January 31, 2012, at 5:04 PM

Original link

The Council meets in Regular Session in the Council Chambers this day at 5:02 p.m.

I.   RECOGNITIONS

1.   Base

Rent Negotiation – 220 Dundas Street, 6th Floor – J. D. Edwards Upgrade Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:   That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director

  • Corporate Assets, on the advice of the Manager Realty Services, with the concurrence of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the lease of 220 Dundas Street between the City and The Court House Block Inc. (the “Landlord”) BE RENEWED for an additional term of two (2) years, with a base rent of $8.00 per square foot.

2.   SOHO

Wellington Centre Project Proposal - Fincore Group

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:   That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Managing Director - Corporate Assets, on the advice of the Manager Realty Services, with the concurrence of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the unsolicited Expression of Interest from Fincore Group with respect to the acquisition of the City of London and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA)-owned lands located on South Street bounded by Wellington Street / Waterloo Street and the Thames River BE REFERRED for evaluation through the Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan process.

3.   Companion Report to

“Developing a Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan” - Industrial Land Strategy Discussion

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:   That, the following actions be taken with respect to the acquisition of industrial land:   a)          on the recommendation of the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, and the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, staff BE DIRECTED to identify an amount of $7.3M in the 2012 Budget for the purpose of acquiring industrial land; and   b)          the City Solicitor BE REQUESTED to provide a report providing advice as to economic development matters that can be discussed in closed session, in compliance with the Municipal Act, 2001.

II.   DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

1.            Councillor B. Polhill discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 8 of the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with a decision by the Committee of Adjustment with respect to the property located at 10 Cummings Avenue, by indicating that his son is a member of the Committee of Adjustment.    2.            Councillor P. Hubert discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 6 of the 1st Report of the Public Safety Committee, having to do with the development of a preventative anti-graffiti pilot project in the downtown, by indicating that he is the Executive Director of an organization that offers graffiti removal.    3.            Councillor D. Brown discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 13 of the 2nd Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with the London Transit Commission (LTC) Long Term Growth Working Group, by indicating that her employer has a contract with the LTC.   Councillor D. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clauses 14 and 16 of the 1st Report of the Public Safety Committee having to do with amendments to the Taxicab By-law to meet the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the proposed Vehicle for Hire By-law, respectively, by indicating that her employer owns a taxi company.   4.            Councillor S.E. White discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of the 3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee, having to do with a communication from M. Ponti, Pediatrician, with respect to the City’s water fluoridation program, by indicating that Ms Ponti’s communication is on her employer’s letterhead.   5.            Councillor D. G. Henderson discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 19 of the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with the property located at 550 Kingsway Avenue and 572 Wonderland Road North, by indicating that he has an office at Kingsway Avenue.   6.            Councillor N. Branscombe discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 21 of the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with the application by the Montessori School House of Children relating to the property at 719 Waterloo Street, by indicating that her children attend the school.   7.            Councillor J.B. Swan discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 7 of the 3rd Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee, having to do with funding assistance for Orchestra London, by indicating that Orchestra London is his employer.

III.   CONFIRMATION AND SIGNING OF THE MINUTES OF

THE THIRD MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 10, 2012

Motion made by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen and seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve the Minutes of the Third Meeting held on January 10, 2012.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

IV.   REVIEW

OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC

V.   COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

4.   Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting

held on November 21, 2011 with respect to actions being taken with respect to London’s competitive position

Motion made by Councillor J. B. Swan to Approve that the Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on November 21, 2011, with respect to actions being taken regarding London’s competitive position, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

5.   Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting

held on December 6 and 7, 2011 with respect to the Thames Valley Corridor Plan Business Case

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that the Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on December 6 and 7, 2011, with respect to the Thames Valley Corridor Plan Business Case, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

6.   Developing A Strategic Investment and Economic

Prosperity Plan

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, and the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the development of a Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan:   a)         the refined process, goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria identified within the report dated January 23, 2012 from the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, and the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer BE ENDORSED to guide and focus the preparation of Council’s Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan over the course of 2012, to those areas/investments that will maximize returns for the community and at the same time recognize the limited staff and financial resources available to apply to these investments;   b)         Corporate Communications BE DIRECTED to work with the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee to further develop the communications and engagement plan appended to the January 23, 2012 report from the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, and the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, as well as develop plans to engage and consult with the public throughout the process of developing investment priorities;   c)         staff BE DIRECTED to make additions and revisions to the project list included in the January 23, 2012 report from Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, and the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer based on Committee and Council feedback, and to report back at a future meeting of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee with the revised list, including a completed information template for each project;   d)         staff BE DIRECTED to conduct a public meeting on the draft Unsolicited Proposal Policy appended to the January 23, 2012 report from the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, and the City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer for comment and feedback; e)         a staff team, led by the Managing Director of Corporate Investments and Partnerships and the Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, BE DIRECTED to initiate a process for the redevelopment of the South Street Campus lands, beginning with a report to the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee that identifies the approach, proposed process, timeline, required consulting resources, and proposed source of financing for securing the necessary resources;  it being noted that the City’s contribution of $3.2 Million towards the remediation and decommissioning of  these lands has been planned through temporary financing, pending the ultimate sale of the land; and  f)        staff BE DIRECTED to prepare a comprehensive industrial land acquisition and servicing plan for the next 20 years which identifies and evaluates potential industrial park opportunities and provides an estimate of development costs to the municipality;  it being noted that the plan will provide a basis for attracting senior government infrastructure funding, attracting new industry to London, and will allow Council to consider future investment in industrial land development against other investment opportunities and strategies.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

