.
The apartment units are intended to function
as transitional housing for individuals
who are not yet in need of full-time care
or family members who wish to live close to loved
ones in care.
This proposal is not an emergency care
establishment
or shelter that use remains prohibited in the
zoning.
We have also provided a letter
and alternative draft by-law addressing two items
,
a reduction in long-term bicycle parking
and the removal of a regulation specifying
the apartment building entrance location.
Given the nature of a long-term care use,
the required surplus of long-term bicycle parking
is unlikely to be used and would reduce the
number of beds
and units the site can reasonably support.
With respect to the main entrance,
the intent has been met,
but we believe that the entrance location
is more appropriately addressed through site plan
approval
rather than zoning.
I would also like to acknowledge the residents
of the Hyde Park community who participated
in the public open house and who submitted
written comments.
The level of engagement reflects a strong care
from this neighborhood.
Residents expressed real concerns with respect to
traffic,
storm water management, noise, privacy,
and the loss of familiar open space.
These concerns are rooted in lived experience
and it is completely understandable
that people feel anxious when change
is proposed this close to home.
Regarding traffic and safety,
particularly around school bus pickup,
transportation staff have reviewed
the transportation impact assessment
and did not identify any major capacity issues
and have provided direction on site access
and circulation that will continue to be refined
through the site plan approval process.
Importantly, approval does not prevent city,
the city from pursuing broader traffic calming
and safety measures along Bluegrass Drive.
Stormwater concerns were also raised.
I want to emphasize that before development can
proceed,
detailed stormwater management and grading plans
must be approved by city engineering.
These plans must demonstrate that stormwater
is fully contained on site
and the post-development runoff
does not negatively impact neighboring properties
.
These are not optional measures.
Noise, lighting, and privacy impacts
are being addressed through additional
staff recommended mitigation measures,
significant landscaping along the
perimeter of the site, and a lighting review that
will be required at the site
plan stage. I also want to acknowledge concerns
regarding the proposed four
story height. Even a one-story increase can feel
significant to nearby residents
and those concerns are understandable. From a
planning perspective, it is
important to note that the site already permits
development up to three stories.
Staff have concluded that this modest increase
can be accommodated
appropriately, given the site size, its location
along a neighborhood connector, and the
separation
from neighboring homes with setbacks and landsc
aping used to manage the transition and impacts.
I also want to acknowledge the perceived loss of
open green space. While this land has always been
privately owned and designated for development,
it has remained undeveloped for many years,
and residents have connected to it as a part of
their neighborhood. That sense of loss is valid,
even when development rights exist. At the same
time, Council has a responsibility to consider
the broader public interest. London is facing a
significant housing shortage and an increasing
demand for essential long-term care facilities.
This proposal helps advance those city-wide needs
by providing both long-term care beds and
additional housing in a location that already
is zoned for residential and care uses. In
closing, approving this application means
allowing a
a much needed project to move forward
with clear conditions, technical oversight,
and accountability through the site plan approval
process.
Council is being asked to balance neighborhood
impacts
with citywide responsibility and to demonstrate
compassion
for not only existing residents,
but also for seniors and families
who urgently need housing and care options.
The recommendation before you reflect sound
planning
judgment, alignment with provincial and municipal
policy,
and a balance consideration for both neighborhood
,
for both the neighborhood context and city-wide
needs.
Thank you for your time and consideration
and I'm available to answer any questions.
- Thank you, Ms. Richards.
There's a number of people online,
but I'm first gonna go to folks in the gallery
that would like to speak to this issue.
- I would like to speak to you.
- We'll go to you first.
Please give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Yeah, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members
of the committee.
I've prepared remarks.
I would like to read into the record if that's
all right.
My name is Roshni Ram Sagar.
I live at 1972 Cherrywood Trail.
The property at 945 Bluegrass Drive
is directly behind my home.
I'm here to ask this committee to refuse this
application.
The staff report frames this proposal
as a modest increase in height and density on
site
where similar users were already permitted.
With respect, the framing is misleading.
In 2019, Council approved file Z9020,
80 apartment units in two three-story buildings
from Gateway Church with 55 of those units,
about 69% of them at affordable rate.
What is before you today is fundamentally
different.
This proposal is 54 apartment units plus a 224-
bed
long-term care facility under section 3.4 of
zoning
by law Z1.
Three long-term care beds will equal one dwelling
unit.
That makes 224 beds equivalent to 75 units.
The total is 129 dwelling unit equivalents.
that is a 61% increase over what Council approved
in 2019.
So it cannot be just considered as one story
added to a three story.
The height increases from 13 to 14.5
with rooftop structures that could bring
the total to 18 meters or above.
Density increases from 46 to 65 units per actor,
a 41% increase, and the type of use has changed
significantly.
In 2019, Council approved an apartment building.
Today, you're being asked to approve
apartment building combined with a 224 bed
institutional facility. The continuum of care
category was listed as permitted use in 2019 but
no such facility of the scale was ever proposed,
evaluated or approved for this site. Saying the
use is permitted does not reflect the magnitude
of what's being now proposed. So this is the
central issue. A 224 bed long-term care facility
is not
residential in functional sense. It is licensed
institution regulated by the province under the
the Fixing Long-Term Care Act 2021.
It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,
multiple daily staff shift changes,
generally concentrated traffic,
continuous mechanical systems run around the
clock,
HVAC commercial kitchens, industry,
laundry, backup generators, ambulance access at
all hours,
is part of normal operations for such a facility.
Commercial scale deliveries happen daily.
Placing that level of institutional activity
directly between the single family homes
on a quite residential street.
In a quite residential neighborhood
is not appropriate land use planning.
The planning question before you
is whether the operational reality is compatible
with the low density homes,
amidst which this is being evaluated.
By any standard land use compatibility test, it
is not.
In 2019, Council made a deliberate decision
about what fits on this site.
Special provision R8-1 tree established density
cap
of 46 units per actor, parking requirements,
a three-story height limit and a prohibition
on emergency care establishment.
Those were not arbitrary.
They reflected council's judgment
about compatibility for this specific location.
Six years later, nothing about the site has
changed.
The neighborhood has not changed.
The rail corridor has not changed.
The surrounding homes have not changed.
The only thing that has changed now is the owner.
There is no planning basis to remove
the protections council has itself put in place.
The depth of the community response on this file
is also very significant.
The staff report confirms 46 public responses
from different households that were received
during consultation.
More than 30 detailed written objection letters
are part of Appendix E, raising several
operational concerns.
That is a significant volume for a rezoning file
in a single neighborhood.
It reflects how seriously residents have engaged
with what is being proposed
and what we stand to lose if it is approved.
Under Bill 185, residents may not have right to
appeal
this decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The decision on May 12 would be final.
So the 2019 protections were based on sound
planning.
The scale and nature of what is now being
proposed
is not compatible with this residential area.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask you
to refuse the applications.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll look for the next speaker.
Please ma'am, give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- My name's Annamaria Velastro.
So a lot of us have had family members
and long-term care facilities,
and we'll know like staff,
they go out of their way to have programs
for their residents, volunteer music, art
programs.
Sometimes they have small gardens,
but a large percentage of those residents
can't participate in those activities,
either because they're too old
or they have the onset of dementia,
or they might have some other issues.
And rather than stimulate those residents,
many of those residents are stimulated by looking
out
their windows or having a place to go outside.
Instead, if you've had family in these long-term
care
facilities, often what happens is they
park them in front of elevators so they
can watch people go in and out of elevators,
or they park them in front of the TV side.
