Good afternoon everyone. It's just past 1 p.m. and I'd like to call the seventh meeting of planning and 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 Anesnabek, Hoden Ocean, Lenipewok, and Adawander. 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, Matei, 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 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 while calling for justice and systematic 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 peek pclondon.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Uh just let folks know councelor Stevenson member of pack is uh zooming today and councelor Lewis um is um is away might be joining us uh later on in in the meeting. At this time I'll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none uh we'll move on to consent items. We have three. I'll look to committee members. Uh, councelor Cuddy. >> Yes, chair. I'll move that. >> Okay. I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier. I'll look for comments or questions on on those items. >> Councelor Prible. Thank you chair and the chair to our staff. Uh, thank you for the Q1 report. I do have a couple of questions and uh 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 you somehow the outlook and you also used the uh word stable. Can you please kind of uh 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. >> I'll go to staff >> and thank you and uh through the chair. Um in this context uh counselor the word stable is intended to reflect continued permit issuance and inspection activity without further material decline from current levels. Um based on the projects in process and current uh issuance trends we're anticipating that development activity will maintain pretty stable this year. Uh 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. >> Counselor. >> Uh thank you for that. uh previous reports they st 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 uh the information about the inspections and reinspections can you please uh highlight why it's not included this one and if it will be in the future quarterly or monthly ones thank you staff and uh through the chair. Um so with the inspection numbers in previously 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. councelor. >> Okay, thank you for that. Uh I was happy to see the some of the numbers, the commercial numbers, they were up, which I hope it certainly is going to help us with our unemployment rates in the future or hopefully in the near future. But the industrial is way down. When we started this term, we started, you know, our uh price per acre was 165,000. Now we have uh innovation park phase 5 uh I believe 400,000 per acre. uh 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 uh how do we track of it so we again uh so we are not behind other other municipalities thank you >> oh go staff through the chair so um we don't have the the the team that actually deals with that. So that'll be for the most part the real realy team and then also our industrial uh development team. So um we'd be happy to to provide a bit of that analysis. But as far as the building permit process, we can't really speak to um specifically to that, but happy to provide that through um through those team members and provide response to the counselor as well. Um we I will say that uh whenever we're looking at industrial uh values and then the permits they are very up and down because one significant industrial user could could uh is usually a very significant amount of of uh of construction value. So they do really go up and down throughout the years and we we are of course working very closely with LEDC and bringing those new uh industrial users to the city. So um we are we think there's like some potential moving forward but um uh for the most part yes it was absolutely accurate to say that uh there has been a downtick in industrial at this point in the year. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thank you. I will thank you for that answer. I will follow up but I really would like us to look into it to make sure that again uh 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 visiting counselors or committee members. Just uh if the committee will permit me a quick comment, um building permits, which essentially is what we're looking for. We do a lot of work zone putting zoning through. Um it's not until shovels get in the ground that houses get built. Um I was looking with apprehension at the report that was coming out. So to see it down only 5.4% 4% uh in building permanent activity um was pretty good and then the comments um from councelor Pribble's questions about you know what's going to happen uh throughout the rest of the year also encouraging along with the work that um [clears throat] uh all three levels of government are doing um to encourage housing get built gets built even in these times of uh uncertainty economic uncertainty and so I'll I'll go So, uh, Mr. Mathers for comment. >> Yeah. Through the chair, just one one matter that we did want to just bring to your attention. This is since the, uh, uh, this is following the the March 30th date on the building the building report there. And, uh, just wanted to highlight that there is some um, uh, some concerns. So, I just wanted to note that since the federal and provincial announcement on March 30th related to the potential lowering of development charges, there is a hesitancy for uh applicants to actually want to have their permit issued. Um the reason for that is that there's just a fear that they might lose out on that that reduction of the DCS. So, we're very hopeful that there will be a future announcement from the province and and the federal government in just the timing of when that that those reductions or at least more ide uh background on the programs. Um, I have flagged this like personally several times to the CHC because this is the most critical time for us to get those permits across the uh the finish line and uh having that clarity for people to know that if they issue get their permit in their hand that they're not going to lose out on any future incentives is very important to uh to everyone involved. So, what we're very much focusing on from the building uh division side is trying to get as many permits to as close to issuance as possible and then um 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, um we're going to 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. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. 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 that is intended. Do you have any feel for when we're going to hear further details on that >> uh through the chair? We haven't um had a specific timeline that's been provided, but uh they are aware of the concern. So that's it's always the first part of that awareness and then uh so our hope is that in the next couple months that that will 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. Um, but if it gets closer to to that September date, it's going to be much more difficult. So, our hope is that it will be uh in the coming months. >> Thank you. I know the mayor is is uh speaking to uh those levels of government, specifically to uh Minister Flack uh which I will be following up with as well uh you know based on those comments. Mr. Mayers, thank you very much. I'll look for any other uh comments or questions regarding consent items. We have a motion moved in and second, so I'll call the vote. >> Thank you, >> Councelor Caddy. Sh. >> Vote yes. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Thank you. I'll just inform folks that uh deputy mayor uh Lewis is now online. So moving ahead to 3.1. Uh this is regarding 2120 and 2204 Heron Street. I'll look for a motion to open the ppm. Uh councelor Hillier and I'll second it and we'll call that vote. Cuddy votes yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. Uh, thank you. So, I'll look for members of the public would like to uh address committee on this uh 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. So, I'll look for a motion to close the ppm. Councelor Cuddy, second by Councelor Hillier, and we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. I'll look to committee now for looking for a motion. Councelor Cuddi. Thank you, chair. Um, this is my word, so I'm going to speak to it. I uh appreciate staff coming forward with uh with this recommendation. Um, this is a great area out there for development and I'm looking forward to seeing uh new activity. I was just out the other day on Robins Hill Road and I look over vast fields of uh uh of potential development and um I think it's a great opportunity. So, thank you staff. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, are you moving that counselor? So, yes, I'll move that. >> Thank you. I'll look for a second or counselor Hillier seconds. I'll look for comments or questions on this motion. Seeing none, we'll call a vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 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. Councelor Hillier, seconded by Councelor Cuddy, and we'll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 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. >> Uh through the chair. I'm Adam Lru. I'm here from Monteth Brown Planning Consultants. We're here on behalf of the property owner in regards to the zoning bylaw amendment before us at 299303 and 309 Springbank Drive. Uh I'd like to thank staff for their work on this file for preparing the recommendation of approval. Uh and we are supportive of their report and the attached bylaw. Uh we're available to answer any questions the 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. Uh so clerk if there's anyone online. The 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. Councelor Cuddy seconded by councelor Hillier. We'll call that vote. closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Uh okay. So now I'll put this on on the uh floor for councelor Cuddi. >> Chair, I'll move the staff recommendation. >> Thank you. And councelor Hillier has seconded. So I'll look for comments or questions regarding this item. Seeing none, we'll call the vote. closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Thank you. Uh moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 945 Blueg Grass Drive. I'll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier, and we'll call the vote. >> Hello. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Thank you. So, we'll go to the applicant. Um, is the applicant online or Oh, there she is. Hi. >> Hi. I'm sorry. I saw a picture of you on my screen. I thought you were online. Now, please give us your name. You have 5 minutes. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, committee members, and attending counselors. My name is Aaliyah Richards and I'm a planner with Zelinka Primo Limited. I'm joined by my colleague Matt Campbell as well as Harrison Jarlet, the president of Jarlet 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 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. >> [snorts] >> We have also provided a letter and alternative draft bylaw 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 the required surplus of long-term bicycle parking is unlikely to be used and reduce and would reduce the number of beds and units this site can reasonably support. With respect to the main entrance, the intent has been met, but we believe at the entrance location is more appropriately addressed through site plan approval rather than zoning. I would also like to acknowledge the residents of the Hide Park community who participated in the public openhouse and who submitted written comments. The level of engagement from the 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 changes 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. Storm water concerns were also raised. I want to emphasize that before development can proceed, detailed storm water management and grading plans must be approved by city engineering. These plans must demonstrate that storm water 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 are being addressed through additional staff recommended mitigation measures, significant landscaping along the perimeter of the site, and the 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 landscaping 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. Lemon is facing a significant housing shortage and an increasing demand for essential long-term care facilities. This proposal helps advance those citywide 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 muchneeded 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 balanced consideration for both neighborhood for both the neighborhood context and citywide needs. Thank you for your time and consideration and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Richards. Um, there's a number of people online, but I'm first going to go to folks in the gallery that would like to speak to this issue. >> Yep. Um, I would like to speak to you. >> We'll go to you first. Please give us your name, and you have 5 minutes. >> Yeah. Uh, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Uh, I have prepared remarks. Uh, I would like to read into the record if that's all right. Uh, my name is Rajni Ram Sager. I live at 92 1972 Cherrywood Trail. Uh the property at 945 Bluegrass Drive is directly behind my home. I'm here to ask this committee to refuse this application. Um the staff report frames this proposal as a modest increase in height and density on site where similar uses were already per 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. Um, what is before you today is fundamentally different. This proposal is 54 uh apartment units plus a 224 bed long-term care facility under section 3.4 of zoning bylaw 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 equivalent. 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. Um the height increases from 13 to 14.5 with rooftop structures that could bring the total to 18 m or above. density increases from 46 to 65 units per ectctor, 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 an 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 this scale was ever proposed, evaluated, or approved for this site. Saying the use is permitted does not reflect the magnitude of what is 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 fixing long-term care act 2021. It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Multiple daily staff shift changes generate concentrated traffic. Continuous mechanical systems run around the clock. Hback commercial kitchens, industry uh laundry, backup generators, ambulance access at all hours is part of normal operations for such a facility. Commercial scale deliveries happen daily. Uh placing that level of institutional activity directly between the single family homes on a quiet residential street in a quiet residential neighborhood is not appropriate land use planning. The planning question before you is whether the operational reality is compatible with the lowdensity homes uh 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 R813 established density cap of 46 units per parking requirements. a three-story height limit and a prohib prohibition on emergency care establishment. Those were not arbitrary. They reflected council's judgment about compat compatibility for this specific location. 6 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 reasonzoning 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 12th 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 applications. Thank you. Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. >> Please, ma'am, give us your name and you have 5 minutes. >> Uh my name is Anna Maria Velasro. So, a lot of us have had family members and long-term um care facilities and we'll know like staff, they go out of their way to have programs for their residents, uh 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 may have some other issues. And rather than um stimulate those residents, many of those residents are stimulated by looking out their windows or or having a place to go outside instead. Um if you've had family in these uh 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 set. 