VI.   MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE IS GIVEN

VII.   ADDED

REPORTS

VIII.   REPORTS

Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Approve that pursuant to section to section 7.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the order of business be changed to permit consideration of the 3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee prior to the 2nd Report of the Community Services Committee.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to approve that pursuant to section to section 7.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the order of business be changed to permit consideration of the 3rd Report of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee prior to the 2nd Report of the Community Services Committee and after the 3rd Report of the Civic Works Committee.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

7.   Orchestra London

Motion made Councillor M. Brown to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Treasurer, the following actions be taken with respect to funding assistance for Orchestra London:   a)         funding to Orchestra London in 2012 BE CONTINUED SUBJECT TO approval of the 2012 Budget, annual review of Orchestra London’s business plan to ensure it is operating in keeping with its business plan, and a monthly monitoring of cash flow by the Civic Administration; and   b)         notwithstanding that the 2012 Budget will not be approved until February 2012, the release of a pro-rated amount equivalent to the January and February monthly installments of the proposed 2012 funding for Orchestra London BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO review and authorization by Civic Administration, with release of the balance of the 2012 funding approved as part of the 2012 Budget being contingent upon 2012 Budget approval.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

16.   Market Lane Design Competition - Winning Design

Announcement

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken regarding the endorsement of the Design Jury’s recommendation for the Market Lane Design Competition:   a)         the report, dated January 5, 2012, from the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, BE RECEIVED for information, regarding the design competition process and next steps for the Market Lane redevelopment project;                          b)         the winning design, as submitted by Hapa Collaborative, as selected by the independent Design Jury, BE ENDORSED for the redevelopment of Market Lane in 2012;   c)         Hapa Collaborative, the HiVE, 210 - 128 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC V6B 1G8, BE AWARDED a contract with the City of London to prepare construction and tender documents and provide contract administration for the realization of their design, at an upset cost of $75,000, as set out in the Source of Financing Report, provided as Appendix “A” to the associated staff report, dated January 16, 2012; and,   d)         the four other design competition competitors BE THANKED for their time and effort in making their submissions to the City;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from A. Macpherson, Manager, Parks Planning and Design and received the attached presentation from S. Reis, Chair, Design Jury, with respect to this matter.   At 8:32 PM, the Mayor places Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair, and takes a seat at the Council Board.   At 8:39 PM, the Mayor resumes the Chair, and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.

The motion to adopt clause 16 is put.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

8.   5th Report of the Creative City Committee

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Creative City Committee from its meeting held on November 23, 2011:   a)         the following matters related to London Celebrates Canada, a celebration of the 150th Anniversary of Canada BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee (IEPC) :   i)          the establishment of a Citizen Sesquicentennial Advisory Committee;   ii)         consideration of $50,000 annually, through 2017, for two staff positions and operating costs;               iii)         provision of a high-profile office space; and,   iv)        considering the approval of the exclusive use of the John Labatt Centre on Canada Flag Day 2015 and Canada Flag Day 2017; and   b)         London Celebrates Canada BE REQUESTED to submit a Business Plan regarding the matters listed above, including information as to how London Celebrates Canada will co-ordinate with other community organizations that are undertaking similar celebrations, at a future meeting of the IEPC; it being noted that the Creative City Committee received a presentation from R. Warden, London Celebrates Canada, with respect to this matter.   c)         the El Sistema Aeolian Orchestra BE INVITED to perform at the beginning of a Municipal Council meeting; it being noted that the Creative City Committee was advised by S. Merritt, Old East Village Business Improvement Area, that the El Sistema Aeolian Orchestra launch will be held at the Aeolian Hall; and   d)         clauses 3 through 10, inclusive, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

9.   Building the Investment Strategy

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that, the attached presentation from M. Hayward, City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, and J. Fleming, Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner entitled “Positioning London for Prosperity”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

10.   Argyle BIA Draft Constitution, Proposed Budget and

List of BIA Supporters

Motion made by Councillor S.E. White to Approve that the following actions be taken with respect to the request from the Argyle Business Improvement Association to establish an Argyle Business Improvement Area:   a)         the establishment of an Argyle Business Improvement Area BE ENDORSED IN PRINCIPLE;   b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee (IEPC) with respect to the BIA proposal and to undertake the necessary administrative and legislative functions with respect to the creation of the Argyle Business Improvement Area;   it being noted that the IEPC heard a verbal delegation from N. McSloy, Executive Director, Argyle Business Improvement Association, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

11.   London Health Sciences Centre’s (LHSC) Canadian Surgical

Technologies and Advanced Robotics (CSTAR) Partnership Opportunity

Motion made by J.B. Swan to Approve that the communication from London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) with respect to the Canadian Surgical Technologies and Advanced Robotics (CSTAR) Partnership Opportunity BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to the Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan process for evaluation.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

12.   Downtown Development

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that the communication, dated December 12, 2011 from Sifton Properties Limited, requesting consideration of the disposal of the City of London Queens Avenue parking lot BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to the Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan process for evaluation.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

13.   Proposal for a London Immigrant Entrepreneur

Incubator

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that the communication, dated December 6, 2011 from Councillor Sandy White, with respect to a request for support of the incorporation of a London Immigrant Entrepreneur Incubator into the Municipal Council’s investment and economic prosperity framework BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to the Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan process for evaluation.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

14.   St. Joseph’s Health Care London Innovation in

Surgical Advancements

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that the attached communication from St. Joseph’s Health Care London with respect to innovation in surgical advancements BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to the Strategic Investment and Economic Prosperity Plan process for evaluation.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

15.   Reclassification of Environmentally Significant

Areas (O-7958)

