June 25, 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 7 of 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with an update on the decentralization of Ontario Works, by indicating that he is the Executive Director of a social services agency that has a purchase of service agreement with Ontario Works.  Councillor P. Hubert further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 10 of the 12th Report of Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with a graffiti removal partnership, by indicating that he is the President of a company that provides graffiti removal services.  Councillor P. Hubert further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the 2nd Report of the Child Care Advisory Committee, by indicating that his daughter is an employee of the YMCA Child Care Administration Office.

Councillor D. Brown discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 13 of the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with an update on the Taxicab and Limousine Licensing By-law and related issues, by indicating that her employer owns a taxi dispatch service.  Councillor D. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 12 of the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with the demolition request for the properties located at 275, 277 and 281 Thames Street, by indicating that her employer owns the subject properties.

Councillor J.P. Bryant discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 14 of the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, and related Bill No. 280, having to do with residential rental unit licensing fees, by indicating that she has a rental unit in her home.

Councillor B. Armstrong discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 14 of the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, and related Bill No. 280, having to do with residential rental licensing fees, by indicating that he owns residential rental units.

Councillor J.B. Swan discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of the 7th Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee, having to do with the Orchestra London business plan, by indicating that he is employed by Orchestra London.

Councillor J.L. Baechler discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 3 of the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, and related Bill No.s 313 and 320, having to do with applications related to the properties located at 3312-3405 Wonderland Road South and 1789 Wharncliffe Road South, by indicating that the proposal includes the development of a Lowe’s retail store and her son is employed by Lowe’s.  Councillor J.L. Baechler further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 10 of the 15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with applications related to the properties located at 3312-3405 Wonderland Road South and 1789 Wharncliffe Road South, by indicating that the proposal includes the development of a Lowe’s retail store and her son is employed by Lowe’s.

Councillor M. Brown discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 3 of the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, and related Bill No. 303, having to do with an application related to the property located at 2095 Coronation Drive, by indicating that his home is in the circulation area of the subject property.  Councillor M. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 3 of the 7th Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee, having to do with the key cultural prosperity plan initiatives funded by the Culture Office in 2013, by indicating that he is employed by the Thames Valley District School Board, which receives funding under the LAIR program.  Councillor M. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 17 of the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the school crossing guard program, by indicating that he is employed by the Thames Valley District School Board.

II.   REVIEW OF

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC

III.   ADDED

REPORTS

IV.   COMMITTEE

OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

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.   Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Orchestra London Business Plan

Moved by Councillor J.B. Swan

Approve clauses 1 and 4 to 7, inclusive.

At 11:10 PM Councillor H.L. Usher leaves the meeting.   At 11:15 PM Councillor H.L. Usher enters the meeting.   At 11:15 PM, Councillors D. Henderson and P. Van Meerbergen enter the meeting.   At 11:20 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana enters the meeting and resumes the Chair and Councillor S.E. White takes a seat at the Council Board.

Pursuant to section 12.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor J.P. Bryant calls for a separate vote on part a) of clause 5.

At 11:10 PM Councillor H.L. Usher leaves the meeting.   At 11:15 PM Councillor H.L. Usher enters the meeting.   At 11:15 PM, Councillors D. Henderson and P. Van Meerbergen enter the meeting.   At 11:20 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana enters the meeting and resumes the Chair and Councillor S.E. White takes a seat at the Council Board.

Pursuant to section 12.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor J.P. Bryant calls for a separate vote on part a) of clause 5.

