February 12, 2013, at 4:04 PM

Original link

The Council meets in Regular Session in the Council Chambers this day at 4:04 PM.

I.   DISCLOSURES

OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

Councillor P. Hubert discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 6 of the 4th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee having to do with Ontario Works Decentralization, by indicating that he is the Executive Director of a social service agency with a purchase of service agreement with Ontario Works.

Councillor M. Brown discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4 of the 4th Report of the Corporate Services Committee having to do with potential uses for Local Improvement Charges and clause 6 of the 2nd Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee having to do with Lorne Avenue Public School, by indicating that the Thames Valley District School Board is his employer.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of the 4th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee having to do with the 1st Report of the Childcare Advisory Committee, by indicating that his spouse owns and operates a daycare business.

Councillor W.J. Armstrong discloses a pecuniary interest in clause C-1 of the 5th Report of the Corporate Services Committee having to do with the Dearness Home by indicating that he had a family member in care at the Home.

Councillor J.B. Swan discloses a pecuniary interest in clauses 2 and 3 of the 2nd Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee having to do with Orchestra London and any reference to a performing art centre, by indicating that Orchestra London is his employer.

II.   REVIEW OF

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC

III.   ADDED

REPORTS

5th Report of Corporate Services Committee.

IV.   COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

Moved by Councillor P. Hubert

Seconded by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Approve that Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera, for the purpose of considering the following:

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

V.   RECOGNITIONS

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Seconded by Councillor B. Polhill that, as a procedural matter pursuant

Section 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendations be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:   1.            That the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 165 Elmwood Avenue East (former London Normal School):   a)         the update report of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, detailing the findings of the financial analysis with respect to the property located at 165 Elmwood Avenue East, being the former London Normal School, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that negotiations are ongoing with the YMCA and Infrastructure Ontario; and,   b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to refer the $1 million  capital cost for the purchase and renovation of the former London Normal School to the 2013 Budget process for consideration;   it being noted that there has not been an identified municipal need for the building itself; it being further noted that no funds have been identified to acquire the property or undertake the necessary Ontario Building Code and accessibility upgrades.   2.            That, the following action be taken with respect to the application by Liahn Farms Limited with respect to the application by Liahn Farms Limited to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court in connection with By-law C.P.-11466-249, the Tree Conservation By-law:   a)         legal counsel BE INSTRUCTED to represent, pursuant to the Council Member Indemnification By-law, those members of City Council who may be named or otherwise identified in the application of Liahn Farms Limited and to institute such proceedings and take such steps in those proceedings as are considered reasonable necessary for the protection and advancement of their interest under the By-law.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

2.   2011 and 2012

Internal Audit Results Summary

That,  the following actions be taken regarding the 2011 and 2012 Internal Audit Results Summary:   a)         the report dated January 31, 2013 with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED;   b)         Corporate Communications BE REQUESTED to prepare a press release outlining the results of the 2011 and 2012 internal audit results; and,   c)         that information related to quantifying cost avoidances BE INCLUDED in future Annual Internal Audit Results Summary Reports.

3.   Proposed Risk

Assessment and 2013 Risk-Based Audit Plan

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Proposed 2013 Risk Assessment and Risk-Based Audit Plan:   a)         the report dated January 31, 2013 with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED; and,   b)         the proposed 2013 Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan identified in Appendix A of the above-noted report BE APPROVED; it being noted that the revenue and cost model analysis for landfills will be reported out in the 4th Quarter, with the report on revenue and cost model analysis on solid waste collection being reported out in the 1st Quarter of 2014.

4.   Quarterly Report on

Internal Audit Results - Corporate Services/Finance - Payroll Administration

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Quarterly Report on Internal Audit Results – Corporate Services/Finance – Payroll Administration:   a)         the report dated January 31, 2013 with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED; and   b)         the action plans identified in Appendix A of the report noted in a) above, BE IMPLEMENTED.

5.   Quarterly Report on

Internal Audit Results - Human Resources Succession Planning

That,  the following actions be taken with respect to the Quarterly Report on Internal Audit Results – Human Resources – Succession Planning:   a)         the report dated January 31, 2013 with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED;   b)         the action plans indentified in Appendices A and B of the report noted in a) above,  BE IMPLEMENTED; and,   c)         the Managing Director, Corporate Services and Chief Human Resources Officer BE DIRECTED to report back to the Audit Committee on the following:   i)          Observations & Action Plan #1 by April 2013; ii)          Observations & Action Plan #2 by May 2013; and, iii)         Observations & Action Plan #3 by July 2013.

Moved by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Approve clause 1.

VI.   CONFIRMATION

AND SIGNING OF THE MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 29, 2013

Moved by Councillor M. Brown

Seconded by Councillor N. Branscombe

Approve Minutes of the 3rd Meeting held on January 29, 2013.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

VII.   COMMUNICATIONS

AND PETITIONS

VIII.   MOTIONS OF

WHICH NOTICE IS GIVEN

IX.   REPORTS

6.   Lorne Avenue Public

School

That the following actions be taken with respect to the enhancement of public use of the Lorne Avenue Public School;   a)         the above-noted matter BE REFERRED to the 2013 Capital Budget discussions; and,   b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Budget, including, but not limited to, identification of sources of financing and possible community uses in the school building.   it being noted that the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee (IEPC) heard a verbal report from Mayor J. Fontana, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor M. Brown

Approve clauses 2 and 3.

7.   Properties located

at a portion of 1956 Shore Road and a portion of 1585 Riverbend Road (Z-8113)

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, based on the application of Sifton Properties Limited, relating to a portion of the property located at 1956 Shore Road and a portion of the property located 1585 Riverbend Road (Riverbend Park), the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 12, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R6/Neighbourhood Facility (h-R6-5/NF) Zone, which permits a range of cluster residential dwellings and neighbourhood facilities including single detached and semi-detached dwellings, townhouses, low-rise apartment buildings, churches and elementary schools, subject to removal of the “h” holding provision TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone, to permit single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot frontage of 12 metres (39.4 ft.) and minimum lot area of 360 square metres (3,875 sq. ft.) and to an Open Space (OS2) Zone, to permit public parks, conservation lands and recreational uses; and FROM an Open Space (OS2) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone, to permit single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot frontage of 12 metres (39.4 ft.) and minimum lot area of 360 square metres (3,875 sq. ft.);   it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.   (2013-D14A)

8.   Properties located

at 1057, 1059 and 1061 Richmond Street (Z-8106)

Moved by Councillor N. Branscombe

Seconded by Councillor B. Polhill

Amend clause 8, to add the following wording after the word “consideration”, “including, but not limited to”.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor N. Branscombe

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve clause 8, as amended.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Clause 8, as amended, reads as follows:   That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, the application of Romlex International Inc., relating to the properties located at 1057, 1059 and 1061 Richmond Street BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration of including, but not limited to, the following:   a)         designating the laneway one way, heading north;   b)         traffic in and out access on/onto Richmond Street;   c)         the removal of the holding provision for the stairs; and,   d)         meet with the applicant and the neighbours; it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:  -     A. R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates, on behalf of the applicant – advising that his client agrees with the “Conclusion” section of the Civic Administration’s report; expressing four issues of concern in the Civic Administration’s report; reading the second bullet point under “Additional Transportation Comments (January 25, 2013)”; advising that the stairs are accessed by the north and south sides of the building; noting that there is a patio in this area; advising that there is no doubt that the church built the stairs on city property; advising that the structure has been there for a long time, presumably with the City’s permission; indicating that the Civic Administration would like to remove the stairs and patio area for bus rapid transit; indicating that bus rapid transit is important; however, it is premature to have such an impact on this building; indicating that there is no need for the holding provision for the stairs; noting that the City owns the land; advising that the final design of the bus rapid transit on Richmond Street has not been completed; recommending that, 20 to 30 years from now, if the members of the Planning and Environment Committee are still on Council, that they have a bunker to hide in as the residents of Richmond Street are not going to be happy with the removal of their trees for bus rapid transit; reading the first bullet point under “Additional Transportation Comments (January 25, 2013)”; advising that Richmond Street is four lanes and enquiring as to what kind of median would be installed; advising that rights-in and rights-out onto Richmond Street are legal; advising that there is no proposal to restrict left turns onto Sherwood Avenue; indicating that, in the proposed by-law, the Civic Administration gets prescriptive; advising that the first unit and the east end shown on the proposed layout in the Civic Administration’s report is shown as a four bedroom apartment; noting that the proposed apartment will be approximately 1800 square feet, which is a luxury apartment and the patio will be included for the tenants of the apartment to use; noting that the proposed second four bedroom apartment will be the same layout and be located above the four bedroom apartment on the first floor; stating that Trudeau once commented that “the state has no business in people’s bedrooms”; advising that the expected tenants would be nurses, professionals and business owners along Richmond Street; advising that the church parishioners parked in the parking lot behind the church; indicating that there are 20 parking spaces for fourteen units; noting that the ratio of parking spots to units in this area of the City is one to one; indicating that the property is within easy walking distance to the University, the hospital and businesses; advising that they are meeting the parking standards established by the City; advising that the residence located at 1057 Richmond Street is not a well-kept building; noting that it has been a student residence for a long time; advising that the original proposal was to turn the building into offices  and the property located at 203 Sherwood Avenue would be used for parking; indicating that when the development at 1057, 1059 and 1061 Richmond Street is completed, the property located at 203 Sherwood Avenue will be listed for sale; and requesting that the Zoning By-law be implemented with two changes, namely, the inclusion of two four bedroom apartments and the removal of the holding provision; advising that the garbage will be stored internally and picked up by the City on the assigned day; indicating that his client is willing to restrict vehicular traffic onto the laneway at the end of his parking lot; advising that the incline on the laneway starts well west of his clients’ property; advising that the laneway does not deal with the function or safety of the proposed development; and advising that it is an increase in one unit, not 10%. -     Jeff Gard, 204 Victoria Street – indicating that his property abuts 203 Sherwood Avenue; advising that he has had a bit of experience with laneways; indicating that the laneway from Victoria Street to Cheapside Street is a private laneway; noting that there is no verbage on the registered plan for the laneway between Sherwood Avenue and Victoria Street; advising that, prior to 2002, the City was listed as the owner of the laneway; indicating that there was a huge fight with the church when they wanted to install the stairs in 2000/2001; expressing concern with the effect of the development on the laneway; noting that the laneway is in horrific shape, is not maintained by the City and that gravel from the laneway runs on to the sidewalk; and enquiring as to whether the City is going to take responsibility when the sewers break because of the increased traffic. -     Helen Luckman, 1069 Richmond Street – advising that she has resided in her house since 1973; noting that she previously lived at 203 Sherwood Avenue; indicating that they were relative newcomers and were welcomed by their neighbours; reading item seven under “Rationale” in the Civic Administration’s report; emphasizing the words “while maintaining the character of the abutting residential neighbourhood”; suggesting that the living space in each of the units could be enlarged to have the number of units equal the number of parking spaces; hoping that the developer sees the comments in a constructive manner; and hoping that this building can become a creative, attractive and novel destination in Old North. -     Steve Harris, 201 Sherwood Avenue – expressing concern with the dramatic increase in traffic; indicating that 10 of the 13 homes along Sherwood Avenue are owner occupied; indicating that the development will double traffic and tax the laneway; advising that laneway is one way; advising that the lane is accessed from Sherwood Avenue and runs from Regent Street to Grosvenor Street; indicating that there is poor visibility when turning onto Victoria Street; advising that his greatest concern is the safety of the children who travel along the laneway; advising that there is no room on the laneway for pedestrians if a vehicle uses the laneway; indicating that if two people were driving, from opposite ends of the laneway, one person would have to back all the way out; indicating that Richmond Street is designed to carry a high volume of traffic but the laneway is not; advising that there is no green space around the church; and indicating that it is sad that a heritage building may be torn down for a parking lot. -     James Waters, 1059 Richmond Street – indicating that access to and from the parking lot should only be from Richmond Street. -     Pollyanna McClinton, 194 Sherwood Avenue – advising that there are a lot of families living on Sherwood Avenue; indicating that it is a beautiful street and neighbourhood; noting that they have excellent neighbours; expressing concern with the impact of this application on the community; expressing concern with children using the laneway and having to watch out for cars; requesting that people think about how the laneway is used; noting that people bicycle along the laneway in the summer and that the laneway is not plowed in the winter; indicating that the laneway is in terrible shape; advising that she does not drive down the lane; indicating that that laneway is convenient for people along Sherwood Avenue; and, advising that the lane south of Victoria Street is larger, has speed bumps and is plowed. -     Mike Cornelius, 192 Sherwood Avenue – expressing concerns with the amount of density and the amount of vehicle parking; advising that the Official Plan states that the density needs to be 75 units per hectare; noting that this proposal is for 76.6 units per hectare; indicating that this would be a 10% increase from the Official Plan requirement; indicating that this raises questions about density; enquiring as to whether this Council is favouring low density residential or the higher density developments; advising that he thought that there would only be one four bedroom unit, not two; advising that the representative for the applicant indicated that they meet the requirement for parking; advising that most people have cars; noting that there will be 32 bedrooms and parking for 20 cars; further noting that there may be more than one person per unit and advising that guests will need parking. -     Mary Anne Colihan, 191 Sherwood Avenue – advising that the residents of Sherwood Avenue are hemmed in; indicating that this proposal will jam up their access; noting that Sherwood Avenue is a dead end street; indicating that there is a dip towards the end of the street; advising that there is no way to turn around at the end of the street and several vehicles have had to be towed out, including city garbage trucks, buses and plows; indicating that cars cannot park safely on the street, even after the plow has gone by; indicating that all of the trees along the laneway have been cut down by Mr. Grigoris; indicating that the lane was built for horses and buggies to travel down it; advising that the neighbours knew that the church would be occupied, they just weren’t sure how it would be used; indicating that the property located at 203 Sherwood Avenue should not be cut down; enquiring as to what stops developers from knocking down more homes; advising that there is a sea of “for sale” signs along Richmond Street; expressing hope for a true adaptive use of the church; requesting that the development be made into a green development; advising that there could be a secure bike unit to encourage people to use their bicycles; and advising that the neighbours would like to see less density. -     Brian Luckman, 1069 Richmond Street – requesting that everyone look at the first floor plan; noting that there are three proposed entrances; further noting that there are currently only two entrances; expressing concerns with the possible increase in garbage on Richmond Street; enquiring as to where the garbage will be stored and where it will be picked up from; enquiring as to where the 10% green space is; advising that there is no green space on the owner’s property, it’s all on the City’s property.    (2013-D14A)