And this application talks about amenity space,
but when you look at the landscape,
there is no amenity space.
There's just a giant parking lot
in between the two buildings.
They're following the parking lot guidelines
where they have these islands of green,
which is part of the low impact development
requirements.
But there is no place for those people
who can't participate in those art programs
to look out their window and watch the seasons
change.
There's no place for them to go and sit and get
fresh air.
So I just, and I don't understand why staff
would allow the requirement of 80 meters
of frontage lot being reduced to two meters
and not, or not insisting on maintaining
a significant amount of green space for those
residents.
And there's no commitment.
I didn't hear any commitment from the applicant
that those residential areas would be exclusive
to family members.
And so I think that the protections
that are built into the London plan
for these sorts of developments need to be upheld
for those residents,
'cause they're basically warehousing seniors
until they die.
That's what long-term care facilities are.
They're just warehouses.
The food is bad.
There's no place for people who are elderly
or with dementia to go to be stimulated.
There's no outdoor space with flowering trees or
--
- Just a minute, this flash trail.
- I'm sorry.
- Chair, point of order.
- Chair, I think our speaker may be getting off
topic,
talking about food and things like this.
We're here to discuss the development
and the construction of a long-term facility.
I'm not sure that food has any application here.
I appreciate the fact that she talked about some
amenities,
which I'm going to address when I speak to it,
but I think we've just gotten off topic a little
bit.
- Okay, this is my personal experience.
- Hold on a second.
Hold on a second.
I got to address this point of order.
I understand a bit what you're saying, Councillor
.
Ms. Velasco is speaking to, I think, general
amenities
that were particular to this development.
Yeah, she was drifting a bit,
maybe into some other areas,
but that's, you know, just the generalities of
talking.
So, just make sure you keep it to this.
- I will.
- But please go ahead.
- Thank you.
And so I think that this development doesn't meet
the requirements of their residents.
There's no commitment to family members occupying
those rental units.
And I think that the parameters that are in the
London Plan should be upheld here because
people live there.
There needs to be outdoor space, amenity space,
there needs to be enough amenity space that
people that can't participate in those programs
can look out their window and watch the changing
of the seasons or can go on and get some fresh
air, that's not a parking lot.
So I don't think that this development deserves
your approval.
And like I said, there's no commitment that the
residential area is -- the residents are
going to be dedicated to family members like
Ronald McDonald House.
Is it a Ronald McDonald House or is it open to
rent?
You said there's a housing shortage where there
actually isn't a housing shortage.
an affordability housing shortage and so if it's
a Ronald McDonald house that
should be part of the application otherwise it's
just open it's non-specific
and I do think the height I think the previous
speaker had a point that the
height of four meters and then everything that
goes on top of the roof is not
really sorry four stories is not really four
stories and the last thing I want
to say is just a personal observation is that
when applicants acknowledge the
concerns of residents like the applicant did, and
then go ahead and dismisses them, I personally
find that condescending. If residents bring up
legitimate concerns, that should be a trigger
that you start a conversation and you make your
work it out. Okay, just acknowledging those
concerns and then you throw them out isn't good
enough. Thirty seconds. Thank you. Thank you. I
'll
I'll look for the next speaker.
Please give us your name and you have five
minutes.
- Hello, I'm Charles Smith.
I have some prepared remarks I'd like to address,
and this is my first time ever speaking here,
so I apologize if I make any mistakes.
So yeah, here we go.
Good afternoon committee members,
city staff and members of the public.
I'm Charles Smith.
I am a young lifelong resident
of the Oak Ridge Crossings neighborhood
in Northwest London.
I'm also the founding vice chair and head of
communications
for the Oak Ridge Crossings Neighborhood
Association.
Today, I would like to speak on the proposed
development
at 945 Bluegrass Drive, which is in the
neighborhood.
In section 2.4 of the city staff's report
to the planning and environment committee or the
PEC,
it mentions that on February 20th, 2026,
a notice of application was sent to 126 residents
in the area of the proposed development
out of those 126 people, 46 people responded,
and I counted 43 responses were made publicly
available.
And approximately 84% of respondents have stated
in writing their strong objections to this
development
while the rest are not fully committed
to supporting the development either.
Overall, all of the respondents have and share
important and valid concerns over this proposed
development.
These concerns that the residents have
are important, valid, and pragmatic concerns
that must be taken into strong consideration
as you deliberate on these matters.
These concerns include number one,
impact on local traffic.
The transportation impact assessment for blue
grass
mentions about the big increase of traffic flow
in the area,
which has small roads with only two lanes,
one going one way and one going the other.
The increased traffic would be very inadequate
for the immediate roadways in the area,
even creating traffic conflicts and congestion
in the area at certain times of the day,
including at 3 p.m., when a school bus drops off
kids
after school, after school has finished for the
day,
which also creates concerns over adequate access
to school transportation and school zone safety.
Number two, no stormwater management report
has been submitted.
Residents have highlighted the fact
that no stormwater management report has been
submitted,
which is concerning given the fact
that the area has already experienced flooding in
the past,
which has impacted the area and damaged people's
homes.
There is also concern that if the proposed
development
were to be built, the flooding would increase
and become worse for the area.
And number three, improper completion
of submitted assessments.
Residents have expressed concern
over the improper completion of submitted
assessments,
which is a big issue.
One example includes the transportation
as impact assessment not appearing to account
for emergency vehicle frequency,
which is something that should be included
as it would be an important thing
for the proposed long-term care facility onsite.
Another example includes an inconsistency
on the sanitary sewer capacity analysis
that appears to show conflicting population
totals.
And another example includes the incomplete noise
study
in which residents highlighted
how the noise study has not properly assessed
the outgoing noise from the development itself
in relation to its impact on the adjacent
residences.
And number four, not conforming to legislative
precedence.
There is already legislative precedence
that currently exists that would not allow
proposed development to go forward in its current
form. Residents have highlighted how the proposed
development would go against the London Plan as
well as against a by-law that was passed in
regards
to 945 Bluegrass Drive just six years ago, which
includes the prohibition of an emergency care
establishment from being developed on the land.
And number five, loss of privacy and residential
community. Residents highlighted how the final
building of the development would result in
concerning loss of privacy and sunlight, which
also brings up the concern over no shadow study
being completed as of now. 30 seconds. Number six
, potential municipal liability. Residents
highlighted how the proposed development that
might be built on a land that is sitting on
a higher elevation than the nearby properties
along Cherrywood Trail, which is an area that
is already prone to flooding could result in
potential litigious action being taken
against the city on grounds of negligence
liability based on the principle of foresee
ability as
established through Ontario case law, including
the case, I believe LISAC v. City of Toronto
2008.
Okay, I'm going to have to ask you to wind it up.
And of course, there's concerns over construction
impact as there's no construction management
plan currently available at this moment, and
there's estimates that this could last two to
four
years, and residents have concerns over the
environment and traffic becoming worse and worse.
Okay, thank you very much at your time. I look
for the next speaker. I don't see anyone in the
gallery, so I know there's a number of people
online, so sorry ma'am, please give us your name,
you have five minutes. Good afternoon committee
members, city staff members of the public.
My name is Paulette Campbell. I've been living in
the Northwest London neighborhood of Oak Ridge
crossings for about 20 years. I'm also the
founding chair of the Oak Ridge Crossings
Neighborhood Association. Well you have just
heard concerns from area residents in regard to
the
proposed, excuse me, development at 945 Bluegrass
Drive. I would like to share some concerns that
that the neighborhood association has.
