Kilworth PPM Re: Revised Zoning for New Subdivision


I attended last week’s public meeting regarding a revised re-zoning request being put forth for the Don Black lands. If you missed the first go around back in December 2013, just click here to see what happened then.

This most recent zoning application was a very, very different story from the first. On a side note, I was pleased to see some new faces amongst the crowd in attendance: some people I know but haven’t seen at a meeting before, some people that have recently moved to Kilworth, and others who have chosen to engage at this point.

For reference, here’s the public information packet. I’m hosting it myself since I don’t know how long the municipality will leave it up on their website. This was the information distributed to council and the public prior to the meeting – council only received it on May 22, just five days before the public meeting.

dbi-tridon-may272015-zoning-amendmentI was a few minutes late for the presentation from Tridon (who has replaced Stantec on the project). Here’s what I got from the presentation:

  • Asking for duplex, twinned, single detached, townhouses in the UR3 areas
  • Minimum 28m height is a typo, should read “maximum”
  • Claim that there will be three multi-use pathways – Daventry, Doan Drive, and the main north/south drag that will connect the South Winds Dev and Don Black dev, up to Glendon
  • Took inspiration from new 3-story walkup near Masonville for Block I
  • Talking about the school like it’s definitely going to be there; not a done deal, despite school board (which one?) expressing interest
  • Municipal staff asking to enhance Optimist Park; DBI/Tridon ready to place one or two soccer fields at Optimist Park; have retained park planner to help sort out the plan
  • Need to widen Glendon at two points, where new north/south street comes out and at Springfield Way

Questions I wrote down during the presentation (answers later):

  • Why is there such a massive difference between the proposal from December 2013 and this latest proposal?
  • It’s been almost 18 months since the original proposal came through. Why are we still at a phase where, really, there is no detail as to exactly what Don Black Investments and Tridon want to put on the land?
  • Who will pay for the streetlights on Glendon, and the eventual enhancement of Glendon/Vanneck/Coldstream/Jefferies (a.k.a. Five Corners)?

Questions and Answers:

  • Got clarification on what setback means, and they want to reduce it from 6m to 2.5m
  • Ken D. asked whether the traffic study had included cyclists or not; it didn’t
  • I followed up and asked why it hadn’t, and the answer was that the original study was very old and Tridon has never seen a traffic study that included cyclists
  • Al D is concerned about traffic, another 120 cars in the current development area; probably looking at ~1,000 cars mostly heading to London
  • Brian Lima, municipal engineer, municipality is looking at EA for Glendon Dr from bridge to 402, focus will be streetscape development; EA will produce baseline info to evaluate how to handle Glendon Dr
  • Mayor Edmondson says the want to get EA done before development starts
  • Al D asked when construction will start; Tridon went over the process, wastewater treatment pipeline still needs to be finished; hoping to have first housing done late 2016 or early 2017
  • Brian Lima says earliest EA will be complete is early 2017
  • Jane C, lives on Komoka Rd; does not support bylaw amendment application; OFA is calling for protection of multiple kinds of land, including this farm property; has a history with Tridon and protesting the way they do development in Komoka and her aunt’s land; much applause
  • Darren on behalf of Ratepayers Association; “I’m for development, but not this development. This development completely changes the face of Kilworth.” Lots of consistency now from river up to Stephen Moore and Baron Cres; and then there’s this proposal; pointing out how other developments by the same company are 40′ wide, 36′ wide, and 34′ wide; this is not for Kilworth
  • Ian T; how many more people is this going to bring? Average of 2.1 per household, but no one at Tridon wanted to do the math for us and give us a total number, potentially because the number of households to be built is still up in the air(?)
  • Zelinka Priamo representative (didn’t catch her name) has a problem with additional C1 (commercial) proposed as a big C1 hub is supposed to go on NE corner of Tunks and Glendon
  • New planning justification not submitted because DBI feels this is the same development with minor tweaks; this woman has been working on planning applications for 30 years and has never seen an application with such a huge lack of information
  • Jim C asks “Can I split an existing lot into a triplex?” Mayor says, “I don’t think you’d want that.” Jim responds “Exactly,” to a bit of laughter.
  • Victor N just moved here from Tecumseh, daughter suggested it as a beautiful area; retired from Canada Post management; seniors centre will likely be 3 or 4 floors, and many of those seniors won’t be able to get their mail; this plan will turn Kilworth into an area that’s no longer nice; no shopping, no buses; doesn’t make sense
  • Donna S is concerned that this doesn’t suit the existing neighbourhood; mentioned the 3 storey walkup in Masonville – it’s ugly, doesn’t belong here; very worried about traffic
  • How many cars is anticipated to exit onto Glendon Dr? 995 during AM peak time.
  • Parking and visitor parking would be put in place as per the bylaw(s) that require them

Answers to my questions:

  • The design is drastically different because the municipality asked us to go from two entrances to Glendon, down to one
  • Don’t have any idea what we want to market on C1 and some UR3 properties because we don’t have the zoning yet
  • Chances are that the conditions laid out by the County will say that the developer must pay for the new streetlights and enhancements to “Five Corners”

Later on I got a chance to read a statement I had prepared. It ended up being the final word of the night, though I didn’t intend it to be so. I was asked to cede the floor to others earlier in the night after asking my questions I had written down. The statement went, more or less, as follows:

I have some serious misgivings about the revised proposal being presented here today. Here are a few:

  1. This looks *nothing* like the original proposal presented December 4, 2013.
  2. I will say, on a positive note, that Daventry Way has been opened up. I appreciate that being taken into consideration after the last public participation meeting.
  3. On the other hand, the original proposal maintained a lot of flow with the existing settlement, and proposed wide path ways that would encourage active transport around the neighbourhood. In the documents we see today, those have been completely done away with.
  4. It appears that a 6 storey building is proposed for Block G. I fully understand the need for mixed housing, however a 6 storey building simply doesn’t make any sense outside of a larger community like Strathroy. People living in apartment buildings typically expect highly walkable areas, which, much as I enjoy living in this area, Kilworth and Komoka do not qualify as highly walkable areas, with Kilworth currently receiving a Walk Score of 9.
  5. The proposal doesn’t appear to contain anything that would significantly alter the Walk Score.
  6. Information about proposed heights for several blocks are missing from the proposal.
  7. The street design, frankly, is pathetic and will make the proposed settlement a nightmare to navigate. It doesn’t use the current set of best practices being used in the most walkable neighbourhoods worldwide.

Overall, this proposal simply contains far too much density for the area. I was mostly in favour of the original, but this has taken a drastic turn for the worse. I was happy to defend the original proposal, despite its minor flaws, but I cannot, in good conscience, ask Councillor DeViet to vote in favour of this proposal as it stands before us today.

That got a round of applause, as did many other statements made and questions asked by members of the public throughout the night. Mayor Edmondson had a hard time maintaining order at several points as people got fed up with the answers – and in some cases non-answers provided by Tridon. Needless to say it didn’t go well for Tridon and Don Black, and we hope the next version of the zoning application is very different. Whether the planner, Ben Puzanov, mandates another public meeting for the next iteration remains to be seen.

The London Plan – Initial Thoughts


I just finished reading The London Plan last night. It’s a good read, albeit much longer than I anticipated. I know the rationale for the length (it’s explained in the document), but it does make parsing the what, why, and how a bit more difficult. The video provides the highlights on precisely why The London Plan promotes what it does, and is worth watching. These are the things I jotted down as I went through the plan.


  • Focus on intensification — continuing to grow outwards is going to cost every citizen far more money in property taxes and user fees; it’s unsustainable.
  • Focus on more cost effective development (from a servicing perspective) — hybrid or compact growth model must be the focus
    • This does not, however, mean that new suburbs and single-detached homes will not be built. It means that a smaller percentage will be built than normal, and the focus will be on infill, intensification, and redevelopment of existing sites and built-up areas.
  • “Emphasis on neighbourhoods” — direct quote from the plan
  • Encouraging street grids; fewer courts and crescents, both of which greatly hinder efficient traffic flows
  • “Complete” neighbourhoods — the ability to age in place, have necessary amenities in your neighbourhood, etc.
  • Primary Transit Areas
  • “Growth pays for growth”
    • That means ensuring development charges actually cover the City’s costs of those developments; something the current City Council can’t seem to come to grips with.
  • Applications are only approved if they’re consistent with the Official Plan (this is probably true now).
  • Mandated(?) secure bike parking for multi-unit residential, commercial, institutional, retail, and recreational buildings.
  • Emphasis underground and structured parking, instead of surface parking.
  • Structured parking would be enhanced to look nice through the use of architecture, screens, etc.
  • Downtown transit hub to help more easily connect riders – Kitchener has a very good model for this.
  • Park and ride system; a boon for visitors to the City, and also for commuters. This would be my preferred method for getting around London.
  • Community housing strategy – a big win to help ensure an ample stock of affordable housing.
  • Greenhouses in civic gardens
    • Why not install these in local parks? Another way to meet neighbours.


  • No mention of building out high speed network infrastructure – The London Plan still leaves this completely in hands of the private sector, and that has not worked for London thus far. There are large swaths of the City where you cannot obtain fast, reliable, high speed Internet access. Internet connectivity is now the backbone for many businesses. It is now a must-have, not a nice-to-have.
  • There is nothing in The London Plan about reducing visual noise pollution; signs, signs, everywhere signs! I feel London needs a São Paulo, Brazil-like approach to reduce visual noise pollution and help beautify the city.


  • Did Toronto’s City Structure, or Official, Plan spur all the new condos downtown? If not, what did? Toronto’s condo market has been booming for several years now, and London is going to need something like this boom to build up the areas around the proposed rapid transit routes.
  • Point #933; home occupation – does this mean telecommuting 100% of the time (a.k.a. work-from-home arrangement like mine) won’t be allowed?

If The London Plan is executed through to completion by 2035, I think London and the region stand to benefit in a huge way. Property taxes will stay lower thanks to reduced servicing costs (you will actually get more for less), an even more cost-effective transit system with more ridership, good investment in your communities/neighbourhoods, and a plan/vision that will attract businesses and new residents alike. Now you need to elect the people that will ensure it starts getting executed in October.

A Response to London Chamber CEO Gerry Macartney


Yesterday, London Chamber of Commerce CEO Gerry Macartney decided to publicly weigh in on the controversy surrounding the PenEquity development on Wellington Rd S and Dingman Dr, just south of the 401. I have written extensively about the topic, and while I appreciate Mr. Macartney’s point of view on the subject as CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, I feel he’s off-base on several topics he addressed (not to mention he clearly hasn’t seen very many, if any, of the well written citizen blogs about the issue).

The PenEquity development is not a watershed moment for London. To believe that new retail development in London, or any city for that matter, is a “watershed moment” does the term “watershed” a great disservice. It’s certainly a high profile one given the tensions surrounding the issue, and the proposed location, but not a watershed moment.

I’ll agree that Sysco Canada choosing Woodstock over London for their distribution warehouse was a bit disappointing, but if I recall correctly there was very little discussion, if any, about Sysco in the media until after Sysco had chosen Woodstock. Was London ever in the running? Maybe not. I’ll give Mr. Macartney the benefit of the doubt in him having more “insider info” than I do, but Sysco never seemed to be on the radar until after we found out London wasn’t chosen for the location.

As for the Sun Life Industrial Park – please Mr. Macartney, give me a break. That was not going to be a boon of any sort to the local economy. It was a highly speculative venture that may or may not have panned out for Sun Life, and the potential tenants. Given the glut of empty warehouse and manufacturing space in the city, mostly on the east and south ends, I don’t see how Sun Life’s industrial park would have been filled in the middle of a recession. Sun Life pulled out because they saw the writing on the wall, and likely decided they could put all of their old paperwork elsewhere for the time being. If you’re going to bring up an issue like this one, let’s look at where the economy was going just as Sun Life decided to nix the entire proposal near the end of 2009.

Of course the City, and the rest of the County around it, will accept deals that cost money, don’t produce only 6 figure incomes, and impact the environment somehow. Have you not seen all of the new high-rise apartment buildings pop up downtown, near Oxford and Wonderland, and at Adelaide and Kipps? Lots of infill and brownfield development, which is much easier for the City to service and re-purposes existing land (as laid out in ReThink London – have you read that?). That’s smart development, if I do say so myself. There have also been several large industrial parks pop up on the east end near the airport, further south on Veterans Memorial Parkway, and of course we have the much-maligned SWAP moving forward somehow (though being ferociously challenged by many of the very developers that will eventually build there). Do yourself a favour and don’t make things are so full of shades of grey into a black and white issue. You’re doing yourself, and the Chamber, a great disservice.

As for the integrity of the woodland and “small pond” on the property, I would urge you to read the “Environmental & Parks Planning Section” of this document (starting on page 10) that went before council on June 25. You will note that, though a thorough assessment had not yet been done before this date, what PenEquity terms an “unevaluated vegetation patch” is of much greater importance than previously believed. In fact, that woodlot is helping to prevent the erosion of the very land PenEquity wants to build on. That sounds important, doesn’t it? As for the “small pond” created by run-off, I would argue that it’s a semi-natural pond now, and removing it could have disastrous consequences for any properties around it. Where do you suppose that water will go if that body of water is filled in and built on? Water doesn’t just disappear, you know? Given how that body of water was created, I would argue it’s actually serving a fairly significant purpose in preventing the flooding of the surrounding land. But neither you, nor I, are environmental experts.

To consider retail a “Gateway” is, dare I say, “old school” thinking. I fear you may not be keeping up with consumer trends. And to use Saks Fifth Avenue as an example of the type of shopping people will do at this new development, again, shows your state of mind. Saks Fifth Avenue is a very high end store that, in all reality, likely won’t do very well in London. And if it does, it will almost certainly be the death knell of similarly targeted local businesses that you don’t seem to care much about (Fisher & Co. and Channer’s come to mind). I am well aware that the City of London’s citizens need new jobs, but the funny thing is that a Saks Fifth Avenue, gas station, new cinema, etc. won’t be generating the types of jobs that keep Fisher & Co., Channer’s, or a Saks in business. Game development companies do, web development firms, manufacturing jobs, and other professional jobs do. I think you missed the “retail follows jobs” argument someone made recently, but it feels you’re thinking the other way around.

A lot of retail does move around, and the City already has plenty of empty properties ready for the filling by the very businesses you’re hoping PenEquity will bring to London. If you haven’t yet, take a look at this non-exhaustive list of under-developed retail properties I identified in June. As Chamber CEO, I would like to think you would be better off advocating for the family that owns London Mall to sell it to PenEquity, and entice PenEquity to snatch up that high visibility parcel of land, and turn it into something special.

Let’s look at some recent failings, in fact. Rona, Westmount Mall (which has been undergoing a hard fought renaissance for several years now, but still requires a great deal more tenants and traffic), and Citi Plaza has been going through a major redevelopment as well into a more office-friendly space, as well as the library relocating there, and only recently does it look to be viable for the future. Without the library, what would Citi Plaza look like? I wonder.

I’ll end this in talking about transit. Sir, what planet are you on? The LTC’s current service to the area is deplorable at best, running only during the morning and evening rush hours. If you’re hoping the LTC will get teenagers to and from PenEquity’s development, you’re either banking on their parents driving them to/from jobs there, or the LTC expanding its service out to (at least) 11pm to account for late cinema showings. Good. Luck. The LTC barely has the funding to continue operating its existing routes, and is woefully underfunded by the City compared to many other transit systems. The LTC does very well given how it’s funded now. So where does this extra funding come from? It won’t instantly come from ridership, which already bears quite a bit of the brunt. Indeed, if you think the LTC is going to start servicing the area, then be prepared to champion the cause for the City to expand funding, and increase everyone’s taxes and/or usage fees. Somehow I doubt you’ll be jumping on that bandwagon.

In all reality, very few of us are calling for the outright rejection of PenEquity’s proposal. What concerns me is the lack of foresight for the existing natural properties the land possesses, and the effect removing the trees and body of water will have on that very property, and properties surrounding it. Costco has also brought up issues with the traffic study conducted by BA Group (on behalf of PenEquity). But hey, no big deal, right? It’s not like ignoring environmental issues as ever caused us (“us” as in “humanity”) trouble before. Oh, wait…

I left out some of your points because I don’t have hard numbers to counter them. We don’t need the next Mayo Clinic or Microsoft to locate here. It sounds like you’re also missing the boat on the fact that small businesses account for more job growth in this country, as in the United States, than medium or large enterprises do. Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.

Letter to Coun. Henderson, Mayor Fontana, and other members of council


I just sent this letter off to all Councillors, but addressed primarily to Councillor Henderson and Mayor Fontana. Feel free to read it yourself. I assure you it isn’t all doom and gloom, but rather some more practical thoughts on the big developments going to City Council this evening.

Councillor Henderson, Mayor Fontana, and other esteemed Councillors,

I know that you have already seen a deluge of comments on several proposed developments that, to my knowledge, will all be brought to City Council later today. I’m going to do my best to share some pragmatic thoughts on three.

