May 5, 2026

Original link

Official minutes have not been published yet. A meeting transcript is available below.

Meeting Transcript

Duration: 2 hours, 3 minutes

Source: Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (2 hours, 3 minutes)

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. 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.