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 um to look out the 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 um staff um would allow uh the requirement of 80 m of frontage lot being reduced to 2 m and not um demand 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 um exclusive to family members. And so I I um I think that the the protections that are built into the Roman plan for these sorts of dilemas need to be upheld for those residents because 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 flying trees. Just a minute, Mr. Blastro. >> I'm sorry. Um, chair, >> point of order. >> Go ahead, >> chair. I I think our [clears throat] our speaker may be getting off topic talking about food and things like this. We're we're here to discuss um 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, counselor. Um, Miss Velasco was speaking to, I think, general amenities that uh were particular to this development. Yeah, she was drifting a bit uh maybe into some other areas, but that's, you know, just the generalities of of talking. So, just make sure you keep it to this. I will, but but please please go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, so I think that the the development doesn't meet uh the requirements of the residents. There's no commitment to family members occupying those uh 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 this the changing of the seasons or can go out and get some fresh air that's not a parking lot. So, I don't think that this development uh deserves your approval. And like I said, there's no commitment that the residential area is the res the residents are going to um be dedicated to family members at Mc 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. There's 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. is non-specific and um I do think the height I think the previous speaker had a point that the height of 4 m and then everything that goes on top of the roof is not really uh 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 um acknowledge the concerns of residents um like their applicant did um and then goes ahead and dismisses them um I personally find that condescending. If residents bring up legitimate concerns, that should be a trigger that you start a conversation and you you make you work it out. Okay. Just acknowledging those concerns and then you throw them out isn't good enough. >> 30 seconds. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Oops. Uh, 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. Uh, good afternoon committee members, city staff, and members of the public. I'm Charles Smith. I am a young lifelong resident of the Oakidge Crossings neighborhood in Northwest London. I'm also the founding vice chair and head of communications for the Oakidge 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 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 resident 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 bluegrass 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 in 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 3:00 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 storm water management report has been submitted. Residents have highlighted the fact that no storm water 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 damage 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 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 on site. 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 excuse me on the adjacent residences. And number four, not conforming to legislative precedents. There is already legislative precedent that currently exists that would not allow the 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 bylaw that was passed in regards to 945 Bluegrass Drive just 6 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 amenity. 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 latigious action being taken against the city on grounds of negligence liability based on the principle of foreseeability 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 construct 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 2 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'll 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. 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 Plet Campbell. I've been living in the northwest [snorts] London neighborhood of Oakidge Crossings for about 20 years. I'm also the founding chair of the Oakidge Crossings Neighborhood Association. Well, you have just heard concerns from area residents in regard to the proposed sorry, excuse me, development at 945 Bluegrass Drive. I would like to share some concerns that the neighborhood association has. A big concern is that we have is 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 playgrounds, 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 are two lanes. One going one way, one going the other way. Meanwhile, for the other park, which is Capulate Park, the parking situation is a bit better um but still not the greatest. There are parking spots around Capulate 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 events. Half of the Beaverbrook Woods Park is on a hill. The Weatherfield Park terrain 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 Blueg Grass 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 Blueg Grass Drive site, how about the city can either give another parcel of land to the developers for free or sell it to them at a reduced cost 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 Blueg Grass 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 Councelor Lewis a speedy recovery. Thank you. >> Thank you. And uh on behalf of uh Deputy Mayor Lewis, um I'm sure that was very nice for him to hear. I see a gentleman coming to the mic right now. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. >> Uh Patrick Lauria. I live on uh Beaverbrook Avenue. Uh I've lived there for about 20 years and uh I didn't expect to speak, so this is going to be adlibd. 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 uh I guess pickle ball is taking over. So, a couple pickle ball courts would be fine. I wouldn't play, but okay. So, I started looking at this and Steve knows Steve knows me cuz I sent him a lot of letters and I had an idea about this and I it seems so crazy like okay today I found out from one of Steve's notes that who the person is that's going to want to do this. And no, it's not somebody who can buy on the stock exchange. It's some company that has a small uh one-story long-term care place in in White Oaks and they indicated they had like 126 on their waiting list [snorts] and I've sent Steve announced like 168 parking spots which is one less than 169 which would be 13 squared which is very unlucky. And I've also told them I I'm the one that's pasted on that stupid sign telling us about how wonderful our life will be after this development. I put on um several times the signs been taken down something like they pave paradise Johnny 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 um soccer field 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 [sighs] but maybe it isn't that funny. Maybe it does offer a possibility. It still seems like a joke to me. But uh if you examine the two properties are almost identical and there's all kinds of building going on all around that great club. I don't think anybody would mind too much having a retirement home there. It's right off of Sonia Road. Now would there be any good thing coming out of this thing? Yeah. We'd get a traffic light on the corner of Sonia and Beaverbrook which is badly needed right now. Um, I've already got we the people have mentioned about trouble with uh traffic. I've already got three friends that don't even bother trying to do a left turn on starting Beaverbrook. They'd rather go a mile or two out of their way to avoid that. And me, well, 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 turn. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Laura. I'll look for any other speakers in the gallery. Seeing none, I'll uh go to those online. Uh first, uh Hannah Keys. Uh do you hear me? >> Hello, >> Hannah Keys. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Uh we can. Um you have five minutes. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. I will uh be brief. I'm sorry I have a sleeping baby on me right now. That's why I'm unable to attend in person. Um but just to echo um you know my neighbors as well and um I want to thank them for their comments that they have made and and I do agree with them about the increase of size and concerns about uh the increase in traffic in the neighborhood as a whole. Um I live closer to Beaverbrook. Um and I've been in this neighborhood for about 10 years now and I have a very young family. Um and the increase of and the type of increase of apartments and facilities and you know staff members 247 going through Beaverbrook. Um I 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 I find quite unsafe to even walk to the nearby parks and try to cross those roads due to these um you know, people trying to do that. So, the increase in traffic in that area is a great concern to me. Um, in addition, um, I'm not sure if if it has been in one of the reports already, but I do have concerns about the increase in traffic for the, um, High Park and Sarna intersection as well. Um, I have, uh, children in daycare in that, um, that, uh, corner of that little plaza. Um there is a it's important in that plaza as well which in the morning makes quite a dangerous um commute into the daycare and into that turn and there's not a very long left-hand turn at that intersection. Um that's not a very large parking lot. the increase of the the workers 24/7, the residents who may temporarily be living um in the apartments, they will be, you know, frequenting this plaza. And 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 times, especially in the morning. Um, 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, um, or if there's going to be a change in how those lights are going to operate, uh, you know, and increasing in in the left-hand, you know, turn lane, making it longer, making increases in in the right-hand turn lane, making it longer as well. Um, so those are just some additional items that I do have uh some concerns about and and I'm not sure have been addressed in the letters that have already been presented by my fellow neighbors. Um, but other than that, you know, that would would be all the additions that I would have to to add today. So, I wanted to thank you for your time and for for hearing me. >> Thank you, Miss Keys. I'll go to the next person online, Anna Dietrich. Can you hear me, Miss Dietrich? Hello. Yeah. Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can. Uh, please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Hello. My name is Anna Dietrich. I live on um Wild Rose Lane, which is a two-minute walk uh from 945 Blueg Grass. Uh we've lived here uh for about 10 years now and we have three small children and we find that um building uh long-term care home uh and apartments is just not suitable for this neighborhood. There's a lot of young families that uh have their children play in the park, whether it be baseball, run around with dogs, uh play soccer, exercise, people come with rubber bands and do their pools and things like that. And just the green space itself, it's just so pleasant. It's heartbreaking to let it go is one thing, but it's also the amount of stories that is proposed, four-story apartments, is just not fitting. Uh the increased traffic would make the roads very unsafe. We already have one long-term care home just uh a bit east uh of the proposed area uh and uh it's on Sarnia and it makes uh quite a few accidents uh going home uh down our streets uh because uh you know nurses are 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 [clears throat and cough] as we have so many young children in the neighborhood running around on their bicycles etc. Uh and as you know you can say it a thousand times to them but they don't always look when they cross the road. Um, so, uh, the safety is a big concern, uh, as well as just losing that green space and, um, we don't find that it's going to be a value ad to our neighborhood to build long-term care home or, um, high-story apartments. Um, we would rather see a park uh or a community center or a public library or even a gym, anything um that would actually benefit and would fit with the neighborhood as opposed to uh take away from our neighborhood, decrease housing prices uh of our homes and just decrease the enjoyment of the area. Um there is a lot of uh people that uh use this green space to socialize uh to play to run around and this particular area draws a lot of people. Um there's not enough um outdoor activities, outdoor equipment I would say for adults and for children in our neighborhood. Um we see a lot more in Oak Park uh which is um uh around High Park and Oxford intersection. Uh there is Oakidge Arena on one uh side and then diagonally there's Oak Park. Both are um both of them have a lot of equipment and u people can enjoy lots of different sports there. Whereas uh this area is quite far from it and it would benefit us uh and our neighbors to have more equipment and u more things that uh you know neighbors can enjoy here as opposed to um you know create more dangerous road situations where there may be accidents um involved uh with especially with the young children. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you Miss Dietrich. Um, we'll go online again. Ronic, if you can hear me. I um, please give us your full name and you have five minutes. >> Yeah. Hi. Um, uh, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and, uh, member of committee. Uh, I have prepared a remarks I would like to read into the record. Uh, my name is Ronak Patel. Um my property uh is at uh um uh 945 Bluegrass Drive is directly behind my home. Uh I'm here to ask this committee to refuse the application. I want to focus on what is actually being proposed behind our homes. Uh because I do not I do not believe the staff report fully captures it. This is not a residential development. This is a 22 24 bed institutional facility being placed directly between single family homes uh most of them with a schoolgoing young childrens on a quiet residential street in a quiet neighborhood. A long-term care facility at this scale is the most intensive form of senior care in Ontario. It it is regulated under the fixing long-term care act 2021. the 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 an institutional use. The the intensity of this proposal is fun fundamentally different from anything that exists in this neighborhood today. A 224 bed facility operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a week a year. It includes multiple staff shift changes generating concentrated traffic at predictable times. It relies on continuous mechanical system including HY, commercial, kitchen, industrial laundry and backup generators. It requires ambulance and par paramedic 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 the day and into the evening. These are not residential characteristics. These are institutional characteristics. What is also spe uh especially concerning is where this institutional facility is located on the on the site. Both both the provincial planning statement and the London plan 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 uh 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 at the the 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 uh show runoff increasing by five to 10 times. My own home uh sustained water damage in July 2024 while this field was still entirely permeable. I I incurred a repair cost of 8 11,000 and a neighbors documented basement flooding in 20 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 public record. Homes on 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 18 185, residents have no right to appeal this decision on uh to the Ontario land tribunal. The decision you make on May 12th is a final. The scale and intensity of this proposal are [clears throat] not compatible with this neighborhood. For this reason, I respectfully ask this committee to refuse the application. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I'll look for other speakers from that are online. Uh, Benowski, >> can you hear me? >> Uh, yes. >> Uh, please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> I just wanted to echo that what everybody's been uh saying, all the concerns that have been raised here. Um I live on Red Tail Trail which is uh adjacent to the property in question. Um and the only thing I I wanted to add is that in this neighborhood we do lack green space as one of the people have uh raised that concern and this uh uh proposal is not helping. It's it's hindering uh the issue that we have in this neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I'll go next to Deborah Teros. Can you hear me? >> Um, I can hear you, I think. >> Um, >> I can hear you. I apologize. Apologize if I got your last name wrong. >> Oh, that's okay. It gets butchered all the time. Don't worry. >> Please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Thank you. My name is Deborah Tus. I have a familial uh 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 depth 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 lowdensity 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 deer ridge neighborhood. What there is are courts, trails, gates, and one drive, bluegrass drive. None of these roadway designations is intended to flow 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 its 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 than less than one cook? I don't understand. Its pathway purpose is that of a two-lane eastbound westbound channel and it provides vehicular connection to locals. Red tail trail is about 40 m meters away from the roundabout. A backside vehicular entry to Gateway Church is about 60 meters away. And this Bluegrass Drive ends with a roundabout at Cherrywood Gate. Cherrywood Gates purpose is primarily to connect the Cherrywood Trail community with the Red Tale Trail community. I have to add that currently even uh 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 Sarna Road. And that's not uncommon. Uh the traffic that exists due to recent town houses being constructed and on Sarnia Road is a concern. There's also 80 801 Sarnneia Road where there's currently an eightstory apartment building that's in progress and another sixstory that is pending application to my knowledge and the competing flow through traffic from Beaverbrook Avenue when we try to exit our neighborhood. The Greek center traffic and the school and city buses is already dense. current construction. Well, pardon me, the potential for twin 15story towers on nearby Hyde Park Road at Sarnia Road basically will surely add to the traffic density of Sarnia Road. It just is seems untenable. Additionally, and with No, I'm not I'm not going to say that part. Just one moment. I understand why the developer sees this property as something that could be market driven and industrial and works great. Uh the property was as said before 2019 authorized to go ahead with a threestory uh uh 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 and is making their voices heard on this. I really do appreciate. Thank you again. >> Thank you. I'll go to the next uh speaker online. Uh Jennifer Spinny, if you can hear me. >> I can. Good afternoon. >> Great. Um please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Okay. Thank you, dear council and members of the planning environment committee. My name is Jennifer Spinny and I reside at 771 Red Tale Trail. My home backs onto the property in question or 945 Bluegrass Drive. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today about our Dear 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 Deeridge 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 and 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 post the flyers on mailboxes. Another resident supplies the coffee and hot chocolate. Another person takes the pumpkins to the farm for the pigs. Our Deeridge 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 Offsalt 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 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 calmer 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 care long-term care institution situated within four-story buildings that operates on a 247 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 site in question, especially on Sundays during services offered by the Gateway Church. Constructing a highdensity 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 lowdensity 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. to it more. >> Uh, I'll go online uh to Lamand Ma. You can hear me. Lamand Ma, >> good afternoon. >> Uh, please go ahead. You have five minutes. >> Thank you. Um, I'll try to be brief. I've listened to my neighbors on the Facebook group as well as several of my neighbors uh today uh in presently in front of the council and fortunately I couldn't be there. Um I'm going to first of all speak state I was born and raised in London Ontario. I moved away for probably about a decade before having to move back home. Um in doing so I came back with the thought of building a family and in 2005 I I chose to build a home in the Deer Ridge neighborhood. The reason I chose this neighborhood was it was quiet. It was far away from major roads. It appeared peaceful uh away from commercial buildings, traffic. I picked this neighborhood because it appeared to be a good location to stay for the long term and raise a family. Fast forward probably about a year or two after that. Um, I was probably I think at the time there's probably only four houses uh that were actually up and I was one of the four. And then shortly as the other houses were were being built, uh 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 uh 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 their way, they've actually contributed positively to the neighborhood. But the traffic uh in the church in combination with the proposal is is changing the the character of the neighborhood and what I believe was intended to be a lowdensity residential neighborhood. I'm hopeful that city council is going to do their best to maintain the character of 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 uh had concerns or thoughts as to what make might uh uh be built back there. We went through the 2019 um decision of council to allow I believe it was three stories at the time. My concern is multi multiple uh concerns. One for myself as an individual. Secondly, uh for my neighbors and what they may have to um endure or uh worry about with this development coming through. Uh we've talked about drainage, we've talked about noise, we've talked about excess traffic. Um but as my neighbor Jen uh already conveyed, it's it's a residential neighborhood that is looking like it's going to be commercialized. Um I hope that council recognizes that the proposals are going to be dramatic changes to the neighborhood if if they go through. I recognize that there's a need for residential um uh an increase in residential neighborhoods. One of the other neighbors already mentioned it. I think it's more of a concern with affordability than availability. Uh 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 uh Laura. Laura, can you hear me? Laura, >> hi. >> Hi. Uh, you have five minutes. Please go ahead. >> Okay. So, I will make my um my statement pretty quick because I'm here with my two kids looking at a little mouse outside our house. We [laughter] live that. >> Um, 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. >> Um, and we've loved it here. It has gotten busier over the last 10 years. Um, we've seen an a great increase in foot traffic. When we first moved here, everyone we bumped into on Cherwood Trail, we 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 and um Sarnia. There's grocery stores there