A big concern is that we have,
it's over the loss of a key neighborhood amenity.
If this development were to go through
as a newer and growing neighborhood association,
we have been planning on holding future events
at 945 Bluegrass Drive.
Events that are important to the well-being
of the neighborhood,
important to making our neighbors meet each other
,
becoming more close knit and together.
Important to the strong and stabilizing growth
of our neighborhood association,
and even important to boosting the local economy
by using the events to help highlight and promote
local businesses.
Unfortunately, other green spaces in our
neighborhood
would not be adequate to host future events.
The parks in our neighborhood,
while they are great to take a stroll through
or bringing children to play at the playground,
they could not adequately host some of our
big future events that we would like to hold.
For example, of the parks that do not have
sufficient
parking available to accommodate the large amount
of event attendees we
would expect to be attending. For the three out
of the four parks we have the
only available spots to park would be in the
streets near the parks which I
should mention there are two lanes one going one
way, one going the other way.
Meanwhile for the other park which is Capulet
Park the parking situation is
a bit better but still not the greatest. There
are parking spots around Capulet
park, but most of them are a part of the various
apartment complexes that are
typically reserved for the residents of the
buildings. Another example about our
parks, three out of four of them are not
geographically viable for holding our
big future event. Half of the Beaverbrook Woods
Park is on a hill. The Weatherfield
Park train is very hilly and uneven and not big
enough. And Sunrise Park is too
small. With Capulet Park, there's mostly enough
flat land to hold an event, but
Again, the factor of improper parking
availability
persists with Capulet, along with other parks.
So please, I urge the committee to not vote
in favor of this proposed development
at 945 Bluegrass Drive, as a vote in favor
could have a seriously negative impact
on our neighborhood's future.
Instead, I would like to make a suggestion.
Instead of developing at the Bluegrass Drive site
,
how about the city can either give another parcel
of land
to the developers for free,
or sell it to the amount of reduced costs
so the developers won't have to spend
too much more money for more assessments
on their new parcel of land.
And with the now vacant land at 945 bluegrass
drive,
the city could turn it into a park,
potentially even designating it as a new park
or designated as an expansion of the nearby
sunrise park.
Thank you very much for listening.
And on a side note,
We'd like to wish Councillor Lewis a speed of
recovery.
Thank you.
- Thank you and on behalf of Deputy Mayor Lewis,
I'm sure that was very nice for him to hear.
See a gentleman coming to the mic right now,
please, sir.
Give us your name and you have five minutes.
- Patrick Loria, I live on Beaverbrook Avenue.
I've lived there for about 20 years
and I didn't expect to speak so this is gonna be
ad-libbed.
Okay, so I heard this about a month or so ago,
and it really didn't make a whole lot of sense.
I know a lot of the people there
had hoped for a small dog park there at least,
and maybe a small community center
with I guess Pickleball is taking over,
so a couple of Pickleball cards would be fine.
I wouldn't play, but okay, so I started looking
at this,
and Steve knows me 'cause I've sent him a lot of
letters,
and I had an idea about this, and it seems so
crazy.
Like, okay, today I found out from one of Steve's
notes
that who the person is that's gonna wanna do this
,
and now it's not somebody we can buy on the stock
exchange.
It's some company that has a small one story,
long-term care place in white oaks,
and they indicated they had like 126 on their
waiting list,
and I've sent Steve notes like 168 parking spots,
which is one less than 169,
which would be 13 squared, which is very unlucky.
And I've also told him,
I'm the one that's paced in on that stupid sign
telling us about how wonderful our life will be
after this development.
I put on several times,
signs been taken down, something like,
they paved paradise,
Joanie Mitchell and a lot of parking spots.
Now, okay, so I looked at this a bit more
and I said, okay, so this company wants a
retirement home
and they love our area, great.
What about that soccer field across,
right across the street from Gateway,
which is owned by the Greek Club?
Well, we find out that the Greek Club,
which is not as active as it used to be,
in fact, much less active,
but it's not for sale right now.
It's almost identical property,
which I would think with none of the problems
that my cohorts have presented.
Now, I first presented this idea to Steve as a
joke,
but maybe it isn't that funny.
Maybe it does offer a possibility.
It still seems like a joke to me,
but if you examine the two properties are almost
identical
and there's all kinds of building going on
all around that Greek club,
I don't think anybody would mind too much
having a retirement home there.
right off of Sarnia Road. Now, would there be any
good thing coming out of this thing?
Yeah, we'd get a traffic light on the corner of S
arnia and Beaver Brook, which is badly needed
right now. I've already got... The people have
mentioned about trouble with traffic. I've
already
got three friends that don't even bother trying
to do a left turn on Sarnia and Beaver Brook.
They'd rather go a mile or two out of their way
to avoid that. And me, while I do it,
But I do things that if you had a traffic cop
there, I would get a lot of tickets, but I do
make that left term. That's it
Thank you. Thank you, mr. Loria. I look for any
other speakers in the gallery seeing none. I'll
go to those online
first
Hannah keys do you hear me Anna keys? Hello? We
can
You have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you
. I will be brief. I'm sorry. I have a distinct
baby on me right now
it's why I'm unable to attend in person. But just
to echo my neighbors as well and I want to thank
them for their comments that they have made and I
do agree with them about the increase of size
and concerns about the increase in traffic in the
neighborhood as a whole. I live closer to
Beaverbrook and I've been in this neighborhood
for about 10 years now and I have a very young
family and the increase of and the type of
increase of apartments and facilities and you
know staff
members 24/7 going through Beaver Brook. I do
have concerns about that you know the the
traffic circles and the speed humps they only do
so much to call the speeders and the traffic
of those trying to circumvent the sarnia and
wonderland intersection and you know quite
frequently, I find quite unsafe to even walk to
the nearby parks and try to cross those roads
due to these, you know, people trying to do that.
So the increase in traffic in that area
is a great concern in addition. I'm not sure if
it has been in one of the reports already,
but I do have concerns about the increase in
traffic for the Hyde Park and Sarnit intersection
as well. I have children in daycare in that
corner of that little plaza. There is
it's importance in that plaza as well, which in
the morning makes quite a dangerous
commute into the daycare and into that turn. And
there's not a very long left hand turn
that intersection. That's not a very large
parking lot. The increase of the workers 24/7,
the residents who may temporarily be living in
the apartment, they will be, you know,
pre-funding this plaza. And while I'm glad that
the businesses will have an increase in patrons,
I do have concerns about the actual
infrastructure of the road of getting into that
plaza and getting
out of that plaza more specifically because it is
not, you know, very pleasant at the best of
time, especially in the morning. And I'm not sure
if that is something that has been looked at
about
how the nearby major intersection is going to be
impacted and if that's going to be expanded or if
there's going to be a change in how those lights
are going to operate, you know, and increasing in
the left hand, you know, turn lane making it
longer, making increases in the right hand turn
lanes,
making it longer as well. So those are just some
additional items that I do have some concerns
about and I'm not sure have been addressed in the
letters that have already been presented by
my fellow neighbors. But other than that, you
know, that would be all the addition that I would
have to add today. So I wanted to thank you for
your time and for hearing you.
Thank you, Ms. Keys. I'll go to the next person
online, Anna Dietrich. Can you hear me,
Ms. Dietrich? Hello. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes,
I can. Please go ahead. You have five minutes.