1. Wonderland Rd S & Wharncliffe Rd S – Extension of Wonderland Rd S and Southdale Rd W commercial area.

It is simply too soon to approve York Development’s plan for this area. With the Southwest Area Plan under heavy scrutiny and before the OMB, approving this plan now sends a message to other developers that due process means nothing to the City of London. It also ignores much of the feedback the City has received during the ReThink London process, and the public participation meetings that have provided feedback for the Transportation Master Plan and Downtown Master Plan currently in circulation.

I appreciate that London’s unemployment rate remains stubbornly high following the global recession, but far smarter people than I have pointed out again and again that retail jobs do not lead to prosperity. I would also like to see the City leave some money in its coffers, rather than spending it fighting a needless legal battle.

2. Dingman Drive & Wellington Rd S proposed development.

I have misgivings of this development, but the ultimate success or failure of this development is clearly up to PenEquity, the organizations that choose to locate there, and whether consumers choose to patronize this location. My primary concerns come down to two things:

a) The lack of transit outside of rush hour service (please reference the schedule for the 30 Newbold bus).

b) The PEC’s approval of removing a 4.2 hectare woodlot that, by all accounts, has been deemed environmentally significant.

Coun. Henderson, I note you expressed great appreciation for trees during one PEC meeting last week, but then voted in favour of allowing PenEquity to clear this woodlot. This strikes me as extremely odd in the Forest City, and that we really must push to protect woodlots deemed environmentally significant when possible. I don’t see why PenEquity cannot simply build around the woodlot, and ultimately I hope the development is referred back to staff to work with PenEquity on a new site plan.

However, if it’s true (as I have heard) that PenEquity doesn’t even own the lot in question at this point, perhaps it would be more prudent to encourage PenEquity to acquire an existing parcel of land in desperate need of redevelopment? For example, London Mall at the corner of Wonderland Rd N and Oxford St W. This would also fall in line with ReThink London and the Transportation Master Plan. Please give that some thought.

3. Fincore Development in SoHo.

I am actually quite happy with this development! I know that Fincore has some issues to work out with adjoining property owners, but overall I think this is a development I would like to see go through, with a few notes:

  • The City needs to do what it can to make sure it actually happens, like institute a clause in the land sale contract stating that, if Fincore does not begin development within a specified period of time, then the property is to be returned to its original owner (including the City and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority).
  • Ensure the general public has equal, or better access, to the waterfront after building is complete.

I thank you for your time and diligence on this matter. And for the record, I don’t feel a replica Eiffel Tower would do much for the City on its own, or without the Downtown Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Cultural Prosperity Plan, and the entirety of ReThink London comint to fruition. :) Besides, the Eiffel Tower’s been done. We would need something unique!

Derek E. Silva

UPDATE: As of 2:53pm, both Councillors Denise Brown (Ward 11) and Joni Baechler (Ward 5) have responded thanking me for my comments, and Ms. Brown and I have had a short back-and-forth about the changing attitudes amongst young people with regards to driver’s license acquisition and car ownership (dropping fast!). As I said on Twitter, acknowledgement goes a long way.

London’s Under Developed Retail


There are several, I assure you, under developed commercial developments well within London’s urban growth boundary. And after this and this, and even people asking where they are on Twitter this morning, I thought it prudent to identify them. You can click on the images below for bigger versions.

Spot #1 – Crossroads Centre at Wellington Rd S and Exeter Rd. No, it may not be the greatest location on Earth, but right now it’s just an ugly, highly under utilized land mass taking up precious space at a very busy intersection.


Spot #2: Corner of Deveron Cres and Commissioners Rd E. There was a Zellers there until recently, and a Tim Hortons, Food Basics (I think!), and Dollarama. The parking lot is half empty though and has plenty of space to be used by restaurants, smaller stores, health services, etc.


Spot #3: Notre Dame Centre at Viscount Rd and Notre Dame Rd. It’s already there, has plenty of space, and is under capacity last time I drove by. It’s prime to become a hub for this residential community if done right.


Spots #4 and #5: The corner of Wonderland Rd N and Oxford St W. London Mall is, well, an eyesore. It needs a massive overhaul and has plenty of empty parking spaces that are almost never used. And on the north side of Oxford St W, an empty field where corn used to grow. I think the Transporation Master Plan is attempting to designate this area for increased population density, so it may not fall in the plan, but the point is these spots are empty now, prime for development.


So again, I fail to see why an environmentally significant woodlot must be torn down for “progress” when, even despite the areas within the city that could use redevelopment, there are several pieces of land around PenEquity’s proposal without environmentally significant woodlots, like the below.