now as well. >> So we see a lot more pedestrian traffic through the neighborhood through Bluegrass. Um kids, seniors as well. Uh so vulnerable populations 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. Um 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 and parking I see on Cherrywood and Bluegrass today. And my concern is how it will worsen over time with an increased um with this new proposal that is much more like increase in terms of um scale. So what I see today is every Sunday I do see traffic problems on bluegrass which I think have which have already been addressed but at times you can't even pass. Um, sometimes you're headto-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 uh vulnerable people um 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. Um, and again at times on Cherrywood Gate, even this little gate [laughter] and on Cherrywood Trail that connects Sarna to Bluegrass. >> Sorry Nikki here. You want to see the mouse? >> Um there 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. um from this facility, we um 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 um kind of ignoring Nicholas here. So, >> thanks for your time and um thanks to everyone that's come out and thank you Steve for um and everyone on the council for listening to us today. So, thanks. [laughter] Thanks Laura and thanks Nicholas and your sibling there for uh [clears throat] for participating. Um I'll go to the next speaker. Leavonne Robinson. Can you hear me? Leavonne one more time. Lan Robinson. >> Okay. Who's next? >> That should be that it should be. >> Okay. One one last chance. I think that's uh the list. That's it for the list of speakers online. And I'm not hearing from uh Ron 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 don't see anyone come to the microphone. So, I'll look for a motion to close PPM. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier, and we'll vote on that. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to Z. >> Okay, I'll put this on the floor for committee. Councelor Cuddi. >> Thank you, chair. I'll move the staff recommendation. I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Hillier is indicating he will second. So I'll look for speakers on this. Councelor Cuddy. 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 uh everyone who was online. I've never don't think I've ever heard that many people online before. And uh you know community engagement is is what this is all about, right? It's about coming in telling us what you think and and your opinions. Um, you know, I have a lot of I have a lot of student residences in my ward and um this is not a student residence. This is a long-term care home facility and um there's a big difference as we all know. Um I have also have a long-term care facility in my in my ward called Henley Place. It's just off Cedar Cedar Hollow and it's a wonderful facility and the residents and the neighbors all get along. It is from what I can see they all get along. There's cooperation. They take pristine care of the gardens and of the of the area around Henley Place [snorts] and the residents appreciate that. and they don't have an abundance of of green space to walk, but they make the best of what they do. And it it's a it's a great collaboration between residents, residential and long-term care. And I think you can see this. I think you'll see the same with the facility that's being proposed here. I did hear some concerns about um flood planes and and I want you to know I'm on the upper temps conservation authority board and if there was an issue with the flood planes or if there was concern we wouldn't be at this stage right now and I I could defer to the planning uh planning department and they'd probably confirm what I've just told you. I I did have some issues with the four stories, but after looking what the planning department has has recommended, I I think it's it's workable. And um I think this is something that's going to be a real contribution to your area in the long term. And again, it's it's not a student residence. It's long-term care facility. And I think that's what's really important. You're not going to have parties and so on going on like that. I I I do think this is going to be a a real a real benefit in the in the end because you'll know what you'll have there and you'll have I think you're going to have quite a quite a nice facility. So that's all uh I have to say. Chair, I'll be I'll be supporting this. Thank you. >> Okay. Councelor, you did raise the issue some water issues and and it was a couple comments from u the public regarding um drainage and water. So I was wondering if staff would could comment on that. Sure. Thank you through the chair. Um, so a storm water report and grading plan was not required at the zoning stage. Uh, 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. Uh as you move west towards Sarnia Road, the elevations get lower. So the homes that exist on Cherrywood Trail are higher than the properties to the west of them. [snorts] It's a common occurrence uh being higher than your neighbor in this area. As mentioned, currently storm water is 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 and 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 storm water perspective because storm water 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 >> Thank you. I will go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Deputy Mayor, please go ahead. >> Thank you, chair, and and uh through you. Uh I do want to say thank you to the uh resident who sent well wishes for a fast recovery. I am on the mend, but it is slow going. Um, and I I'm trying to be here today as best I can uh remotely. It's going to be a few days before I get back to work, but uh in person at least. Um, uh, I do want to just respond to a couple of comments because I think they're important. I want the residents to know they were heard, but but when it comes to the green space issue, I think it's really important to underscore that this was never designated as as green space or city parkland. It's it's been in private ownership. It was always slated for development. Um the parks and recreation master plan doesn't identify it as as a need in the neighborhood. There is a need for a northwest community center. Um that will be a much bigger uh build than what would fit on this property. Um but I do want folks to know that that is something that uh both councelor Layman and councelor Ramen and the mayor uh have been talking about. We need some federal funding to help that build. we have some money set aside for one. Um, but it's going to need to be on a bigger piece of land than what is available here uh to provide all the amenities necessary. So, I did want to share that the Northwest Community Center continues to be on our radar. We are working on it. Um, I I appreciate staff's comments on the storm water. I was going to mention as well that normally, you know, the the details the the storm water management details get worked out in site plan, but staff gave an excellent overview of what they've done in their planning evaluation so far. So, I won't spend any time on that. Uh I certainly hear um and we hear it everywhere um concerns about traffic increasing across the city. Uh and that's why we've been working on a master mobility plan. It's also why when and I heard a resident comment on uh the lefthand um turn not being uh long enough at one of the major intersections and that's something certainly that I know councelor Layman can talk to traffic uh to transportation staff and and see if the timing needs to be changed. Uh I've had a couple of those in my ward where I've gone to them and and said can you review the timing? I think with some of the new development we need a longer turn signal [clears throat] and that in fact has happened. um they've adjusted the timing so that more cars can get through. Uh so that is certainly something to address um in in terms of the wider traffic, but it it's not reflected in the planning decision we have to make and and we have to