Hello. My name is Anna Dietrich. I live on Wild
Rose Lane, which is a two-minute walk
from 945 bluegrass. We've lived here for about 10
years now and we have three small children
and we find that building long-term care home and
apartments is just not suitable for this
neighborhood. There's a lot of young families
that have their children play in the park,
whether it be baseball, run around with dogs,
play soccer, exercise, people come with rubber
bands and do their pulls and things like that.
And just the green space itself. It's just so
pleasant.
It's heartbreaking to let it go as one thing, but
it's also the amount of stories that is
proposed for story apartments. It's just not
fitting. The increased traffic would make the
roads very unsafe. We already have one a long-
term care home, just a bit east of the proposed
area.
and it's on Sarnia and it makes quite a few
accidents going home down our streets
because you know nurses in a rush to start their
shift and stuff like that and they may be on
their
phone and not looking etc. So it's a concern as
we have so many young children in the
neighborhood
running around on their bicycles etc and as you
know you can say a thousand times to them but
they
don't always look in the cross road. So the
safety is a big concern as well as just losing
that green
space and we don't find that it's going to be a
value add to our neighborhood to build long-term
care home or high-story apartments. We would
rather see a park or a community center or a
public
library or even a gym, anything that would
actually benefit and would fit with the
neighborhood
as opposed to take away from our neighborhood,
decrease housing prices of our homes and just
decrease the enjoyment of the area. There is a
lot of people that use this green space to social
ize,
to play, to run around, and this particular area
draws a lot of people. There's not enough
outdoor activities, outdoor equipment, I would
say, for adults and for children in our
neighborhood.
We see a lot more in Oak Park, which is around
High Park and Oxford intersection. There is Oak
Oak Ridge Arena on one side and then diagonally
there's Oak Park. Both of them have a lot
of equipment and people can enjoy lots of
different sports there whereas this area is
quite far from it and it would benefit us and our
neighbors to have more equipment and
more things that you know neighbors can enjoy
here as opposed to you know create more dangerous
road situations where there might be accidents
involved, especially with the
young children. Thank you very much for your time
. Thank you, Mr. Dietrich. We'll
go online again. Veronica, can you hear me?
Please give us your full name and you
have five minutes. Yeah, hi. Good afternoon Mr.
Chair and member of
committee. I have prepared remarks I would like
to read into the record. My
My name is Ronak Patel, my property is at 945
Bluegrass Drive is directly behind my home.
I am here to ask this committee to refuse the
application.
I want to focus on what is actually being
proposed behind our homes because I do not
believe the staff report fully captures it.
This is not a residential development.
This is a 224 bed institutional facility being
placed directly between single family homes.
Most of them with a school going young children
on a quite residential street in a quite
neighborhood.
A long-term care facility at this scale is the
most intensive form of senior care in Ontario.
It is regulated under the fixing long-term care
act 2021.
same legislature framework that governs licensed
health institutions. That framework does not
apply to apartments. It does not apply to
retirement homes. It applies here because this is
in practice
and institutional use. The intensity of this
proposal is fundamentally different from anything
that exists in this neighborhood today. A 224 bed
facility operates 24 hours a day, 365 days
a week over year. It includes multiple staff
shift changes generating concentrated traffic
at predictable times. It relies on continuous
mechanical system including HVAC, commercial
kitchen, industrial laundry and backup generators
. It requires ambulance and parametric access
at all hours including overnight. It brings daily
commercial delivery for food, pharmaceuticals,
medical supplies, linen and medical waste. And it
generates a substantial visitor traffic
throughout
day and into the evening. These are not
residential characteristics. These are
institutional characteristics.
What is also especially concerning is where this
institutional facility is located on the site.
Both the provincial planning statement and the
London land requires land use compatibility
analysis. That analysis must consider real world
impact, not just zoning labels. While the bylaw
may categorize long-term care under residential
use, the way this facility actually operates
is institutional. At this scale with these
operational realities and this proximity to
existing homes,
it is not compatible. The intensity of this
proposal is the central issue. The site sits
at a higher elevation than surrounding homes on
Cherrywood Trail. Homes on Cherrywood Trail
already
have a history of basement flooding even under
existing condition. Standard engineering estimate
shows a show runoff increasing by five to ten
times. My own home sustained water damage in
July 2024 while this field was still entirely
permeable. I incurred a repair cost of
11,000 and on neighbors documented basement
flooding in 2018 with renovation cost of
approximately
$40,000. The proposed service servicing demand
exceeds the existing allocation of this site.
I want to state clearly for the public record,
Holmes and Cherrywood Trail have a documented
history of flooding. The city has now been made
aware of that history. If this development
is approved and flooding risk increases, that
risk is foreseeable. Under bill 185, residents
have no right to appeal this decision on to the
Ontario land tribunal. The decision you
make on May 12th is a final. The scale and
intensity of this proposal are not compatible
with this neighbourhood. For this reason I
respectfully ask this committee to refuse
the application. Thank you. Thank you. All right.
I'll look for other speakers that
that are online in Kowski, can you hear me?
Yes, please go ahead, you have five minutes.
- I just wanted to echo that what everybody's
been saying,
all the concerns that have been raised here.
I live on Reddale Trail, which is adjacent
to the property in question.
And the only thing I wanted to add is that
in this neighborhood, we do lack green space
as one of the people have raised that concern.
And this proposal is not helping its hindering
the issue
that we have in this neighborhood.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
I'll go next to Deborah Terros.
Can you hear me?
- I can hear you, I think.
- I can hear you.
- Oh, good.
- All good.
- I apologize if I got your last name wrong.
- Oh, it's okay, I get tortured all the time.
Don't worry about it.
- Please go ahead, you have five minutes.
- Thank you, my name is Deborah Terros.
I have a familial interest in this community.
And thank you for the opportunity to share
comments today.
I am speaking today to respectfully request
the zoning application be denied.
I in reference specifically to the deaths and
breadth
surrounding the proposed increased population
density
and its untenable impact to safety in our
community,
transportation and traffic in our dear rich
community.
The neighborhood is a single family low density
residential pocket community.
the original developers recognized and respected
the boutique flavor of the neighborhood.
Purposely, there is not a road.
There is not a street, an avenue, or a boulevard
designated within our dear-knit, dear-rich
neighborhood.
What there is are courts, trails, gates,
and one drive, bluegrass drive.
None of these roadway designations
is intended to flows through traffic, industrial
traffic,
or is a consideration of city transit.
Additionally, this pocket community is home
to Sunrise Park.
I think that was mentioned earlier.
And it's extended pathway which connects
the two residential areas defined as Deer Ridge
neighborhood.
The property in question at 945 separates
these two residential neighborhoods.
The history being that Gateway Church owned this
vacant land
at one time and has since sold it to a developer.
This community is full of children who flow
freely
within the perimeter of the Deer Ridge
neighborhood.
The proposed population density increase
and its inherent increased vehicle traffic
would present a serious safety hazard.
I plead.
The one and only drive in the neighborhood is
bluegrass drive.
Its distance is less than one kilometer.
The applicant spoke to calming measures.
How much calmer can you get them less than one
cook?
I don't understand.
Its pathway purpose is that of a two-lane east
bound
westbound channel.
And it provides vehicular connection to locals.
Redtail Trail is about 40 meters away
from the roundabout, a backside vehicular entry
to gateway churches about 60 meters away.
And this bluegrass drive ends with a roundabout
at Cherrywood Gate.
Cherrywood Gate's purpose is primarily
to connect the Cherrywood Trail community
with the Redtail Trail community.
I have to add that currently even residents
attempting
to exit our community, Deer Ridge,
in order to proceed westbound on Sarnia Road,
either morning or afternoon, has become a dice
roll.
As many as seven minutes to 10 minutes
before you can safely exit westbound on Sarnia
Road.
And that's not uncommon.
The traffic that exists due to recent town
houses being constructed and on Sarnia Road is a
concern.
There's also 801 Sarnia Road where there's
currently
an eight-story apartment building that's in
progress
and another six-story that is pending application
to my knowledge.
And the competing flow-through traffic
from Beaver Brook Avenue,
when we try to exit our neighborhood,
the Greek center traffic and the school in city
buses
is already dense.
Current construction, well, pardon me,
the potential for twin 15 story towers
on nearby High Park Road at Sarnia Road,
basically,
will surely add to the traffic density of Sarnia
Road.
It just seems untenable.
Additionally, and with, no, I'm not going to say
that part in this one moment.
I understand why the developer sees his property
as something that could be market driven
and industrial and works great.
The property was, as I said before, 2019
authorized to go ahead with a three story
facilities set back and continued having green
space. What we have today is way beyond that.
30 seconds. Thank you. And I am almost finished.
I'm going to leave it there, except to say,
cheers to everybody who came out and is making
their voices heard on this. I really do
appreciate. Thank you again.
Thank you. I'll go to the next speaker online,
Jennifer Spinni, if you can hear me.
I can. Good afternoon. Great. Please go ahead.
You have five minutes.
Okay. Thank you. Dear Council and members of the
Planning Environment Committee,
my name is Jennifer Spinni and I reside at 771
Redtail Trail. My home backs on to the property
in question or 945 Bluegrass Drive. I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you
all today about our Deer Ridge community, a
community that I have called home since August
of 2006 when there was a mere scattering of
houses on mine and the surrounding streets.
In many ways, I've grown into my adulthood and
experienced many seasons of life alongside
and with the support of my neighbors. While I
appreciate the platitudes offered by the planner,
those meant to soothe, normalize, and push past
what she has somewhat flippantly referred to as
anxious feelings. Respectfully planner, the
proposal does not represent a modest change.
It represents a significant change from what the
neighborhood represents currently and also
that which was approved in 2019. A long-term care
facility does not address the significant
social disaster we are experiencing in London
relating to the unhoused population. Just wanted
to say that. And also, I want to make sure that
we give enough care and attention to the
community
that we are talking about. We represent the Deer
Ridge community, not simply the Hyde Park
community.
This is an important nuance not to be overlooked
or diminished. Our community is active and
engaged.
We hold annual neighborhood events. One such
event is the pumpkin roll. We are approaching the
20th
annual pumpkin roll. This is during the Halloween
season and it's important because we work
together
as a community. Neighborhood children create the
signs, another resident posts the flyers on mail
boxes. Another resident supplies the coffee and
hot chocolate. Another person
takes the pumpkins to the farm for the pigs. Our
deer-rich community is a close-knit community.
Residents look out for each other and people know
each other by name, not just by address.
As already mentioned, children can play freely.
They're able to safely explore in our
neighborhood.
Residents often share concerns with each other
and support each other either tangibly or simply
by offering a listening ear. In our community, we
are welcoming and inclusive. We celebrate
diversity
and we advocate for equity deserving groups,
especially those who have suffered great trauma
and loss. Back in 2021 our community came
together and hosted a Pancakes for Peace
fundraiser in
support of the off-sell family following the
tragic terror attack that occurred just a few
blocks away. I say this to illustrate that ours
is a community that is deeply rooted and invested
and where people care for and about each other
and we are able to thrive as such because of our
low
density of residential standing. We can easily
hold these outdoor activities, whether they are
in our community or in our backyards. The
children are able to roam safely due to the lower
traffic
volumes. We are able to do these things in a cal
mer and quieter environment. And this is important
because the proposal being considered this
afternoon for 945 bluegrass does not emphasize
these people
first community values. The proposal is one that
seems to prioritize profit over community.
A 54 apartment unit plus a 224 bed long-term care
institution situated within four-story buildings
that operates on a 24/7 basis will fundamentally
alter the identity and character of our community
.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, there
does not seem to be sufficient nor justifiable
reason to simply override the 2019 Council
protections. We already struggle with how narrow
bluegrass
is, particularly at the signing question,
especially on Sundays during services offered by
the Gateway
Church. Constructing a high density operation
here will only make this worse. For these reasons
,
I strongly oppose the developer's current
proposal and urge the Council and members of the
Environment
and Planning Committee to do the same. Make a
decision that prioritizes community over profit,
vote no to this proposal and to the overriding of
protections put in place in 2019. Please do
whatever you can to help as much as possible. The
residents of Deer Ridge preserve the established
low density residential character of our
community. One that has been built by many of us
with a
great deal of care and effort over the last 20 or
more years. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. I'll go online to Lamont Law. Can you
hear me? Good afternoon. Please go ahead,
you have five minutes. Thank you. I'll try to be
brief. I've listened to my neighbors on the
Facebook group, as well as several of my
neighbors today, presently in front of the
council, and
unfortunately, I couldn't be there. First of all,
I was born and raised in London, Ontario.
I moved away for probably about a decade before
having to move back home. And doing so, I came
back
with the thought of building a family. In 2005, I
chose to build a home in the
Deere Ridge neighborhood. The reason I chose this
neighborhood was it was
quiet. It was far away from major roads. It
appeared peaceful away from commercial
buildings, traffic. I picked this neighborhood
because it appeared to be a
good location to stay for the long-term and
raised family. Fast forward probably
about a year or two after that. I was probably, I
think at the time there's
probably only four houses that were actually up,
and I was one of the four.
And then shortly as the other houses were being
built,
I realized that there was a church being built
down the street.
And of all the statements I've heard tonight,
there's concern about the development property,
but in combination with the existing church,
I think we have to look at the totality of it,
because this neighborhood area is no longer
has the character of the neighborhood
that I originally moved into.
We're looking at a large church
that already has an abundance of vehicle traffic,
pedestrian traffic, and in a way,
they've actually contributed positively to the
neighborhood.
But the traffic in combination with the proposal
is changing the character of the neighborhood.
And what I believe was intended
to be a low density residential neighborhood.
I'm hopeful that city council was gonna do the
best
to maintain the character of the neighborhood.
I don't see that happening.
If the proposal goes through as is,
I recognize that it's private property,
being a resident for 20 years in the area,
we always had concerns or thoughts
as to what might be built back there.
We went through the 2019 decision of council
to allow, I believe there's three stories at the
time.
My concern is multiple concerns.
one for myself as an individual, secondly,
for my neighbors and what they may have to endure
or worry about with this development coming
through.
We've talked about drainage, we've talked about
noise,
we've talked about excess traffic,
but as my neighbor Jen already conveyed,
it's a residential neighborhood
that is looking like it's gonna be commercialized
.
I hope that council recognizes that the proposals
are going to be dramatic changes to the
neighborhood
if they go through.
I recognize that there's a need for residential,
an increase in residential neighborhoods.
One of the other neighbors already mentioned.
I think it's more of a concern with affordability
than availability.
With that, I will leave it to Council
to make their determination as to what our
neighborhood
will look like in the future.
- Thank you.
I'll go to Laura.
Laura, can you hear me?
Laura?
- Hi.
- Let me see it.
- Hi, you have five minutes, please go ahead.
- Okay, so I will make my statement pretty quick
'cause I'm here with my two kids
looking at a little mouse outside her house.
(laughs)
- Okay.
- Yes, there's a mouse.
Not great, but here we are.
So I've lived on Cherrywood Trail for over a
decade.
My husband, my now husband and I bought this home
because we thought it was a great place
to raise our children.
And we loved it here.
It has gone busier over the last 10 years.
We've seen a great increase in foot traffic.
When we first moved here,
everyone we bumped into on chair would trail
would know.
But now because of the developments around us,
there's a lot more pedestrian traffic.
So there's people coming up from Beaverbrook
to go to the Tim Hortons and developments at Hyde
Park
and Sarnia.
there's grocery stores there now as well.
So we see a lot more pedestrian traffic
through the neighborhood, through bluegrass,
kids, seniors as well, it's a vulnerable
population.
And we see a lot more foot traffic on Sarnia
because when we first moved here there was a
bridge
and only one car could pass at a time.
So just to keep this, sorry Nikki.
So just to kind of wrap this up,
I just wanted to speak specifically to the
traffic issues
parking I see on Cherrywood in bluegrass today
and my concern is how it will
worsen over time with an increased with this new
proposal that is much more
like increase in terms of scale. So what I see
today is every Sunday I do see
traffic problems on bluegrass which I think of
which have already been addressed
but at times you can't even pass. Sometimes you
're head-to-head with
another car, and that's not safe because one car
will have to
obviously reverse on a street in which you really
shouldn't be
doing that. There's also a lot of vulnerable
people attending,
like there's families and everything. So young
children
elderly attending the church, and it's such a
busy place as it
is. The other issue I see is with the Greek
Canadian Center,
they use these streets as overflow traffic. And
again, at
times on Sherrywood Gate, even this little gate,
and on Sherrywood Trail that connects Sarnia to
bluegrass.
Sorry, Nikki.
Here, you want some of the most?
There's been times where only one car can pass,
and that's not safe.
And so my concern is with the increased traffic.
Yes, I see.
From this facility, we could really create
a more dangerous situation that,
and compound what we're already seeing today.
So I'm just going to wrap this up because I feel
like I'm kind of ignoring Nicholas here.
So thanks for your time and thanks to everyone
that's come out.
And thank you, Steve, and everyone on the council
for listening to us today.
So thanks.
Thanks, Laura.
And thanks, Nicholas, and you're sibling there
for participating.
I'll go to the next speaker, Lamont Robinson.
Can you hear me?
- A little on, one more time, Lon Robinson.
Okay, one last chance.
I think that's the list.
That's it for the list of speakers online.
I'm not hearing from Lon Robinson,
so we'll have to let it go at that.
Okay, I'll look for anyone else
who would like to speak in the gallery.
I'll see him in the microphone.
So I'll look for our motion to close the PPM,
Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier,
and we'll vote on that.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- Okay, I'll put this on the floor for our
committee.
- Councillor Cudi.
- Thank you, Chair.
I'll move the staff recommendation.
I'll look for a seconder.
Councillor Hill here is in the case.
Here we'll second.
So I'll look for speakers on this.
Councillor Cudi.
- Thank you, Chair, and through you.
And I want to thank all the residents
for coming today and speaking.
- And I also want to speak.
Thank everyone who was online.
I don't think I've ever heard that many people
online before.
And, you know, community and engagement
is what this is all about, right?
But coming and telling us what you think,
and in your opinions, you know,
I have a lot of student residences in my ward,
and this is not a student residence.
This is a long-term care home facility,
and there's a big difference, as we all know.
I have also have a long-term care facility
in my ward called Henley Place.
It's just off Cedar Hollow,
and it's a wonderful facility,
and the residents and the neighbors all get along
.
From what I can see, they all get along.
There's cooperation.
They take pristine care of the gardens
and of the area around Henley Place,
and the residents appreciate that.
And they don't have an abundance of green space
to walk,
but they make the best of what they do.
And it's a great collaboration between residents,
residential and long-term care.
And I think you'll see the same
with the facility that's being proposed here.
I did hear some concerns about flood plains,
And I want you to know, I'm on the Upper Thames
Conservation Authority Board.
And if there was an issue with the flood plans or
if there was concern,
we wouldn't be at this stage right now.
And I could defer to the planning department and
they'd probably confirm what I've just told you.
I did have some issues with the four stories, but
after looking what the planning department has
recommended,
I think it's workable.
And I think this is something that's going to be
a real contribution to your area in the long term
.
And again, it's not a student residence.
It's a long-term care facility,
and I think that's what's really important.
You're not gonna have parties and so on going on
like that.
I do think this is going to be a real benefit
in the end, because you'll know what you'll have
there.
And you'll have, I think you're gonna have
quite a nice facility.
So that's all I have to say, Chair.
I'll be supporting this, thank you.
- Okay, Councilor, you did raise the issue
of some water issues, and it was a couple
comments
from the public regarding drainage and water,
so I was wondering if staff could comment on that
.
- Sure, thank you through the chair.
So a stormwater report and grading plan
was not required at the zoning stage.
The detailed engineering design
will be provided at site plan.
Property doesn't have any unusual
or significant features on site
that would make it undevelopable.
The property is graded towards the northwest
at a slope of about 1.2%, so it's fairly flat.
As you move west towards Sarnier Road,
the elevations get lower so the homes
that exist on Cherrywood Trail are higher
than the properties to the west of that.
It's a common occurrence being higher
than your neighbor in this area.
As mentioned, currently storm waters flowing
freely
towards the northwest.
The engineer is required to ensure
that all the storm water flows are contained
on site and stored.
Minor flows and major flows will be directed
underground
in overland to Bluegrass Drive at a controlled
rate.
The city does not allow medium density flows
to enter single family properties.
We see this as an improvement to the area
from a stormwater perspective because stormwater
that may have been entering the single family
homes
from 945 Bluegrass in the past
will be redirected away from them in post
development.
Thank you. - Thank you.
I will go to Deputy Mayor Lewis.
Deputy Mayor, please go ahead.
- Hi, thank you, Chair, and through you,
I do wanna say thank you to the resident
who sent well wishes for a fast recovery.
I am on the mend, but it is slow going.
And I'm trying to be here today as best I can
remotely.
It's gonna be a few days before I get back to
work,
but in person at least.
I do want to just respond to a couple of comments
'cause I think they're important.
I want the residents to know they were hurt,
but when it comes to the green space issue,
I think it's really important to underscore
that this was never designated as green space
or city park land.
It's been in private ownership.
It was always slated for development.
The parks and recreation master plan
doesn't identify it as a need in the neighborhood
.
There is a need for a Northwest community center.
That will be a much bigger build
than what would fit on this property.
But I do want folks to know that that is
something
that both Councillor Layman and Councillor ramen
and the mayor have been talking about,
we need some federal funding to help that build.
We have some money set aside for one,
but it's gonna need to be on a bigger piece of
land
than what is available here
to provide all the amenities necessary.
So I did wanna share that the Northwest Community
Center
continues to be on our radar, we are working on
it.
I appreciate staff's comments on the storm water.
I was gonna mention as well that normally,
The details, the storm water management details
get worked out in site plan,
but staff do have an excellent overview
of what they've done in their planning evaluation
so far.
So I won't spend any time on that.
I certainly hear, and we hear it everywhere,
concerns about traffic increasing across the city
,
and that's why we've been working
on a master mobility plan.
It's also why, and I heard a resident comment
on the left hand turn not being long enough
at one of the major intersections,
And that's something certainly that I know Coun
cillor Layman
can talk to traffic to transportation staff
and see if the timing needs to be changed.
I've had a couple of those in my ward
where I've gone to them and said,
"Can you review the timing?"
