City councillors in London, Ont., have rubber stamped a development plan intended to guide construction surrounding Victoria Park, marking the end of plan’s five-year journey to final approval from city hall.
The Victoria Park secondary plan, which can be read in full on the city’s website, outlines rules for future buildings surrounding the downtown green space.
It includes minimum and maximum heights on new developments, which range from as low as two storeys to as high as 35 storeys, specific guidelines on land use, such as a ban on drive-thru facilities, and a goal of achieving “a 25 per cent affordable housing component” in the plan’s boundary area.
While the plan has received more than its fair share of criticism, as was noted in the latest committee meeting on the matter, it was poised for final approval during council’s meeting on Tuesday.
Ward 10 Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen put forward a motion to amend the plan so that the minimum height for Part A of the West Policy Area, which encompasses the land surrounding St. Peter’s Cathedral Basilica, would be reduced to one storey rather than two.
“The (Roman Catholic Diocese of London) is looking at putting in a rectory — some office space, meeting space, what-have-you — a modern, good-looking building which would fit perfectly next to the beautiful cathedral,” Meerbergen said.
Fellow councillors had little support for the motion, which threatened to delay council’s approval of the plan even further.
- B.C. officer alleged sexual assault, CSIS had her investigated
- Alberta to overhaul municipal rules to include sweeping new powers, municipal political parties
- Military judges don’t have divided loyalties, Canada’s top court rules
- Norad looking to NATO to help detect threats over the Arctic, chief says
“If the Diocese wants to submit an application for something that’s inconsistent with the secondary plan, they’re free to do so,” said Ward 2 Coun. Shawn Lewis.
“I’m not inclined to alter the plan for one applicant. If we’re going to do that, then I think respectfully we need to send the whole thing back to staff because other applicants have asked the same and we’re not giving them that consideration.”
In her comments against the motion, Ward 9 Coun. Anna Hopkins said “it’s really important to understand that it’s been five years.”
“We have received numerous, numerous comments and referrals back on this and I think I’m going to be very cautious. If we say yes over here, are we opening everything up again?” Hopkins said.
“I’m not prepared to do that. Our staff have spent immeasurable time (and) energy, the public has had extensive engagement on this.”
The motion to amend the plan failed by a vote of 12-2, drawing only support from Van Meerbergen and Ward 1 Coun. Michael van Holst.
As for the overall secondary plan, it passed unanimously at Tuesday’s meeting by a vote of 14-0.
Ward 8 Coun. Steve Lehman was absent from the meeting.
Comments