That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Underhill Holdings London Inc., relating to the property located at 126 Oxford Street West, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone which permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached duplex and converted dwellings TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-2 (_)) Zone, to permit single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, triplex dwellings, converted dwellings and fourplex dwellings, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
a) the requested amendment is not consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 that encourage efficient development and land use patterns, the identification of appropriate locations for intensification and redevelopment, and development that is consistent with development standards such as those approved for the Near Campus Neighbourhoods;
b) the requested amendment does not conform to the Residential Intensification policies of the ’89 Official Plan which direct intensification to ensure that character and compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood is maintained;
c) the requested amendment does not conform to the Transit Corridor Place Type or the polices for Near Campus Neighbourhoods regarding coordinated and comprehensive applications for intensification as opposed to site-specific developments.
d) the requested amendment does not conform to the Transit Corridor Place Type or the policies for Near Campus Neighbourhoods which encourage intensification in medium and high density forms and discourage continued intensification in low density forms of housing;
e) the requested amendment does not conform to the Residential Intensification policies of The London Plan which direct intensification to ensure that character and compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood is maintained; and,
f) the requested amendment would constitute “spot” zoning and is not considered appropriate in isolation from the surrounding neighbourhood. The subject site does not have any special attributes which warrant a site specific amendment to permit the proposed form and intensity of development;
it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;
it being further noted that the Municipal Council refuses this application for the following reasons:
• the requested amendment is not consistent with the policies of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement that encourage efficient development and land use patterns, the identification of appropriate locations for intensification and re-development, and development that is consistent with development standards such as those approved for the Near Campus Neighbourhoods;
• the requested amendment is not consistent with the Residential Intensification policies of the ’89 Official Plan which direct intensification to ensure that character and compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood is maintained;
• the requested amendment is not consistent with the policies for Near Campus Neighbourhoods (962) regarding coordinated and comprehensive applications for intensification as opposed to site-specific developments;
• the requested amendment is not consistent with Council adopted London Plan, Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type policies (*826) regarding coordinated and comprehensive applications for intensification;
• the requested amendment is not consistent with the policies for Near Campus Neighbourhoods (962) which encourage intensification in medium and high density designations and forms and discourage continued intensification in low density forms of housing;
• the requested amendment is not consistent with the Council adopted London Plan, Rapid Transit Corridor Place (*841) policies which encourage intensification in mix used forms and discourage any intensification in low density residential forms of housing; and,
• the requested amendment would constitute “spot” zoning and is not considered appropriate in isolation from the surrounding neighbourhood. The subject site does not have any special attributes which warrant a site specific amendment to permit the proposed form and intensity of development. (2019-D09)