Moved by Councillor M. Brown

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve clauses C-1 and C-4, inclusive.    That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendations be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:   C-1.   That, on the recommendation of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the property owned by London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC), municipally known as 124 Colborne Street, described as Part of Lot 27 and all of Lots 26, 34 and 35, Registered Plan 172 (E), designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-17941, containing an area of approximately 0.791 acres, the following actions be taken:   a)         the offer submitted by London Health Sciences Centre to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $197,750.00, BE ACCEPTED subject to the following condition:   i)          the City acknowledges that the property is being purchased on an “as is” basis.  The City acknowledges that LHSC has not made, did not make and shall not be required to provide any representations or warranties of any kind with respect to whether the property and processes and undertakings performed thereon have been and are in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations and orders and whether the property is suitable for any specific use including and without limitation to any construction or development.  The City acknowledges and agrees that LHSC shall not be liable for any damages of loss whatsoever arising out of or pursuant to any claims in respect to the foregoing; and                                     b)         the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.   C-2.   That, on the recommendation of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) property municipally known as 58 Colborne Street, described as Part of Lot 11, South Side of South Street East (Crown Plan No. 30), Part of Lot 11, North Side of Nelson Street East (Crown Plan No. 30), designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-17938, containing an area of approximately 0.790 acres, the following actions be taken:   a)         the offer submitted by London Health Sciences Centre to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $197,750.00, BE ACCEPTED subject to the following condition:   i)          the City acknowledges that the property is being purchased on an “as is” basis.  The City acknowledges that LHSC has not made, did not make and shall not be required to provide any representations or warranties of any kind with respect to whether the property and processes and undertakings performed thereon have been and are in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations and orders and whether the property is suitable for any specific use including and without limitation to any construction or development.  The City acknowledges and agrees that LHSC shall not be liable for any damages of loss whatsoever arising out of or pursuant to any claims in respect to the foregoing; and                                     b)         the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the   Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A   C-3.   That, on the recommendation of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) property municipally known as 401 Nelson Street, further described as Part of Lots 11 and 12, South Side of South Street East, Registered Plan 178(E), designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, Plan 33R-17936, containing an area of approximately 1.075 acres, the following actions be taken:   a)         the offer submitted by London Health Sciences Centre to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $268,750.00, BE ACCEPTED subject to the following conditions:   i)          all buildings and structures located on the lands are to be demolished and decommissioned by no later than December 31, 2014 and the property is being transferred in a vacant condition;     ii)         the City also acknowledges that the property is being purchased on an “as is” basis.  The City acknowledges that LHSC has not made, did not make and shall not be required to provide any representations or warranties of any kind with respect to whether the property and processes and undertakings performed thereon have been and are in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations and orders and whether the property is suitable for any specific use including and without limitation to any construction or development.  The City acknowledges and agrees that LHSC shall not be liable for any damages of loss whatsoever arising out of or pursuant to any claims in respect to the foregoing; and                                     b)         the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A     C-4.   That, on the recommendation of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the property municipally known as 554 Hyde Park Road, further described as Part North 1/2 Lot 25, Concession 1, being all of PIN 08050-0397, containing an area of approximately 4 acres, as shown on the attached location map, for the purpose of inclusion in an environmentally significant area, walking trail relocation, access control and ecological management of the lands surrounding the Sifton Bog, the following actions be taken:   a)         the offer submitted by Magda Ungar, Mary Gattyan and George Gattyan attached as Appendix “A”, to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $150,000.00, BE ACCEPTED subject to the following condition:   i)          the City having sixty (60) days from the date of acceptance of this agreement to satisfy itself in its sole and absolute discretion as to the soil and environmental conditions of the subject property; and   b)         financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “C”.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

3.   Properties located at 3313-3405

  Wonderland Road South and 1789 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-7072/OZ-7073)

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

VI.   CONFIRMATION

AND SIGNING OF THE MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING HELD ON JUNE 11, 2013

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher

Approve the Minutes of the 11th Meeting held on June 11, 2013.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

VII.   COMMUNICATIONS

AND PETITIONS

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve referral of the following communications for consideration with the noted clauses:

4.   Future Options for

London Hydro Inc.

That the following actions be taken with respect to future options for London Hydro Inc.:   a)        the attached presentations from T. Williams, Navigant Consulting and M. Hayward, Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer BE RECEIVED;   b)        this matter BE REFERRED to staff to identify and report back at the July 29, 2013 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with a proposed public education, dialogue and consultation process, which may include a city-wide survey, regarding all options for the future of London Hydro Inc., including the long term sustainable value for the Shareholder, prior to the Shareholder pursuing any course of action; and   c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to engage any third party consultants required to assist with the process.