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, based on the application of the City of London relating to policies for Environmentally Significant Areas, the attached proposed by-law, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 31, 2012 to amend the Official Plan by changing Section 16 and Section 18 to re-classify Environmentally Significant Areas as a new and separate category within the park hierarchy system and delete the requirement for Conservation Master Plans, to be consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications, in support of the staff report:   -     S. Levin, President, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Ratepayers, dated January 4, 2012; -     A. Caveney, Nature London, dated January 2, 2012; and, -     D. Wake, 597 Kildare Road, dated January 16, 2012;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -     D. Sheppard, Chair, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) – expressing support for the staff recommendation; advising that the proposed changes highlight why environmentally significant areas were created; indicating that the policies are straight-forward and easy to understand; and expressing appreciation to the Civic Administration for working with the EEPAC and the community on this matter. -     A. Caveney, Nature London - expressing support for the staff recommendation; thanking the Civic Administration for working with Nature London; advising that environmentally significant areas are special and should be regarded as nature preserves. -     D. Wake, 597 Kildare Road - expressing support for the staff recommendation; thanking the Civic Administration and the EEPAC for working with the community; and advising that he has been working in natural areas for forty years. -     J. Cushing, Member, London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) - expressing support for the staff recommendation, the EEPAC and Nature London comments; and advising that part of the LACH mandate is to look after natural heritage, which includes environmentally significant areas.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

18.   Property located at 1961 Cedarhollow Boulevard

(Z-7979)

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, based on the application of Cedarhollow Developments relating to the property located at 1961 Cedarhollow Boulevard, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 31, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Convenience Commercial (CC6) Zone, which permits convenience service uses TO a Residential R5/Residential R6/Residential R7 (R5-3/R6-5/R7-H12-D50) Zone, to permit singles, semis, duplex dwellings, fourplex, townhouse, cluster townhouse dwellings, stacked townhouse dwellings, senior citizen apartment buildings; handicapped persons apartment buildings; nursing homes; retirement lodges; continuum-of-care facilities; emergency care establishments, with a maximum height of 12 meters and a maximum density of 50 units per hectare;   it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

19.   Properties located at 550 Kingsway Avenue and 572

Wonderland Road North (OZ-7946)

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, the application of Dr. E.D. Armogan, M.D., relating to the property located at 550 Kingsway Avenue and 572 Wonderland Road North BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to prepare a revised by-law to implement the changes discussed at the public participation meeting;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -     L. Kirkness, on behalf of the applicant – advising that 90 letters were sent out by the City; indicating that five letters were received back, with one expressing an objection; advising that there are two bungalows on the subject property; indicating that a Chapter 10 Special Policy has been approved by the Municipal Council; indicating that Wonderland Road is to be widened in the future, noting that 52 feet will be on the applicant’s side of the street which provides for an 8 foot road allowance; indicating that current traffic volumes are high; advising that there is a fenced bungalow, on the northeast corner, that the property owner runs a business out of; advising that the subject property inclines uphill from south to north; advising that it is the easterly gateway to the Oakridge Acres neighbourhood; indicating that the owner has hired a surveyor; indicating that they are following urban design guidelines by placing the building at the front of the lot; indicating that the setback is 0m; advising that the building will be located at the front of the lot with the parking lot at the back of the lot; indicating that the first plan showed the retaining wall along the street; advising that there will be parking on the corner with plantings and an ornamental retaining wall; indicating that this is a commercial perspective; advising that the Civic Administration asked for a 6m by 6m daylight triangle in which the property owner loses another parking spot; indicating that the site is being used efficiently; asking for 18 parking spots, which is two less than the required 20 parking spots; indicating that the site plan is virtually site plan approval ready; requesting a lower lot setback minimum of 0m; requesting the ornamental retaining wall setback be 0m; advising that on page 340, section (vi) is not necessary as the 30% requirement will be met; indicating that on page 340, section (ii), the front yard depth will be 0m; requesting that the landscape to open space be eliminated; advising that on page 340, section (vii) should be 18 parking spaces, not 19; advising that the parking lot is three feet higher than the adjacent single family residence; and advising that the sound from the arterial road will be more insulated.  (See attached presentation.) -     B. Wade, Design, Construction, Management – indicating that the glazing on the building has been increased; advising that the number of waterfall features can be decreased; advising that there will be a landscaped barrier around the parking lot; advising that you can see the waterfall feature from Wonderland Road North; advising that the residence is at the lower elevation at the back of the proposed building and that the building has been naturally elongated to fit into the surrounding development. -     S. Kelly, 51 Coachwood/C. Jenkins, 558 Kingsway – expressing appreciation for the adjustments being made; indicating that there is no noise from cars going into or out of the storage unit facility; indicating that the two buildings are eyesores; expressing concern with carbon and safety in the parking lot; enquiring as to why 18 parking spaces are required; indicating that four parking spaces are adjacent to her backyard and would like to see this reduced; indicating that there is children’s play equipment by the parking lot and she often has two young children playing in her backyard; enquiring as to how the parking lot will drain; expressing concern as she has never been told the number of people that will be going in and out in a day; and advising that there could be traffic issues. -     T. Crawford, 571 Wonderland Road North – advising that he resides across the street from the proposed development; indicating that his concerns have been addressed by the Civic Administration; expressing concern with the lights at night as they will be right across from his living room window; expressing apprehension with respect to the noise from the waterfall; advising that traffic is already a problem; and indicating that the hours of operation can be a problem if the business is operated in the evening. -     V. Shinde, 547 Wonderland Road North – indicating that she is a potential owner; advising that she was a tenant when the storage rental building was installed; advising that she has seen very garish buildings built; advising that this building is going to elevate the area and be part of the community; advising that the building is going to be aesthetically pleasing and that the waterfall is quiet; adding that it adds a bit of nature back to the area; advising that there will only be five or six patients seen at one time; and indicating that it is not a noise-based business.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