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Approve clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5.

9.   Property located at

591 Maitland Street

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the proposed demolition of the property located at 591 Maitland Street:   a)         the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the demolition permit applied for the structure at 591 Maitland Street BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:   i)          professional architectural drawings for a new structure on this site BE PROVIDED and BE APPROVED for a building permit by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing building;   ii)         the drawings, as outlined in part i), above, BE CONSISTENT with the following criteria to the satisfaction of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner:   A)        replication of the general appearance and form of the front façade of the existing building;   B)        maintenance of the scale and form of the structure at the street to the depth of a single room, with the opportunity for an addition of a greater scale at a further depth into the site;   C)        a full front porch with a front yard building setback consistent with what currently exists; and,   D)        the new building be built consistent with the Conservation Guidelines contained within the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Plan; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from Renee Kaplansky, applicant, Hazel Elmslie, Woodfield Community Association, George Goodlet, Chair, London Advisory Committee on Heritage and Don Menard, Heritage Planner, with respect to this matter.  (2013-R01)

10.   Property located at

9345 Elviage Drive

That, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, relating to the communication, dated January 15, 2013, from M. Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 9345 Elviage Drive; it being noted that M. Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., be granted delegation status when the Civic Administration reports back.   (2013-D14A)

X.   DEFERRED

MATTERS

XI.   ENQUIRIES

Councillor S. White enquiries with respect to the use of inflatable devices at City-owned facilities.  The Chair refers the enquiry to the Civic Administration.

XII.   EMERGENT

MOTIONS

XIII.   BY-LAWS

BY-LAWS TO BE READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME:

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor D. Brown

Approve 1st reading of Bill No.s 94 to 102, inclusive.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor S. Orser

Seconded by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve 2nd reading of Bill No.s 94 to 102, inclusive.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor M. Brown

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve 3rd reading and enactment of Bill No.s 94 to 102, inclusive.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

XIV.   ADJOURNMENT