VIII.   MOTIONS OF

WHICH NOTICE IS GIVEN

IX.   REPORTS

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor P. Hubert

Approve that pursuant to section 7.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, the order of business be changed to permit consideration of the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee at this time.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

7.   Property located at

590 Gainsborough Road (Z-8162)

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sherwood Forest Trinity Housing Corporation, relating to the property located at 590 Gainsborough Road:   a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone, which permits churches and elementary schools TO a Holding Residential R9/Neighbourhood Facility (h-__h-5R9-3*H20/NF1) Zone, to permit a wide range of medium and higher density residential developments in the form of apartment buildings along with churches, elementary schools, community centres, day care centres, libraries, private schools, fire stations, private clubs and police stations at a maximum height of 20 metres with two holding provisions to ensure that a public site plan process is undertaken and that onsite parking concerns are appropriately dealt with;   b)         the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to address the following items through the site plan approval process:   i)          an updated urban design brief to the Urban Design Review Panel for a more comprehensive review of the final proposal be submitted; ii)         the orientation of the building to reinforce its corner-site location at the street intersection; iii)         the potential for the church to be located in the rear or side yard in order to create a more positive transition between the massing and height of the apartment tower and the massing and height of the adjacent townhomes to the south;   iv)        the use of pedestrian connections and enhanced landscaping to acknowledge the intersection and strengthen it as a gateway to the community;  v)         ensure that active building spaces (such as units, lobbies and amenity areas) with windows and doors are located along Gainsborough Road and Limberlost Road creating an active building edge along the street; and, vi)        where parking areas are visible from the street, enhanced landscaping should be used in order to screen the parking, as well as, to create a visible edge that defines public and private realm;   c)         the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone, which permits churches and elementary schools TO a Residential R9 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility (R9-3(_)/NF1) Zone, to permit a wide range of medium and higher density residential developments in the form of apartment buildings along with churches, elementary schools, community centres, day care centres, libraries, private schools, fire stations, private clubs and police stations and a special provision to recognize 53 parking spaces where 68 is required BE REFUSED for the following reason:   i)              the City’s Transportation Division has concerns about the lack of parking for the church and day care facility and the potential for it to overflow onto Limberlost Road; it being noted that they have requested a holding provision in order to address the parking concerns, therefore a special provision for parking cannot be recommended;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:    -                     Erica Greenham, 53-1460 Limberlost Road – indicating that their complex is the one directly south of the applicant’s property; advising that she is a member of the board for the Condominium Corporation; and, advising that the owners have expressed concern about parking, traffic, safety and privacy, as well as the fact that they are already in a neighbourhood that has a large degree of affordable housing and it feels like it is becoming the corner for it. -                     Malcolm Ross, applicant – advising that they tried to incorporate the existing church into the new development, but were unable to do so; and, indicating that they will be demolishing the church, which allows both areas to have more common space.   (2013-D14A)

14.   Special Planning

and Environment Committee Meeting - July 25, 2013

That the communication, dated June 10, 2013, from the Committee Secretary, for the holding of a special Planning and Environment Committee on Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 4:00 p.m., BE APPROVED.

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, relating to the adjournment of the appeal of Adamas Group Inc., for OPA 535 Policy 3.5.19.8 and the appeal of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1-122125 solely as the said policy and provisions of the zoning by-law apply to the lands located at 1461-1465 Oxford Street East and 613-629 First Street, the Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council consents to an order that permits the appeals of Adamas Group Inc., in part, on the basis that Figure 4.36 of Schedule A to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1-122125 BE AMENDED to exclude these lands from Zoning By-law No. Z.-1-122125, as appended as Appendix 1 to the staff report dated June 20, 2013; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated June 18, 2013, from C. Kulchycki, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to this matter.   (2013-D14A)