17.   Decommissioning the South Street Hospital

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, the following actions be taken with respect to the decommissioning of the South Street Hospital:   a)         that, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the five listed properties and three additional properties identified as having heritage value by a recent heritage assessment, located on the lands of the South Street campus of the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC):               i)          for the buildings located on the south side of South Street:   A)        the LHSC and the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has no concerns with respect to the demolition of the Main Hospital Building, the Pastoral Care Building, the Isolation Building and the Surgical Building;   B)        prior to the demolition of the north wing of the Main Hospital Building, as well as the Surgical Building, the Isolation Building and the Pastoral Care Building, the buildings BE DOCUMENTED, including complete photographic documentation of the building’s older features, and, where possible, measured drawings be prepared of the original layout, as can be discerned, where such drawings do not exist;   C)        the main entrance and façade, including the limestone materials of the art deco main entrance feature of the north wing of the Main Building, BE RETAINED AND BE REUSED in a future building to be constructed on the site;   D)        NO ACTION BE TAKEN regarding the demolition of the Colborne Building at this time; it being noted that the demolition and clearance of the lands on the south side of South Street will be undertaken beginning in 2012 into 2013, and the retention of this building will not preclude the clearance of the remainder of the lands;   E)        the Colborne Building BE PROTECTED until the feasibility of restoring the building can be adequately assessed through a request for proposal process; using a least-cost approach, this protection is to be accomplished by:   I)    making the building secure, including the installation of a security system; II)   undertaking all necessary repairs to prevent water infiltration and to provide adequate heat and ventilation; III)  retaining the original doors, door and window surrounds, and fire protection equipment; and, IV) removing hazardous materials, as part of the larger site remediation process, in a manner that would not preclude the adaptive re-use of the building;    ii)        for the buildings located on the north side of South Street:   A)       NO ACTION BE TAKEN regarding the demolition of the War Memorial Children’s Hospital at this time, noting that the London Health Sciences Centre will not be vacating the remainder of the lands on the north side of South Street until after 2014;   B)       using a least-cost approach, the War Memorial Children’s Hospital BE PROTECTED in the interim by:   I)     making the building secure, including the installation of a security system; II)     undertaking all necessary repairs to prevent water infiltration and to provide adequate heat and ventilation; III)     retaining any original significant features, including the sunrooms; and, IV)     removing hazardous materials, as part of the larger site remediation process, in a manner that would not preclude the adaptive re-use of the building;   C)      the LHSC and the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council has no objection to the demolition of the c. 1950’s addition to the War Memorial Children’s Hospital;   D)      a source of financing BE IDENTIFIED to undertake a Heritage Building Conservation Assessment in 2012 or 2013 of the Nurse’s Residence and Medical School Buildings, prior to any recommendation on the future use or retention of these buildings; it being noted that no action is required at this time for the buildings located on the north side of South Street, as the London Health Sciences centre will be continuing its use of these buildings for up to two more years; and,   E)       NO ACTION BE TAKEN at this time, regarding the demolition of the Nurse’s Residence or Medical School Building, noting that these buildings are still occupied by LHSC, and will be vacated over the next two years.   iii)     the LHSC BE REQUESTED to establish and contribute to the City, an amount equal to the demolition and site remediation costs that would have otherwise been spent for the Colborne building, to be used for mothballing the building (including removing hazardous materials) and, if preservation is found to be infeasible, the subsequent demolition of the buildings;   iv)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to identify a source of financing for mothballing the Colborne Building and War Memorial Children’s Hospital Building; and,   v)     as part of the future redevelopment of the South Street lands, opportunities for interpretation, such as a park, interpretive signage, commemorative works of art, or landscape features, such as walls or pathways, BE DEVELOPED as a means of commemorating the history and importance of the hospital, and that, where feasible, materials salvaged from the site be incorporated into the project;   b)       on the recommendation of the City Solicitor’s office, the following actions be taken with respect to LHSC South Street Campus lands:   i)          the reports of Allan Avis, B.Arch., OAA, MRAIC, CAHP concerning the War Memorial Children’s Hospital (Building No. 52) and the Colborne building (Building No. 67) BE RECEIVED for information; and,   ii)         upon completion of the 2012 budget process, a source of financing BE IDENTIFIED by the City Treasurer, in an amount estimated to be up to $2,500,000, to contribute to the overall cost of Phase A decommissioning work to be carried out by LHSC on City lands located south of South Street in late 2012 and 2013;   c)       the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report to the Finance and Administrative Services Committee on minimizing the mothballing costs of the Colborne Building and War Memorial Children’s Hospital building;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from J. M. Fleming, Director of Land Use Planning and City Planner, D. Menard, Heritage Planner and received the attached presentation from G. Belch, Corporation Counsel and a verbal presentation, including photographs, demonstrating the information provided below from A. Avis, Allan Avis Architects Inc., with respect to this matter:   Children’s War Memorial Hospital:   -     the south wing was built in 1922; -     the north wing was built in 1945; -     the building is built entirely of brick; -     the building has approximately 220 windows; -     there is approximately 20,000 square feet of brick exterior; -     Indiana limestone was used in the design; -     in 1978, a rooftop addition was added as a recreation area; -     the parapet below the rooftop addition has crude mortar joints; -     the stone elements are in good condition; -     the brick is questionable in some areas; -     the metal bands are painted, galvanized metal; -     advising that they removed the brick in some areas and the mortar is still in good condition; -     advising that the mortar and brick needs to be addressed in short-order or this will create more problems; -     the parapets are major structural components; -     there are single-hung windows with mutton bars; -     there is evidence of rot; -     advising that there was discussion of turning this building into affordable housing units as an adaptive re-use, but the windows would all need to be replaced; -     there are wide corridors inside the building; -     the rooms are approximately 15 feet; and, -     there is a sun-room at each end of the building.   Colborne Building:   -     the building was built in 1899, with additions added in 1922 and c1920; -     this building has similar cornices and a hip roof; -     the building is 260 feet in length; -     there are approximately 156 door and window openings; -     there are areas of severe brick deterioration; however, in other areas, the bricks are in reasonable condition; -     advising that the steel lintels are causing problems with the stone work as it expands; -     the detailed metal cornices are painted; -     at the north end of the building, the roof is slate; -     at the south end of the building, the roof is asphalt; -     advising that the roof is in rough condition; and, -     advising that the corridors are 7 to 8 feet wide, with the rooms remaining 15 feet wide;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -     M. Woodward, 142 Waterloo Street – advising that a survey of the members of the SoHo Executive expressed overwhelming support of Civic Administration’s Option #2. -     S. Bellyk, 304 South Street – advising that the art-deco portion of the wing is quite solid and is a prime candidate for renovation; advising that the art-deco is more solid than his house, which is 105 years old; and enquiring as to what the negatives to this are. -     D. McBurney, #4 – 466 South Street – expressing appreciation to everyone who worked on this initiative; and expressing support for Civic Administration’s Option #2, which is the most flexible option. -     J. Hodder, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, London Branch – enquiring as to the maximum length of time for mothballing and how long can the two buildings be held before they are demolished. -     G. Ecker, 181 Grey Street – indicating that the staff report is straight-forward; expressing concern with the verbage about this being a “new” neighbourhood when the SoHo area is trying to pull together as a community; and advising that he would rather see the wording amended to read as an “enhancement” to the neighbourhood. -     J. O’Neil, Vice-Chair, London Advisory Committee on Heritage – advising that the original reason that the hospital is located here is because this is where the Irish and Black community lived; indicating that it was the first building for the dead and dying; advising that if you give it 10 to 15 years, it is going to be the #1 place in the city to live; expressing support for the staff recommendation; advising that this is the first place that radiation was effectively used to combat cancer in the world; expressing surprise for the recommendation to save the 1945 addition, as the builders had to cut corners with the war going on; suggesting that the Civic Administration further review this and consider saving the 1922 portion of the building; advising that the Colborne Building was the first children’s hospital in Southwestern Ontario; and indicating that if you cover the roof in solar panels you may be eligible for a government grant; suggesting that the building be used as an adaptive reuse so that you can put in what you want; indicating that the street level view is considered with new buildings in Old East being 2 or 3-storeys; and advising that the windows don’t have to be wood, but can be a material that looks like wood.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

