Written By Olena Riznyk
Correction and Apology – Article on Page 9 of May 28 Edition
In our article titled “Parkhill Residents Voice Concerns Over Main Street Redevelopment,”
published on page 9 of our Wednesday, May 28 edition, we regretfully reported two significant
errors.
Firstly, the piece incorrectly stated that North Middlesex Council approved the minor variance
application MV-2-2025 for 237-241 Parkhill Main Street; in fact, the motion was defeated and
the application was not approved.
Secondly, the article misattributed the presentation of the planning report to Ashley Cook,
Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, when it was Planner Ashley Sawyer who
delivered the report.
On behalf of the reporter and The Middlesex Banner as a whole, I sincerely apologise to our
readers, the Municipality of North Middlesex, and especially to those residents of Parkhill who
reached out to request a correction. Journalistic accuracy is a foundational principle of our
publication, and we remain committed to maintaining the trust of the communities we serve. The article is listed below with the corrected information.
NORTH MIDDLESEX – A proposal to add 11 residential units, including five basement
apartments, to a commercial property in downtown Parkhill prompted intense discussion at the
latest council meeting on May 21, raising concerns about density, parking, heritage
preservation, and local businesses.
The application, brought by a local property owner, sought minor variances to redevelop
237–241 Parkhill Main Street. The building currently includes eight residential units above
commercial storefronts and sits within a designated growth area. The redevelopment would
increase the total unit count to 19, with new units placed behind retail space and below ground
level.
Planner Ashley Sawyer presented a report supporting the proposal. She said it aligns with the
Official Plan’s vision for infill and urban intensification, and noted that the historic facade would
be preserved. Parking for all residential units—26 spaces—would be provided across two
private parcels under a permanent agreement.
Public reaction, however, was mixed. Some residents worried that basement apartments would
erode the character of Parkhill’s commercial core. A long-time resident, who also chairs the
board of Second Blessings Thrift Boutique, warned that the loss of floor space could jeopardize
the store’s future. “This could be the demise of our business on Main Street,” she said, citing
the store’s 32-year history of helping local families.
Others feared that approving this application could set a precedent for similar changes
elsewhere. One resident described the proposal as “an addition to the Official Plan by the back
door.”
Safety and livability also came into question. A local resident with experience in emergency
services raised concerns about fire access and accessibility in basement units. In response, the
Chief Building Official confirmed that no work would proceed without detailed technical review
and that major upgrades would be required, including egress, window lighting, and fire
separation.
The property owner defended the plan as a way to bring affordable housing to the area. He
noted that several current tenants pay well below market rent and that basement units could
be offered at under $1,000 per month.
The motion did not receive a majority vote and was defeated.