17.   Properties located

at 56-82 Wellington Street, 283-323 South Street and 69-77 Waterloo Street (OZ-8114)

That, a special meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee BE HELD on Monday, June 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM to receive a revised recommendation and revised by-laws, with respect to the application of the Fincore Group, relating to the properties located at 56-82 Wellington Street, 283-323 South Street and 69-77 Waterloo Street.  (2013-D14A)

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Amend clause 11 by deleting the clause in its entirety and by replacing it with the following new clause:   That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the properties located at 1311, 1363 and 1451 Wharncliffe Road South:   a)         the attached revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2013, to amend Schedule “A”, Land Use, to the Official Pan for the City of London to change the designation of the lands known as 1311, 1363 and 1451 Wharncliffe Road South, (generally bounded by Wharncliffe Road South, Morgan Avenue and the future Bradley Avenue corridor), FROM an Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation and a Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation TO a Community Commercial Node designation, to permit a wide range of retail outlets, including department stores, home improvement and furnishings stores, supermarkets, food stores and pharmacies, convenience commercial uses, personal services, restaurants, commercial recreation establishments, financial institutions, a limited range of automotive services, service-oriented office uses such as real estate, insurance and travel agencies, community facilities, such as libraries or day care centres, professional and medical/dental offices, commercial and private schools, and limited amounts of office uses and places of entertainment;   b)         the attached revised proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above, to:   i)          amend the zoning on a portion of lands at 1311, 1363 and 1451 Wharncliffe Road South FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-138.RSC1(20)/RSC2(11)/RSC3(17)/RSC4 15)/RSC5/(17)) Zone and a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-135.RSC1(20)/ RSC2(11)/RSC3 (17)/RSC4(15)/RSC5/(17)) Zone, which permits a wide range of automotive, commercial and service oriented uses,  and a Holding Residential /R5/R6/ R7/R10 (h.h-54.h-71.h-100.h-134.R5-7/R6-5/R7.D100.H45/R10-3.H45) Zone, which permits a range of multi-family uses including townhouse dwellings, cluster housing, apartment buildings and retirement lodges TO a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-138. CSA5( )) Zone and a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-135.CSA5( )) Zone, to permit a wide range of commercial uses including assembly halls, restricted automotive uses, bake shops, cinemas, clinics, commercial recreation establishments, day care centres, financial institutions, offices, medical/dental offices, private clubs, restaurants, retail stores, service and repair establishments, supermarkets and taverns, with a maximum gross floor area of 30,000 square metres and a maximum height of 12 metres; and,   ii)         amend Section 22.3 of the Community Shopping Area (CSA) Zone by adding Special Provisions for the CSA 5 Zone, to permit uses in stand-alone buildings which do not form part of a shopping centre and permit a minimum front/exterior side yard depth of 3 metres;   c)         the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to report back on the modifications required to the Conditions of Draft Approval for Plan 39T-07510, to reflect changes to the Official Plan and Zoning that are approved by the Municipal Council; and,   d)         pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect to the proposed by-law as notice was previously given with respect to both the Official Plan Amendment and the Southwest Area Plan (OPA 451);   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:    -                     Steven Zakem, Aird Berlis, on behalf of the applicant – indicating that the Planning and Environment Committee had a staff report, dated March 19, 2013, recommending approval of their application in a manner acceptable to his client; noting that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law attached to that report would have adopted an Official Plan Amendment to the in-force Official Plan and a Zoning By-law Amendment on a free-standing basis, similar to what the Committee did on the York Developments application; advising that it was his position, at that time, that no reconsideration was required, for the same reason that the York Developments application was previously approved; noting that there was no reconsideration necessary for the York Developments application despite the fact that it is within SWAP and despite the fact that the Committee will be recommending to the Municipal Council the approval of an Official Plan Amendment; advising that the staff position for the reconsideration, and the staff change in recommendation, appears to be based on the premise that the SWAP decision on his clients lands  was not appealed; indicating that this is not correct, that Sifton Properties Limited appealed SWAP in its entirety, even as it applied to Sifton lands; reiterating that the basis on which staff is making this recommendation is based on an incorrect conclusion; advising that I filed the appeal and I know what I said; advising that he has a staff recommendation approving 31,000 square metres of space; and requesting the Committee to ask the Municipal Council to approve the attached document. -                     Vicky Blackwell, 3255 Morgan Avenue – advising that she and most of the neighbours living in the neighbourhood were here for the last meeting; noting that, unfortunately, most of the neighbours are unable to attend tonight’s meeting; reiterating that this is not something that the neighbourhood wants; advising that they believe that the existing zoning and the existing plans are more than sufficient; indicating that they do not want to see the existing multi-family residential get changed and allow a Wal-Mart or a Lowe’s in the area; advising that they previously fought to ensure that the road remained a secondary road, not a primary road; indicating that there is a lot of construction area through there now and it is only going to get worse; indicating that they do not believe that adequate traffic studies have been completed; indicating that they do not want the noise, the light pollution and people coming in and removing garbage in the middle of the night; reiterating that it is not something that they want; advising that they have plenty of grocery stores in the area; reiterating that they do not want a Wal-Mart on the corner; asking the Committee who would like to have a supercenter in your backyard; advising that she would be able to see it from her front steps; advising that it will be a safety concern for children in the neighbourhood; and asking that the application be refused. -                     Jim Harbell, Stikeman Elliott, on behalf of York Developments – advising that York Developments does not object to the Planning staff recommendation that is before the Committee this evening; reiterating that York Developments is not objecting to the commercial uses; noting that York Developments has an interest in this matter given that it is another significant commercial matter in the SWAP area; and advising that they do not anticipate that the City’s planning process should be used in any way to regulate competition.   (2013-D14A)