20.   Holding Provisions - Section 3.8 of Zoning By-law

Z-1 (Z-7973)

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development Approvals Business Unit and the Director, Development Planning, based on the City initiated application relating to Section 3 of the Z-1 Zoning By-law, the revised, attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 31, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to amend:   a)         Section 3.8 “Holding Zones” to permit conditional permits for model homes to be issued in conformity with Section 4.5 (2) of the Z-1 Zoning By-law prior to the removal of “h” holding provision;   b)         Section 4.5 2) to clarify that site servicing may be permitted for model homes subject to any requirements of the Chief Building Official and to clarify the number of model home permits which may be considered; and,   c)         the “h-100” holding provision to provide additional clarity to the Chief Building Official on the number of units which may be constructed prior to the removal of this holding provision;   it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

21.   The Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood and Application by

Montessori School House of Children re property located at 719 Waterloo Street (O-7980/Z-7686)

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the applications of the City of London and the Montessori School House of Children relating to the Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood and the property located at 719 Waterloo Street:   a)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 31, 2012, to amend the Official Plan by ADDING a special policy in Chapter 10 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to limit the expansion of private schools and the establishment of new private school uses, to those properties within the Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood that are zoned for private schools on the date of adoption of the Official Plan Amendment, and to 701/703 Waterloo Street, 719 Waterloo Street, 311 Oxford Street East, and 711 Colborne Street;   b)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 31, 2012, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of 719 Waterloo Street FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, converted dwellings (maximum 2 dwelling units), TO a Residential R2 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (R2-2(2)/NF1(  )) Zone, to permit single detached, semi-detached, duplex and converted dwellings, elementary schools, churches, community centres, day care centres, libraries, and private schools, with special provisions to permit an expansion of up to a maximum of 10% of the gross floor area of the existing building, and a south interior side yard of “zero” metres;   c)         the Site Plan Approval Authority BE DIRECTED to hold a public site plan meeting and to consider any traffic safety and maneuverability issues relating to 719 Waterloo Street, during the site plan review process;   d)         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 dwellings, duplex dwellings, converted dwellings (maximum 2 dwelling units), TO a Residential R2 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (R2-2(2)/NF1(  )) Zone, to permit, in addition to the already permitted uses, elementary schools, churches, community centres, day care centres, libraries, private schools, fire stations, private clubs, and police stations, limiting the aggregate number of student and day care places at 719 Waterloo Street, combined with student and day care places at 711 Waterloo (the current Montessori site), to a maximum of 180, and permitting only existing buildings to be used, but allowing an expansion of up to a maximum of 10% of their gross floor area, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:   i)        it is appropriate to eliminate fire stations, private clubs and police stations; ii)       the proposed special provision to cap the number of students in an effort to control further impacts on amenity, character and function cannot be easily or readily investigated or enforced; and, iii)       the proposed special provision at 719 Waterloo Street cannot be legally enforced against 711 Waterloo Street;   e)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a Zoning by-law amendment to the Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone, applicable to 711 Waterloo Street, to limit the permitted uses to elementary schools, churches, community centres, day care centres, libraries, and private schools, eliminating fire stations, private clubs and police stations from the list of permitted uses;   f)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to work with the Montessori School House of Children, the Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood Association (PANA) and the area landowners, to evaluate and decide on the best option to improve the traffic situation, including alternative drop-off locations, traffic patterns, signage and enforcement;   g)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to conduct a neighbourhood planning study for the Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood to address a variety of broader community issues, including traffic, parking, heritage conservation, non-residential uses, and residential intensification, and that the Civic Administration include the study within the Planning Division’s mid to long-term work program; and,   h)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED as part of the review of the design of the west end of Piccadilly Park, to review the potential parking and drop-off area and to review the potential installation of a parking area and drop-off on Kenneth Avenue and Wellington Street for the Montessori School;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -     A. R. Patton, Patton Cormier & Associates, on behalf of Mrs. Whitley, Montesorri and R. Zelinka – advising that Montessori has been operating as an educational institution since 1968; indicating that he is anxious to resolve the zoning by-law for 719 Waterloo Street; expressing support for pages 380 and 381 of the January 16, 2012 Planning and Environment Committee Agenda; advising that the application has been in the process for over two years; advising that Montessori is anxious to meet the needs of its students; advising that there is no need to defer the decision; expressing support with the staff comments listed on page 366 of the Planning and Environment Agenda relating to the section entitled “Neighbourhood Solutions”; indicating that there are no issues in the Official Plan process that would compromise dealing with the property located at 719 Waterloo Street; expressing