I think with some of the new developments,
we need a longer turn signal.
And that in fact has happened.
They've adjusted the timing so that more cars can
get through.
So that is certainly something to address
in terms of the wider traffic,
but it's not reflected in the planning decision
have to make and we have to stick within the
Planning Act and the London Plan and the ZBA,
sorry, the zoning by-law, try not to get into
acronyms. And so when we've got the traffic
impact assessment and staff have said there's no
particular concerns and that some of the school
zone concerns can be addressed locally through
traffic calming and other appropriate measures.
I can't say no based on a traffic concern. So I
will be supporting this file, but I did hear
the concerns. I want residents to know that.
Think staff did a great job just now talking
about the stormwater management piece. And for me
, I really wanted to highlight the fact that
while I recognize you've been using it as green
space and that will be lost,
it wasn't green space that the city can give you,
but it is something where we recognize that
community-centered need with some good open space
on the community-centered building location
is necessary so i'm going to leave my comments at
that thank all the speakers um but i i have to
support staff's recommendation here thank you i
'll go to council preble thank you chair i just
have some comments if you can actually provide me
staff comments what was heard from the gallery
from the representative from the neighborhood
association it's stated that there were
incomplete
parts of the submission as sure stormwater has
been already discussed i'm just going to go one
by one by if you can just comment for that please
noise study. I'll go staff. Through
the chair noise study was submitted as part of
this application. The noise
studies are typically only reviewing noise impact
from the roadway. We have
included a direction to site plan to kind of
update the noise study to look at
mitigation measures from the rooftop mechanical
equipment based on feedback
from the public. Thank you transportation study
not including emergency
vehicles go staff. Thank you through the chair.
We actually have a Sadhu
Spani online. He's the transportation manager so
I'll pass it to him. Thank
you. Please go ahead. Thank you through the chair
. My name is Sadhu
Spani. As part of the zoning application so we
don't have any issue on the
application but however there are some details
missing from the traffic report.
Yeah we will definitely be asking the traffic
consultant to provide all
detailed information and addressing all the
possible issues, like for example,
any traffic flow mitigation measures and any
emergency vehicle arrival and safety for the
pedestrians and so on, as at the site planning
stage. Councillor. Thank you. No shadow study.
Go staff. Through the chair, in accordance with
the urban design brief terms of reference,
a shadow study is only required for buildings
when they exceed nine stories in height.
As the proposal was for four stories, a shadow
study was not required.
Councilor thank you and last comment that was
made it's non-conforming to the legislative
requirements
Can you provide me any feedback and I don't know
more details?
I just heard this from the gallery if there is
any feedback the staff could provide. Thank you
I'll go to staff through the chair
I believe this is in relation to the current
zoning on site in London plan through staff's
review of the application
We do believe that it's in conformity with the
London plan and the zoning bylaw Councilor
Thank you for your only answer still this whole
mile all on my list. Thank you chair. Thank you
I'll look for other
Councillors of the committee or visiting Councill
ors seeing none. Oh, okay
Councilor ramen, please go ahead and thank you
and through you. I think Councillor Trassa and I
were trying to decide who was going to go first
there
So I want to just take a moment to
Thank the residents that have come out today to
speak on this application
I
represent the ward across
and so I understand this area and spend a lot of
time at Gateway Church as well so
appreciate hearing from you on on this matter. I
'm wondering if I can through you ask staff.
So the area as far as I understand the allowable
height was three stories and the applicants
asking
for four and I'm just wondering if there were any
considerations by the applicant for less
stories. I'll go stuff. Through the chair, I'm
going to defer that to the applicant themselves
for the decrease type. I'll go to the applicant.
Can you hear me? Oh, sorry about that. It's Matt
Campbell here from Zalenka, Priyammo. We did look
at a three-story building, but unfortunately the
economics of a project of this nature is necess
itating a little bit more building area. So there
can be
more long-term care beds in the building. And so
the economics of it really are being driven or
driving that or story height.
We do have the owner's representative here.
We might be able to ask that question a different
way
if the committee is looking for more detailed
information.
- Thank you.
We'll go back to the councilor.
- Thank you and through you.
I'd really appreciate more detailed answers
that would be greatly appreciated.
Maybe on the economic side of the argument,
could you give us a ballpark of what a unit
like this would go for?
- Please go ahead.
- Sure, and I'll try to explain the best I can
and feel free to ask me for any further clar
ifications.
But essentially, the funding for long-term care
homes,
most of it for redeveloping a home
or developing a long-term care home
is given by the province.
There's not a whole lot there
from the economics of operating a long-term care
home.
So about 85% of our ability to construct
is provided by the province itself.
And that funding formula changes
depending on the areas you're in,
but the province is divided into four separate
areas.
We fall into the southwestern area of that
funding,
which basically covers everywhere
other than very northern remote Ontario
or the GTA, including Hamilton.
So the funding is exactly the same
no matter if we're building in London
or if we're building in Elmer.
the funding remains the same.
So for us, it's getting the scale of that
development up
to be able to afford the underlying land.
So the purchasing of the land all ties into our
ability
to develop.
So once that's developed, then we'll
get the funding from the province
to cover the cost of the underlying land.
OK, sir, sir, you can have to keep quiet, OK?
We had the time to listen to yourself and others
And now it's time for others to speak.
Go ahead, Councilor.
- Thank you and through you.
And I really appreciate the answer to the
question.
Sorry, just to better help my understanding
though.
So what you're saying is the pro forma,
the cost basis for this doesn't work
because of provincial funding at three floors,
but it would work at four.
- Yeah, that's correct.
Go ahead, Councilor.
- Thank you.
And the apartment though is a private venture.
it's for profit only.
- Yep, yep, that's correct.
So for us, same thing on the apartment side,
it's the ability to get the scale
so that those units are affordable
for the residents that live there.
- Councillor.
- Thank you, and through you, sorry, just to
clarify,
so your definition of affordable?
- Sorry, my definition of affordable would be,
we'd be basically around market rent for that
area,
plus or minus the services that we typically add
on.
So most of our seniors' apartments are designed
with added services to support seniors as they're
aging
and provides that continuum of care on that site
from more independent in the seniors' apartments
and then transitioning to that higher level of
care,
which typically flows to a retirement home.
Now, residents can still access care services
like they would in their own home there
for it their care needs increased to where they
would need long-term care
Councilor. Thank you through you maybe to staff
so mind your standing read the
application these are apartments they're not
senior designated apartments
there's nothing within the application that
specifies that these are specific
to a targeted audience nor does it say anything
really about market rent.
- I'll go to staff.
- Right, thank you through the chair.
The application is to permit an apartment
building.
We zone per land uses, not users.
So there's no specific demographic
that this would be zoned for.
It's just an apartment building.
And to our knowledge, we're reviewing this
as an apartment building, no affordability
taken into consideration.
Again, we're reviewing for land use.
- Councilor.
- Thank you and through you.
to the applicant I just wanted to get a better
sense because I'm hearing the applicants say
something different than the land use so I'm just
wanting to confirm that the applicant's intention
is for a market rate rent senior compatible
apartment and I'm just wondering if that's that
that would be correct so typically we're
targeting seniors as our as our residents who
typically have loved ones that live in the long-
term care home.
Typically, what I see, because I've been in this
industry,
it's, you know, their spouse is traveling to see
their spouse
every single day, and in order to, you know,
make that more amenable for their lifestyle and
their health,
we try to augment by having those apartments
close by,
and marketing that senior demographic,
and setting those apartments up,
so that they're senior friendly,
but the apartments themselves wouldn't have
specific use
to that, that would just be what we would be
looking
for to target that towards board seniors, Coun
cillor.