Moved by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Seconded by Councillor N. Branscombe

Refer clause 11 to the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) for further review in order to ensure proper documentation is in place that accurately reflects the wishes of the PEC, with no further public consultation to be required.

At 8:37 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana places Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 8:42 Mayor J.F. Fontana resumes the Chair and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.

Motion Failed

Motion Failed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve clause 11, as amended.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

10.   Properties located

at 3313-3405 Wonderland Road South and 1789 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-7072/OZ-7073)

That, a special meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee BE HELD on Monday, June 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, to receive a revised recommendation and by-laws, relating to  the application of 1279059 Ontario Inc. and 1699259 Ontario Inc. (c/o York Developments), relating to the properties located at 3313–3405 Wonderland Road South and 1789 Wharncliffe Road South;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:    -                     Jim Harbell, on behalf of the applicant – indicating that the application is for 6700 square feet of retail development; noting that there is the potential for national and North American retailers in home improvement and discount department areas, including a number of other uses, both local and regional; advising that this application has been before staff and the Planning and Environment Committee for eight years; expressing belief that the time has come to deal with the application for the following reason, because the Municipal Council has already approved it; the uses that are before the Committee this evening are all in the South West Area Plan; noting that the uses were recommended by Planning staff, they have been recommended by this Committee and approved by the Municipal Council; indicating that, all they are saying this evening is let them get on with Phase 1, the retail uses; indicating that it is $120,000,000 of private money; advising that it is approximately 690 construction jobs, approximately 1,300 permanent jobs, $9,000,000 in development charges, $500,000 in permit fees and annual property taxes of $3,600,000; asking that the development get started; indicating that the Committee has to decide that it is good planning; noting that it is more than good jobs, more than investment, the Committee has to decide that it is good planning; advising that the appeals at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for the South West Area Plan (SWAP) are not for any of these uses; reiterating that they did not appeal the uses, no one else has appealed the uses and they are not aware of anyone who is concerned with the uses; indicating that when the OMB  does approve the SWAP, which will probably include some technical tinkering on the width of Wonderland Road South and some of the urban design issues, it will come into force and effect on this property and will just layer on; advising that as it provides for office and high density approvals, which may happen in the second and third phase as the economy allows that to happen, that will happen; noting that they are not saying that SWAP is not going to happen on this property, they are just saying kick start it first; reiterating that the request to the Committee is to treat this property exactly like the properties to the north on Wonderland Road South, the Home Depot, the Loblaws and the retail stores; further noting that all of the retail to the north on Wonderland Road South has the same designation that they are requesting of the Committee, the New Format Regional, which will have the SWAP go in on top of it; advising that the people who own where the Home Depot is can build an office building or condominiums on that property, in the future, in accordance with SWAP; reiterating that it is the same thing for this property; advising that they are not asking for any different treatment than this community has already done right up the street and what do you get for it, you get to kick start a lot of economic benefits; advising that it says to them that this application has the balance of public interest by kick starting the economic development and good planning that has already been approved by this municipality; indicating that there will be issues with the staff on the concept plan, however, the concept plan is not before the Committee this evening; indicating that they are not seeking approval for it; expressing happiness to work with staff to sort that out; advising that one of