support for the site plan located on page 365 of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda; advising that there will be no changes made to the building, the driveway or the street access; indicating that it is not necessary to have a public site plan meeting for the property located at 719 Waterloo Street; indicating that it is clear from the Civic Administration’s comments that the Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood Association has not been destabilized and requesting that the zoning by-law included on pages 182 to 184, inclusive, on the Planning and Environment Agenda, be passed. -     A. Woodson, Executive Director, Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood Association (PANA) – advising that she has reviewed the staff report; expressing appreciation with the meeting with staff; supporting the R2 Zoning and the R2-NF1 Zone; expressing concern with the wording at the beginning of staff recommendation c); requesting that a public site plan be required; requesting that a cap be placed on the number of students allowed in all of the buildings; advising that Montessori has several locations; advising that there is an application to turn the properties located at 701 and 703 Waterloo Street into private schools; advising that there are three day cares in the neighbourhood; requesting that the Civic Administration be directed to work with PANA; requesting that a neighbourhood study be conducted; enquiring as to whether or not additional parking is being required; expressing concern with the proposed indoor connection; expressing surprise by the comments of the Transportation Division; advising that she is willing to share videos of traffic congestion; advising that traffic issues are also caused by the day care centres in the neighbourhood; advising that the main issues are traffic and parking; requesting that the application be deferred until solutions are found for traffic and parking issues; and expressing support for a continued dialogue.  -     M. Cooney, 67 Barrydale Crescent – advising that he is a parent with three kids that attend the Montessori School; indicating that he works in Strathroy; advising that at 3:30 p.m., he drove past Wilfred Jury Public School and was delayed,  he went through Orchard Park and was also delayed, then he was stopped by a train and was late picking up his kids; and requesting that something be done about people backing up traffic between 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. -     D. Santarella, 38 Kenneth Avenue – advising that he has worked closely with the Planning Division staff and is open to solutions; advising that there are several issues, such as traffic problems and losing the neighbourhood;.indicating that people are spending thousands of dollars on their properties; expressing support for the use of transit and the decrease of automobile use; advising that they live with the problems that comes with living in the core area; promoting an urban lifestyle; advising that there are traffic problems at schools; enquiring as to how many people that live in the neighbourhoood have children who attend Montessori; advising that Montessori is a successful school; advising that Montessori’s cap is 180 students and they now have 225 students enrolled; expressing wariness for future uses; enquiring as to how the school is going to expand; advising that Waterloo Street and Kenneth Lane are one lane streets; advising that Montessori currently has 10 parking spaces but that parents don’t use the parking spaces; indicating that Montessori parents block driveways; indicating that his pregnant wife was unable to get out of the driveway the day before she gave birth; advising that students are residents of London and bring opportunities; advising that he had no issues with the frat house that was previously located on this site; advising that a majority of people like to see residential development; asking for specific boundaries that won’t change; enquiring as to what happens to the properties across the street; advising that this won’t be a residential area any more; advising that on Kenneth Avenue, out of 12 homes, four have families in them; advising that the goal is to keep this a family neighbourhood; advising that the major concern is that Montessori wanted to build a junior high school and Montessori went beyond what was agreed to by the Neighbourhood Association; advising that Montessori doesn’t have a play area and uses the public park; indicating that he can’t get on his street; advising that he pays a premium to live in the core; and advising that he is not asking Montessori to give up anything, just asking that they respect the neighbours. -     C. Martin, 735 Waterloo Street – advising that he is on the Executive of the Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood Association; advising Mr. Patton that there has been no destabilization of the neighbourhood; requesting that residents can thrive in their community; and requesting for a delay to meet with Montessori School representatives and city staff. -     P. Noad, 62 Glenview Crescent – advising that there are mixed messages being received at the public meeting; and indicating that residents wants businesses to thrive, but don’t want it to be a school in their neighbourhood. -     E. Bothwell, 30 Shady Lane – advising that she is a parent who volunteers at Montessori and that the school uses the city park for the children to play at; advising that the school gives back to the community; indicating that the school fundraises for the park; advising that raccoons were living in the frat house and there were beer bottles on the lawn; advising that she volunteers in the school; advising that the school is creative in what it has done; and advising that the school works well with what it has. -     M. Whitley, Montessori – advising that there are less than 150 students enrolled at the locations being discussed at this meeting; advising that the school has never exceeded 180 students; advising that most residential communities have schools in them; and that over 50 children in the downtown and Old North walk or bike to Montessori. -     P. Piitas, 311 Piccadilly Street – advising that he has lived in his residence for 50 years and that it is a beautiful neighbourhood; advising that he has never had a problem with traffic; indicating that people have advised of a problem with Montessori school traffic; indicating that the house on the corner was previously a frat house and people had to call the police all the time and there were a lot of problems; and advising that Montessori keeps the property beautiful with plants and flowers.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