- Thank you and through you.
So I just wanna say, appreciate the conversation
and the ability to better understand the
application
and the use that's being mentioned here.
I'm not a voting member of this committee,
so I do not have a decision point here.
My decision point is at council.
So in that time, I will look for more information
on this matter, but I am hearing from residents
here
about the compatibility issues,
and I do understand those compatibility issues
and see your concerns and hear them.
And I'll continue to listen as we make a decision
on this application in the coming weeks.
Thank you.
- Thank you, Councilor Trassel.
- Thank you, thank you very much.
Also, I'm just so you know, I'm not through the
chair.
I'm not a member, voting member of this committee
.
I'm a guest and I will be able to make amendments
,
vote at council, here I can only speak.
And I'm gonna speak to the fact that I think
that based on everything I've heard today,
this application needs to be denied.
If you can't make this work at three stories,
you're trying to shove something into an area
that it doesn't belong and you need to go back
to the drawing board and do something different.
And I think it's a real failure of planning
to allow this with all of the questions that we
have.
if it was just the storm water.
- Chair, point of personal point of order.
- Okay, Deputy Mayor, go ahead.
- It is inappropriate for the visiting counselor
to be denigrating the work that our planning
staff
have done on this file, which he's just done.
That's not an appropriate action at all.
And I'd request respectfully that the counselor
withdraw his criticism of our planning staff.
He may not like the application,
But that is not grounds to criticize our staff.
- Yeah, Kelsey.
- If I may respond.
- Hold on, also, hold on.
- No, I can't respond.
- Hold on a second.
I have to deal with this.
I understand what the deputy mayor is saying
and I winced a bit when you said that, to be
honest.
Don't comment on the work that's being done.
You can disagree with it.
But let's just leave it at that, okay?
- Let me respectfully say in response then
that in my opinion, without denigrating staff,
I don't think this is good planning.
And the reason why I don't think it's good
planning
is because we often say when we pass these things
,
this is good planning.
And it's okay to say it's good planning,
but it's not okay to say I have problems with the
planning.
So where I wanna go with this is if it was just
the noise,
the mechanism on the roof,
if it was just the storm water,
which I don't think is resolved,
there are risk management issues here,
If it was just the traffic, if it was just the
fact
that these are really not going to be,
I've heard no evidence that this is going to be
in keeping with our age-friendly policies.
I've heard no evidence that this is gonna be
in keeping with our children and family,
neighborhood policies.
I've heard no evidence that this is something
that's gonna be a net benefit to the community.
And I say that with all due respect.
But quite frankly, this is what happens.
application after application, and we've got to
stop.
Because I think residents of London are starting
to feel,
and this is just my opinion.
It's not a reflection of staff.
I think people are beginning to think
that we're not listening to you.
It's sort of like, thank you very much for coming
.
You're raising great points.
Have a nice day, your children are cute,
but we're just gonna approve this.
And that's not okay, we need to do better.
Now, I wanna spend some time talking about the
traffic,
because application after application,
we see the same issue.
And that is the traffic study is just geared very
narrowly
just to this project.
And we never ever get a traffic study
that talks about the cumulative impacts in the
area.
And many people talked about
some of the other impacts in the area.
When we went through all of those applications
on Oxford Street in my ward earlier in the term,
This is exactly what I was talking about.
We have to start looking at the cumulative
impacts
of public safety.
And the fact that we are supposed to have
policies
that talk about traffic safety,
we're supposed to have policies that talk about
people not getting hurt or killed in traffic.
And we're supposed to be creating neighborhoods
that are safe and secure for residents,
including children and including seniors.
And I don't think we're doing that.
Now, I'm not in a position to be able to offer
any amendments.
Right now, they would not be in order.
When we get to council, hopefully there will be
an opportunity.
But I think I can see where this is going.
And I just don't feel as if this project should
be approved.
And I really think that people from the
neighborhood here
have laid out a very compelling and coherent and
legally
since here, argument for why we should be voting
no on this.
And as things stand now,
I am definitely gonna be voting no.
Hopefully, we can see this coming down to three
stories
with maybe some holding provisions,
but no to what is here right now.
- Thank you. - Thank you.
- I look for other speakers.
Seeing none, I'll ask,
Councilor Cudi to take the chair, please.
- Thank you, Councilor Lehman, I will take the
chair.
- Thank you, so I'm pretty familiar with this
area.
with a number of residents around there. I've
been at, you know, Gateway Church a number of
times
for various events. So I'd like to just kind of
comment on my perspective of this this particular
and this particular plan before us. I'd like to
address three issues, density, height, and
traffic.
Let's just start with the height. So a number of
years ago, the neighborhood was here talking to
application before us. That was three stories, 82
buildings, 40 units in HAD units. And you know
at that time there was a lot of misunderstanding
thinking that that green space was a city park
because the church was kind enough to have a
couple of goalposts, a couple of nets up so kids
could play soccer and whatnot, but then kind of
learned that that had been a zone for development
.
something was going to be built on there. It was
three stories, so a little higher than
the neighborhood. But I think at that time, while
there was concerns, there was acceptance
because of the affordable housing aspect to it.
So, okay, we got a couple buildings where
we thought we had green space, but affordable
housing, so not like it crazily totally in
favor, but okay, this time it's a lot different.
The height, the height is being
asked to go up to four stories. This is in the
middle of a neighborhood,
essentially what you have is you have a space
between between two neighborhoods
connected by bluegrass. If this was on Serenia
Road, I wouldn't have a problem
with it, but to go four stories in a sing in the
middle of a single family
neighborhood. I hear what people are saying, and
I tend to agree with them,
quite frankly. Regarding the density, the density
here is requesting an increase
of about 64% roughly. You know, the number of
units are less 50, 54 units, I think, or
something, but over 200 beds. And I think what we
heard today is, is important with
the type of facilities that density, while people
probably will not be driving around,
you're going to get a lot of traffic that goes
with the staffing, especially of the long-term
care facility. And it's going to be shift work,
and it's going to be deliveries and maintenance
work, et cetera. Again, an impact in the middle
of a neighborhood, which leads me to traffic.
Bluegrass, it's an extremely narrow road that
connects these two neighborhoods, a road that's
many people walk on, it's young families out
there, it's the access to transit stop on
Sarnia Road, instead of walking down Sarnia, it's
safer to walk through that neighborhood.
And you'll see on Sunday when the church is open
for service, as well as when other events,
parking on bluegrass is is considerable and you
heard it mentioned it's right
on I've seen it you can barely get one car down
there so definitely a concern
of the traffic that this density is going to
going to bring so again if this
project was on Sarnia Road I would have no
problem with it but I really do not
believe in my view that this is compatible with
the neighborhood this is
institutional facility and height of four stories
right smack dab in the
middle of a single family residence so I cannot
support it thank you chair seeing
no other speakers I return the chair to you thank
you counselor I'll look for
other speakers seeing none we have a motion
before us moved in second I will
- Closing the vote, the motion carries three to
two.
- Thank you.
That concludes our scheduled items.
I don't see any items for direction.
That leads us to deferred matters list.
I'll look for a motion to accept
the deferred matters list from staff.
Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Cutty
and we'll open the vote on that.
- Closing the vote, the motion carries five to
zero.
- I believe we've gone through the agenda.
I'll look for a motion to adjourn.
Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor Hilliard
and a hand vote on that.
closing the vote, the motion carries.