the things that they are suggesting in the Zoning By-law is to put an “h” across the Wonderland Road South frontage so that if the OMB does something different with respect to the width of Wonderland Road South or the urban design on Wonderland Road South, the “h” will be consistent with that and everyone will have control over that; advising that what they are saying is that the bulk of the $120,000,000 is on the back side of the property and you might as well get going on that; advising that there are no servicing issues on this property; indicating that they are proposing a private sanitary system exactly like what was put in across the street at the transit centre; advising that they see the need for two signalized intersections to support this development; noting that no one should be surprised by this because staff and the Municipal Council want an intense development on Wonderland Road South; further noting that this is what the Wonderland Corridor is all about; advising that their clients understand that the Municipal Council’s long term vision is for the area to be an urban area; indicating that, over time, the area will be more intense, not less intense; and referencing a communication, dated June 19, 2013, that he prepared with a revised recommendation on it.   -                     Alan R. Patton, Patton Cormier & Associates, on behalf of the Southside Group of companies – indicating that, on page 170 of the Planning and Environment Committee, his clients owns the properties located at 3263 north to the built portion on the west side of Wonderland Road and the properties located at 3234 and 3274 on the east side of Wonderland Road; indicating that, on page 172, the subject property is in the Urban Reserve Zone, which is important; reading the second paragraph under the “Analysis” on page 182; indicating that this is all under the auspices of the SWAP; indicating that he is nothing but consistent on the position of his client on these matters; requesting that the Committee Members turn to item number 11, which deals with the Sifton Properties lands; noting that the Sifton Properties lands are just around the corner; advising that he said that this should be dealt with under the SWAP; indicating that any justification to change the designation of Mr. Harbell’s clients lands to Regional Format should await the decision on the SWAP; noting that it will just be consistent as it is already there, as the entire SWAP is at the OMB; and indicating that, this is the way to deal with it with a consistent approach. -                     Steven Zakem, Aird Berlis, on behalf of Sifton Properties Limited – indicated that the lands are designated Urban Reserve; advising that the policies in the Official Plan indicate that Urban Reserve lands should be the subject of a secondary plan process; noting that the secondary plan process was the SWAP; advising that, through that process, the subject lands were to be designated Wonderland Corridor; advising that on behalf of Sifton Properties Limited, he has expressed comments on the SWAP and is an appellant of SWAP; noting that he does not intend to reiterate those comments this evening; indicating that the staff report does highlight some of the concerns that they have expressed with respect to SWAP, including the inconsistency between the vision for the Wonderland Road Corridor and the inconsistency of that vision with respect to large format retail use permissions; advising that they have also expressed concerns with respect to the lack of phasing direction and the financing of infrastructure; reiterating that the staff report highlights these issues with respect to this application; noting that it does not just apply to this application, but other areas of SWAP that have not been designated for urban purposes like the Sifton Properties Limited lands which have had long-standing land use permissions and are readily available to be serviced and have infrastructure at the doorstep; making it clear, that, with respect to this application, his client does not object to the amount of retail lands proposed on the subject lands provided that the Sifton Properties Limited application, which will be considered later this evening for 350,000 square feet, is permitted and I say that because our clients application has the ability to proceed immediately; advising that you can take all of the numbers that Mr. Harbell threw at you in terms of economic benefit and use for his clients lands; advising that 350,000 square feet will generate $65,000,000 in investment, $5,000,000 in development charges, etc.; and reiterating that they do not take issue with respect to the amount of space proposed provided that it is not to the detriment of his clients proposal.   (2013-D14A)

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve clauses 11 to 17, inclusive.

13.   Property located at

450 Oxford Street West (OZ-8003)

That, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to be held on September 10, 2013, relating to the application by Bluestone Properties Inc., for the property located at 450 Oxford Street West;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated May 29, 2013, from A.R. Patton, Patton Cormier & Associates, with respect to this matter;   it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from A.R. Patton, Patton Cormier & Associates, on behalf of Bluestone Properties Inc. and M. Snowsell, Land Use Regulations Officer, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, with respect to this matter. (2013-D14A)

5.   Status of ReThink

London Key Directions and Discussion Papers

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the staff report dated June 10, 2013, with respect to the ReThink London process and discussion papers, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard the attached presentation from the Manager of Land Use Planning Policy with respect to this matter.

Councillor J.L. Baechler enquired about the status of the City’s defense of the Municipal Council’s position regarding “Near Campus Neighbourhoods”.  J. Page, Solicitor II, advised that the Municipal Council’s position was successfully defended before the Ontario Municipal Board. Motion Passed

Motion Passed

6.   Property located at

1956 Shore Road (Z-8180)

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, based on the application of Nicholson Sheffield Architects Inc., relating to the lands located at 1956 Shore Road, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 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, subject to removal of a holding (“h”) provision, a range of cluster housing and neighbourhood facilities including single detached and semi-detached dwellings, townhouses, low-rise apartment buildings, churches and elementary schools TO a  Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone, to permit such uses as churches, elementary schools, community centres, day care centres, libraries, private schools, private clubs, fire stations and police stations;   it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.    (2013-D14A)

8.   Property located at

1069 Clarke Road (Z-8165)

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, based on the application of Champion Life Centre, relating to the property located at 1069 Clarke Road, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial/Light Industrial (RSC2/RSC4/LI7) Zone, which permits such uses as automobile rental establishments, dry cleaning and laundry depots, convenience stores, bake shops, personal, service establishments, day care centres, building or contracting establishments and automobile repair garages TO a Restricted Service Commercial/Light Industrial Special Provision (RSC2/RSC4/LI3()/LI7) Zone, which permits, in addition to the range of uses noted above, assembly halls, commercial recreation establishments, private clubs and private parks; it being noted that the Special Provision () requires that a minimum of 46 parking spaces be provided for on-site;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:    -                     Alan R. Patton, Patton Cormier & Associates, on behalf of the applicant – expressing support for the recommendation.    (2013-D14A)

11.   Properties located

at 1311, 1363 and 1451 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-8087)