22.   Property located at 567 Rosecliffe Terrace (former

address: 633 Commissioners Road West) (39CD-09509)

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, the following actions be taken in response to the December 7, 2011 Municipal Council resolution directing the Development Approvals Business Unit to process and circulate the revised application for a Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and Site Plan Approval on property located at 567 Rosecliffe Terrace (formerly 633 Commissioners Road West) and Blocks 66 and 73, Plan 33M-119:   a)         the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that a geotechnical study, hydrogeological evaluation, conceptual grading plan, storm drainage/ stormwater management study and tree preservation reports have been received by the City, circulated for public review, evaluated and considered at a public participation meeting held on January 16, 2012;   b)         the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council recommends to the Board that the revised conditions of Draft Plan Approval, attached as Appendix “A”, form the basis for draft approval and will satisfactorily address the issues previously raised with this development application; and,   c)         any additional reports, comments and information received with the revised application, at the meeting on January 16, 2012, BE PROVIDED to the Ontario Municipal Board for consideration;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made an oral submission in connection therewith:   -     A. R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates – advising that the Ontario Municipal Board was well through the hearing on this matter when the matter was adjourned by the inclusion of an outside planning consultant provided by the City; advising that they worked through the draft plan of subdivision; indicating that the condominium plan appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board is different from what is before the Planning and Environment Committee tonight; advising that the plan that was before the Ontario Municipal Board had the following three differences; (1) instead of a bulb at the north end, there was a hammerhead; (2) the number of units was reduced from 22 to 21; and (3) the City determined that the second access was not necessary (from Baseline Road); indicating that the City of London Realty Services Division does not need the 66 foot road allowance, and asked if Mr. Patton’s client would purchase 33 feet as the two neighbours would like to buy their 33 feet; indicating that the price was fair, so his client purchased the 33 feet; advising that the units along the north end have been changed to show the bulb configuration and the 33 feet that now belong to lots 15 and 16; enquiring as to whether or not the changes to the plan of condominium are minor; advising that the 33 feet to the north will provide a large amenity area and one less unit; advising that the road grades meet the specifications of the Roads and Transportation Division; Mr. Patton recited sections 15, 16 and 17 of Appendix “A” of the Staff Report relating to the Approval Authority’s conditions and amendments to final approval for registration of this plan of condominium, File No. 39CD-09509; advising that the Planner, T. Grawey, is amenable to the amendments Mr. Patton provided; advising that it is not necessary to the City to have a public road, and convert back to Ardshell; advising that when the Ontario Municipal Board hearing resumes on Thursday, January 19, 2012, Mr. Halwa’s evidence will be completed; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board will want to hear the Planning and Environment Committee’s comments from this meeting; indicating that the site plan application has no adverse effects on the adjoining property; indicating that the development could have been more intense; indicating that his client retained a number of experts; expressing approval for this plan; advising that this has been a long process and was thrown off track by the positions previously taken by the Municipal Council; advising that on the drawing on page 407, the common elements are the retaining walls; indicating that the Ontario Municipal Board will not have the benefit of the Municipal Council decision, but will have the Planning and Environment Committee decision; advising that when the date of January 19, 2012, was set at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in August, 2010, they thought that the Ontario Municipal Board would have the decision of the Municipal Council. -     Mr. Sheppard, 20 – 665 Commissioners Road West – advising that he lives west of the subject property; expressing concerns from the beginning; advising that the Civic Administration has a copy of his letter; expressing concern with the drainage and overland flow of water; advising that the original plan had a hammerhead design; indicating that this plans deals a bit with this issue; enquiring as to the capacity of the drainage flow that can be handed; indicating that there was no tree preservation report at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing; expressing appreciation hearing about the tree plantings; advising that their condominium units are all single level units on the same topographical level; advising that this property should be compared with their condominium level rather than others due to the different topographical levels; requesting that this development be restricted to single levels; requesting that people take a good look, go down to 545 Rosecliffe Terrace and look at the adjoining properties; requesting that the application not be approved; expressing hope that everything carries on at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing; and advising that he has not been advised that the Ontario Municipal Board hearing will be resuming. -     R. Ambrose, 547 Rosecliffe Terrace – advising that she has not been advised of a retaining wall and enquiring as to the height of the wall and the type of material to be used; advising that they were given a small plan that is unreadable; enquiring that if a retaining wall is to be put in, are trees to be removed; advising that a tree fell on their house this summer and they sustained thousands of dollars damage and they had to move out of their home for five weeks. -     M. Albrecht, 10 – 665 Commissioners Road West – advising that their condominium consists of 27 units; requesting that the proposed condominium remain a single level development; advising that the City is making a big mistake as this property has a lot of wildlife living on it; and advising that the City should be ashamed of themselves. -     M. Shahabi, 539 Rosecliffe Terrace – advising that their lots have 60 feet of frontage; indicating that a tree fell on their neighbours house this summer; advising that some of the trees are damaged; and advising that kids hang out and drink in this lot. -     H. Williams, 575 Rosecliffe Terrace – advising that the largest tree in the area is on the border of her property; indicating that she hired a professional to determine the health of this tree; advising that the area around the retaining wall is not sufficient to protect the tree and that the tree has a high probability of dying; enquiring as to whose expense it is going to be at; advising that S. Evans spoke to her about the retaining wall being on the drip line; advising that she is disappointed by the lack of communication with the developer; advising that the developer has no regard for the neighbours; and requesting that the trees that are remaining, be preserved. -     S. Warmuth, 516 Jarvis Street – advising that to the west of this development is a cluster of single-detached dwellings; enquiring as to what on the proposal is to be planted; enquiring as to why there are no plantings in the northwest corner of the development; advising that the height of the buildings is crucial; advising that a two-story building does not sound so bad; however, it depends on the starting elevation; requesting consideration of further height restrictions; and enquiring as to whether a two-story, includes a walkout. -     D. Ambrose, 547 Rosecliffe Terrace – advising that this property is a bottomed-out pit that has been referred to by developers as a nightmare; advising that there will be retaining walls around the entire development; indicating that there are serious water draining problems; advising that he has lived there for 26 years; advising that the area is completely surrounded by residences; indicating that all wildlife will be forced off that land and enquiring as to where they are going to go when the developer moves in; advising that the residents have looked after the city property and the building lot for 26 years and does not see why it needs to disappear; indicating that the entrance should be at 633 Commissioners Road; advising that Rosecliffe cannot handle all of the traffic; requesting that the tree situation be taken into account; advising that we are supposed to be the “Forest City” and the developer is ripping out trees to put in 21 condominiums.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

23.   Parcel of Land Bounded by Longwoods Road, Murray

Road, Colonel Talbot Road and Highway 402

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) reviewed and received a communication, dated December 19, 2011, from S. Farhi, Farhi Holdings Corporation, with respect to a parcel of land bounded by Longwoods Road, Murray Road, Colonel Talbot Road and Highway 402.  The PEC referred the communication to the Civic Administration for consideration with the Official Plan review currently being undertaken.

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Amend clause 23 to read, “That the communication dated December 19, 2011, from S. Farhi, Farhi Holdings Corporation, with respect to a parcel of land bounded by Longwoods Road, Murray Road, Colonel Talbot Road and Highway 402 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration with the Official Plan review currently being undertaken.”

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

The motion to adopt clause 23, as amended, is put.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

24.   Zoning By-law Amendment Application - 783 Richmond

Street

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) reviewed and received a communication, dated December 20, 2011, from A. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates, with respect to the application of 1152587 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 783 Richmond Street.  The PEC advised the Civic Administration that it does not understand the need for the requirement of a parking study for this application.

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Amend clause 24 to read, “That the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that it is the Planning and Environment Committee’s view that there is no need for a parking study to be undertaken in order for the application of 1152587 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 783 Richmond Street to be deemed complete; it being noted that the PEC reviewed and received a communication dated December 20, 2011, from A. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates, with respect to this matter.”

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Refer clause 24 back to civic administration for further report, related to the matter of parking and the need for a study.

Motion Failed

Motion Failed

The motion to adopt clause 24, as amended, is put.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

25.   Membership of the Planning and Environment Committee

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on November 21, 2011 with respect to the membership of the Planning and Environment Committee, for the term ending November 30, 2012.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve that, on the recommendation of the City Solicitor, the report provided to the Planning and Environment Committee at its meeting held on Monday, January 16, 2012, regarding the endorsement of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, issued December 16, 2011 in connection with the costs related to the application in respect of By-law No. C.P.-19, the Residential Rental Units Licensing By-law, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and seconded by Councillor M. Brown to Approve that the 4th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, from its meeting held on January 17, 2012, BE REFERRED to budget meeting.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

IX.   DEFERRED

MATTERS

X.   ENQUIRIES

XI.   EMERGENT MOTIONS

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve leave, pursuant to section 18.2 of the Council Procedure By-law, for the introduction of an emergent motion related to “International Development Week” in the City of London.   Motion Passed

Motion made by Councillor S.E. White and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve leave, pursuant to section 18.2 of the Council Procedure By-law, for the introduction of an emergent motion related to Electro-Motive Diesel.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and seconded by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve that the following resolution be adopted by the Municipal Council and forwarded to the appropriate Provincial Government officials:                           WHEREAS Canadians significantly help improve the quality of life in various communities around the world by their involvement as international development stakeholders, volunteers, and supporters;                           AND WHEREAS throughout 2012, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) will celebrate 25 years of mobilizing the expertise of Canadian municipalities to support local governance, democratic practices, and the provision of essential services in 43 developing countries, and counting;                           AND WHEREAS since 1987, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been a valued partner, together with the Canadian International Development Agency and member municipalities, in strengthening the effectiveness and focus of Canada’s international aid;                           AND WHEREAS during the first full week of February each year, the Government of Canada celebrates Canada’s contribution to international development and its commitment to improving the quality of life in various communities around the world;                           NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:   a)         the week of February 5-11, 2012, BE CELEBRATED as “International Development Week” in the City of London;   b)         the Federation of Canadian Municipalities BE RECOGNIZED  for its contribution over the past 25 years as a Canadian and world leader in international municipal development; and, c)         the citizens of London BE ENCOURAGED to become informed about international development, to show their solidarity with developing countries, and to continue to support Canadian municipalities’ international community-building efforts.”

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor S.E. White

Seconded by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve that  the following resolution be adopted by the Municipal Council:   WHEREAS London-based Electro-Motive Diesel’s labour situation is more than a labour dispute; it represents a precedent-setting scenario which could have dire consequences in the future with other foreign-owned companies in Canada;   AND WHEREAS Electro-Motive Diesel has locked out our local workers, notwithstanding the record profits that its parent company, Caterpillar, recently announced, and is also anticipating for 2012;   AND WHEREAS the Federal Government’s intervention is immediately required in order to protect Canadian families and Canadian jobs;   THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Federal Government BE REQUESTED to consider taking the necessary steps to provide E.I. benefits to the workers of Electro Motive Diesel in London, who have been locked out by Caterpillar Inc.   Motion Passed

Motion Passed

XII.   BY-LAWS, continued

XIII.   COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor P. Hubert that Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in closed session for the purpose of considering the following:

XIV.   ADJOURNMENT