stick within the planning act and and the London plan and the ZBA, sorry, the zoning bylaw. Try not to get into acronyms. Um and so when we've got the traffic impact assessment and and staff have said there's no particular concerns and that some of the school zone concerns can be addressed locally uh through trafficcoming and other appropriate measures. I I can't say no based on a traffic concern. So uh I will be supporting this file. Uh but I I did hear the concerns. I want residents to know that. I think staff did a great job just now talking about the storm water management piece. Um and and for me, I really wanted to highlight the fact that uh while I recognize you've been using it as green space and and that will be lost, um it wasn't green space that the city can give you, but it is something where we recognize that a community centered need uh with some good open space on the community center building location uh 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 councelor PBLO. >> Thank you chair. I just have um some comments if you can actually provide me staff comments what was heard from the gallery from the representative from the neighborhood association. Uh it stated that there were incomplete parts of the submission storm water has been already discussed. I'm just going to go one by one but if you can just comment for that please. noise study. >> I'll go staff >> through the chair. A noise study um was submitted as part of this application. The noise studies are typically only reviewing uh noise impact from the roadway. We have included a direction to site plan to kind of um update the noise study to look at mitigation measures from the rooftop mechanical equipment uh based on feedback from the public. >> Thank you. Transportation study not including emergency vehicles. Go staff. >> Thank you. Through the chair. We actually have uh Assad Yus Yusfani online. He's the transportation manager. So I'll pass it to him. Thank you. >> Please go ahead. >> Yeah. Thank you through the chair. Um my name is Assad Yani. Yeah. Um 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 definitely be asking the um traffic consultant to provide all detailed information and all addressing all the possible issues like for example uh any uh traffic flow mitigation measures and any emergency vehicle arrival and and safety for the pedestrians and so on as per the site plan stage. >> Counselor. Thank you. No shadow study. >> Go staff >> through the chair. Um, in accordance with the urban design brief terms of reference, um, 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. >> Counselor, >> thank you. And last comment that was made, it's nonconfirming 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 uh provide. Thank you. >> I'll go staff. through the chair. I believe this is in relation to the current zoning on site and London plan. Um through staff's review of the application, we do believe that it's in conformity with the London plan um and the zoning bylaw. >> Councelor, thank you for your answers. That was all my all on my list. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I'll look for other counselors of the committee or visiting counselors. Seeing none. Oh, okay. Councelor Ramen, please go ahead. >> And thank you. And through you, I think councelor Trusso and I were trying to decide who was going to go first there. Um, so I want to just take a moment to uh thank the residents that have come out today to speak on this application. Um, I represent the ward uh across um and so I understand this area and uh spend a lot of time at Gateway Church as well. So, uh, appreciate hearing from you on on this matter. Um, I'm wondering if I can through you ask staff. Uh, so the area, as far as I understand, um, the allowable height was three stories and the applicants asking for four. Um, and I'm just wondering if there were any considerations by the applicant for less stories. >> I'll go staff. through the chair. I'm going to defer that to uh the applicant themselves for the decreased height. >> I'll go to the applicant. >> Can you hear me? Oh, sorry about that. It's Matt Gamble here from Zelinka Priamo. We did look at a three-story building, but unfortunately the economics of a project of this nature is necessitating a little bit more building area so there can be more long-term care uh beds in the building. And so the economics of it really are being driven or driving that fourstory height. Uh we do have the the owner's representative here. Uh we might be able to ask uh that question a different way. Uh if the committee is looking for more detailed information. >> Thank you. I'll go back to the counselor. >> Thank you. And through you, I'd really appreciate a more detailed answer. So that would be greatly appreciated. Uh maybe on the economic side of the argument um could you pro give us a ballpark of what a unit like this would go for? >> Please go ahead. [clears throat] >> Sorry. and I'll I'll try to explain the best I can and feel free to ask me for any further clarifications, but essentially uh 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 the province. Uh 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 the province itself and that funding formula changes depending on the areas you're in. But the province has divided it into four separate areas. Uh we fall into the southwestern area of that funding which basically covers everywhere other than nor very northern remote Ontario or the uh 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 it's for us it's getting the the scale of that development up to be able to afford the underlying land. So the purchasing purchasing of the land all ties into our our ability to develop. So once that's developed, then we'll get the funding from the the province to cover the cost of the other land. Okay. Um I'm sir sir, you're going to have to keep quiet. Okay. We had the time to listen to yourself and others and now it's time for others to speak. Um go ahead counselor. >> Uh thank you and through you and I really appreciate the answer to the question. Um sorry just to better help my understanding though. Um, so what you're saying is the proforma 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, counselor. >> Thank you. Um, and the apartment though is a private venture. It's for for profit only. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, that Yeah, that's 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. >> Counselor, [snorts] >> thank you. And through you, sorry, just to clarify. So that your definition of affordable, >> sorry, my definition of affordable would be we'd be basically uh around market rent for that area. Um plus or minus the services that we typically add on. So most of our seniors apartments are designed with added services to support seniors uh as they're aging and provides that continuum of care on that site from more independent in the senior's apartments and then transitioning to that higher level of of of care which typically flows to a retirement home. Now, uh, residents can still access care services like they would in their own home there before, um, their care needs increase to where they would need long-term care. >> Counselor, >> uh, thank you through you. Maybe to staff. So, my understanding, 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 um say anything really about market rent. >> I'll go to staff. >> Uh thank thank you through the chair. Um the application is to permit an apartment building. We zone for land uses, not users. So, there's no specific um uh demographic that this would be zoned for. It's just an apartment building. And uh to our knowledge, we're reviewing this as an apartment building. Um no affordability taken into consideration. Again, we're reviewing for land use. >> Counselor. >> Uh thank you. And through you, maybe back to the applicant. Um I just wanted to get a better sense because I'm hearing the applicant 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 uh seniors as our as our residents who typically have loved ones that live in the long-term care home. Typically what I see uh because I've been in this industry it's you know their spouse is traveling to see their spouse every every single day and in order to you know make that more amendable for their their lifestyle and and their health. uh we try to u augment by having those those apartments close by and marketing that senior demographic and setting those apartments up uh so that they're they are senior friendly but the apartments themselves wouldn't have like specific [snorts] uh use to that. That would just be what we we would be looking for um to to target that towards towards seniors. >> Counselor >> uh thank you and through you. So, I just want to say um appreciate the conversation and the ability to better understand the application and the use that 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 um and see your concerns and hear them. Uh, and I'll continue to listen as we make a decision on this application in the coming weeks. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Trussa. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, also, um, just so you know, I'm not through the chair, I'm not a member voting member of this committee. I'm I'm a guest. Uh, and I will be able to make amendments, vote at council. Uh, here I can only speak. And I'm going to 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 to allow to allow this with all of the questions that we have. If it was just the storm order. >> Chair, point of personal point of uh order. >> Deputy mayor, go ahead. >> It is inappropriate for the visiting counselor to be uh denigrating the work that our planning staff have done on this file, which he's just done. Uh that's not an appropriate uh action at all. And I'd request respectfully that the counselor withdraw his criticism of our planning staff. He may not like the application. Uh but that is not grounds uh to criticize our staff. >> Uh yeah, council, if I may respond. >> Hold on, Alissa. Hold on. Councelor, hold on a second. I have to deal with this. Um I 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. Um but you know, let 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 want to 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 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 going to be in keeping with our children and family neighbor neighborhood policies. I've I've heard no evidence that this is something that's going to 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 your children are cute, but we're just going to approve this. And that's not okay. We need to do better. Now, I want to 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 get a traffic study that talks about the cumulative impacts in the area and many people talked about some of the other uh uh impacts in the area. when we went through all of those uh applications on Oxford Street in my word earlier in 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 um people not getting hurt or killed in in traffic. And we're supposed to be creating neighborhoods that are safe and secure for residents, including children and and including seniors. And I don't think we're doing that. Now, I'm I'm not in a position to be able to offer any um amendments right now. They would not be uh they would not be in order. Uh when we get to council, hopefully there will be when we get to council, hopefully there will be an opportunity. But I think I can see where this is going. And uh I just don't feel as if uh 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 sincere argument for why we should be voting no on this. And as things stand now, I am definitely going to be voting no. Hopefully we can we can see this go back down to three stories with maybe some holding provisions but no to what it to what is here right now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll look for other speakers. Uh seeing none I'll ask um councelor Cody to take the chair please. >> Thank you councelor Layman. I will take the chair. >> Thank you. So I'm pretty familiar uh with this area. um met with a number of residents around there. I've been at, you know, Gateway Church a number of times um for various events. So, I'd like to just kind of comment uh on my perspective of this this particular area and this particular uh plan before us. I'd like to address three three issues, density, height, and traffic. Uh let's just start with the height. So, uh, a number of years ago, um, the neighborhood was here, uh, talking to, uh, an application before us, um, that was three stories, um, 80 two buildings, 40 units in each 80 80, uh, units. And um you know at that time uh there was a lot of misunderstanding thinking that that green space was uh a city park cuz uh the church was kind enough to have a couple of goalposts, couple of nets up so kids could play soccer and whatnot. Um but then kind of learned that uh that had been uh zoned for development. Something was going to be built on there. It was three stories. Um, so a little higher than than the neighborhood. But I think at that time, while there was concerns, there was um acceptance uh because of the affordable housing aspect to it. So, okay. Uh we got a couple buildings where we thought we had green space, but affordable housing. So, not like it crazily totally in favor of, but okay. This time, uh, it's a lot different. Um, the height, the height is, uh, being asked to go up to four stories. This is in the middle of a neighborhood. Essentially, what you have is you have, um, a space between between two neighborhoods connected by by bluegrass. If this was on Sarnia 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, um I I hear what people are saying and I tend to agree with them quite frankly. Um regarding the density, the density here is requesting an increase of about 64% roughly. Um you know uh the number of units or less 50 54 units I think or something but over 200 beds. Um and I think what we heard today uh is is important. Um with the type of facilities that density while people probably will not be driving around uh you're going to get a lot of traffic um that goes with uh the staffing especially of the long-term care facility. Um and it's going to be shift work, it's going to be deliveries and maintenance work, etc. Um, again, an impact in the middle of a neighborhood, which leads me to traffic. Blueg Grass is it's an extremely narrow road that connects these two neighborhoods. Um, a road that's uh many people walk on. Uh, there's it's young families out there. Uh, it's the access to a transit stop on Sarnia Road instead of walking down Sarnia. It's safer to walk through through that neighborhood. And you'll see on Sunday uh when the church is open for service as well as when other events the parking uh on Bluegrass is uh is considerable and you heard it mentioned and it's right on. I've I've seen it. You can barely get one car down there. Um so definitely a concern of the traffic that this density uh is going to going to bring. So again, if this project was on uh Sarnia Road, I would have no problem with it. But uh I really do not believe um in my view that this is compatible with a neighborhood. This is uh uh um institutional facility and height of four stories right smack dab uh in the middle of a single family residence. So I cannot support it. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, 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 and seconded. I will Closing the vote. The motion carries 3 to two. >> Thank you. Um that concludes our scheduled items. I don't see any items for direction. Uh that leads us to deferred matters list. I'll I'll look for a motion to >> um accept the deferred matters list from staff. Councelor Hillier, seconded by councelor Cuddy. And we'll open the vote on that. >> [snorts] >> Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to zero. >> Uh I believe we've gone through the agenda. I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. Councelor Cuddy. Seconded by councelor Hillyard and a hand vote on that. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries.