Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, 101 Meadowlily Rd. S.
June 12, 2020
Mike Corby, Development Services, City of London
Steven Hillier, Ward Councillor – shillier@london.ca
Members of Planning & Environment Committee:
Maureen Cassidy (Chair) – mcassidy@london.ca
Jesse Helmer – jhelmer@london.ca
Arielle Kayabaga – akayabaga@london.ca
Anna Hopkins – ahopkins@london.ca
Stephen Turner – sturner@london.ca
Re File: 39CD‒20502 & OZ‒9192, Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, 101 Meadowlily Rd. S.
Dear Mr. Corby and Councillors:
On behalf of ACO London, I write with concern over the proposed zoning by‒law amendment to allow 52 condominium townhouses and 37 single detached dwellings at 101 Meadowlily Road South.
The proposal to place an urban/suburban townhouse/subdivision development squarely in the middle of one of the last remaining rural landscapes in the city is, in our opinion, the antithesis of urban intensification and the London Plan’s emphasis on growing our city inward and upward. The development is proposed for a parcel of land that is bounded on three sides by protected land: the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area to the east, the Meadowlily Nature Preserve (owned by the Thames Talbot Land Trust, donated to the TTLT by Carol and Rick Richardson in 2002) to the north, and the city-owned Highbury Woods Park to the west.
We believe that the proposed development is incongruous with the surrounding rural landscape and its heritage attributes. According to pages 58 and 59 of Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Thor Dingman:
“The HIA has identified two areas of potential impact from the proposed subdivision; 1. impacts that effect the heritage attributes of the cottage’s rural setting inscribed within the property; 2. impacts that effect the context surrounding Park Farm within a historic landscape. As the designation by-law states, the context of the house is crucial for maintaining a sense of the original setting, and the original farm site contributes to the verisimilitude of a historic landscape.
The proposed development creates a new urban street edge condition with minimal setback. This new street edge is without precedent along Meadowlily Road.
Impacts to the surrounding context of Park Farm as a historic landscape are primarily experienced when moving through the viewshed along Meadowlily Road South. The proposed medium density townhouses and detached housing frontages, set closely to the road, introduces a stark and sudden transition between urban settlement and Park Farm across the road. This has a potential negative impact on authenticity of Park Farm as part of a historic rural landscape. With the edges of the development left unbuffered, the isolation of Park Farm is emphasised and this further disconnects it from the context of a historic landscape.”
The relatively small area bounded by Highbury Road South, Commissioners Road, Hamilton Road, and the eastern boundaries of Park Farm and Meadowlily Woods is extraordinarily rich in natural and heritage resources. In addition to the three above-mentioned natural areas, it contains a small bee and duck sanctuary at 25 Meadowlily Road South, the ruins of the Meadowlily Mill (the most well-preserved ruins in the city of an early London mill) and two properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act: Park Farm (the “cottage” referred to in the HIA excerpt above) and the 1910 Meadowlily Bridge. The rural landscapes around the designated properties are important in retaining an historic sense of place appropriate to the heritage sites – with open fields, woodlots, farmsteads and the narrow, uncurbed Meadowlily Road. The latter is strongly reminiscent of the historic pathways that have led to the bridge and the mill since at least 1851 and probably since the 1820s. Although Meadowlily Road has been paved and widened at various points in its history, it remains relatively narrow and its borders retain the embankments, ditches, and vegetation characteristic of a minor country road. This quality is important as part of the overall character of the area.
For any potential rezoning of and development at 101 Meadowlily Road South, we recommend the following:
1. A lower density development that is in keeping with the rural character of the area, and that is consistent with the core principles of the London Plan.
2. Instead of hard-edged urban styles such as those illustrated in the HIA, an effort should be made to provide more imaginative styles evocative of traditional styles. These could, and should, be clustered in ways that would leave visual spaces at intervals between them, providing hints, at least, of rural space.
3. A single access point to Meadowlily Road for the subdivision, instead of the fourteen driveways and two streets included in the current proposal (see page 44 of the HIA). The access point should be at the far south end of the subdivision property.
4. Keeping the soft shoulders and rural laneway feel of Meadowlily Road.
5. A large buffer zone between the development and the Park Farm buildings. Because the Park Farm buildings are so close to the southern border of the original Park Farm property, any high-density development or development impinging on the property line would seriously affect their character.
6. Increase the setback from Meadowlily Road and hide the development behind a barrier of large trees, both evergreen and deciduous and shrubs to provide a visual, sound, and light buffer between the development, the road, and Park Farm.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Grainger
President, Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region
Copy: Cathy Saunders, City Clerk (csaunder@london.ca)
Heather Lysinski, Secretary, PEC (hlysinsk@london.ca)