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the properties located at 1311, 1363 and 1451 Wharncliffe Road South:   a)            the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2013, to replace schedule 1-d of Official Amendment No. 541 to change the designation of the lands known as 1311, 1363 and 1451 Wharncliffe Road South, (generally bounded by Wharncliffe Road South, Morgan Avenue and the future Bradley Avenue corridor), FROM an Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation and a Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation TO a Community Commercial Node designation, to permit a wide range of retail outlets, including department stores, home improvement and furnishings stores, supermarkets, food stores and pharmacies, convenience commercial uses, personal services, restaurants, commercial recreation establishments, financial institutions, a limited range of automotive services, service-oriented office uses such as real estate, insurance and travel agencies, community facilities, such as libraries or day care centres, professional and medical/dental offices, commercial and private schools, and limited amounts of office uses and places of entertainment;   b)            the Ontario Municipal Board BE REQUESTED to amend the land use designations contained in Official Plan Amendment No. 541 accordingly;   c)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of the Municipal Council, when the Official Plan Amendment noted in part a), above, is in full force and effect, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above), to:   i)          amend the zoning on a portion of lands at 1311, 1363 and 1451 Wharncliffe Road South FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-138.RSC1(20)/RSC2(11)/RSC3(17)/RSC4 (15)/RSC5/(17)) Zone and a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-135.RSC1(20)/ RSC2(11)/RSC3 (17)/RSC4(15)/RSC5/(17)) Zone, which permits a wide range of automotive, commercial and service oriented uses,  and a Holding Residential /R5/R6/ R7/R10 (h.h-54.h-71.h-100.h-134.R5-7/R6-5/R7.D100.H45/R10-3.H45) Zone, which permits a range of multi-family uses including townhouse dwellings, cluster housing, apartment buildings and retirement lodges TO a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-138. CSA5( )) Zone and a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h.h-11.h-63.h-82.h-95.h-100.h-105.h-135.CSA5( )) Zone, to permit a wide range of commercial uses including assembly halls, restricted automotive uses, bake shops, cinemas, clinics, commercial recreation establishments, day care centres, financial institutions, offices, medical/dental offices, private clubs, restaurants, retail stores, service and repair establishments, supermarkets and taverns, with a maximum gross floor area of 30,000 square metres and a maximum height of 12 metres; and, ii)        amend Section 22.3 of the Community Shopping Area (CSA) Zone by adding Special Provisions for the CSA 5 Zone, to permit uses in stand-alone buildings which do not form part of a shopping centre and permit a minimum front/exterior side yard depth of 3 metres; and,   c)            the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to report back on the modifications required to the Conditions of Draft Approval for Plan 39T-07510, to reflect changes to the Official Plan and Zoning that are approved by the Municipal Council;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:    -                     Steven Zakem, Aird Berlis, on behalf of the applicant – indicating that the Planning and Environment Committee had a staff report, dated March 19, 2013, recommending approval of their application in a manner acceptable to his client; noting that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law attached to that report would have adopted an Official Plan Amendment to the in-force Official Plan and a Zoning By-law Amendment on a free-standing basis, similar to what the Committee did on the York Developments application; advising that it was his position, at that time, that no reconsideration was required, for the same reason that the York Developments application was previously approved; noting that there was no reconsideration necessary for the York Developments application despite the fact that it is within SWAP and despite the fact that the Committee will be recommending to the Municipal Council the approval of an Official Plan Amendment; advising that the staff position for the reconsideration, and the staff change in recommendation, appears to be based on the premise that the SWAP decision on his clients lands  was not appealed; indicating that this is not correct, that Sifton Properties Limited appealed SWAP in its entirety, even as it applied to Sifton lands; reiterating that the basis on which staff is making this recommendation is based on an incorrect conclusion; advising that I filed the appeal and I know what I said; advising that he has a staff recommendation approving 31,000 square metres of space; and requesting the Committee to ask the Municipal Council to approve the attached document. -                     Vicky Blackwell, 3255 Morgan Avenue – advising that she and most of the neighbours living in the neighbourhood were here for the last meeting; noting that, unfortunately, most of the neighbours are unable to attend tonight’s meeting; reiterating that this is not something that the neighbourhood wants; advising that they believe that the existing zoning and the existing plans are more than sufficient; indicating that they do not want to see the existing multi-family residential get changed and allow a Wal-Mart or a Lowe’s in the area; advising that they previously fought to ensure that the road remained a secondary road, not a primary road; indicating that there is a lot of construction area through there now and it is only going to get worse; indicating that they do not believe that adequate traffic studies have been completed; indicating that they do not want the noise, the light pollution and people coming in and removing garbage in the middle of the night; reiterating that it is not something that they want; advising that they have plenty of grocery stores in the area; reiterating that they do not want a Wal-Mart on the corner; asking the Committee who would like to have a supercenter in your backyard; advising that she would be able to see it from her front steps; advising that it will be a safety concern for children in the neighbourhood; and asking that the application be refused. -                     Jim Harbell, Stikeman Elliott, on behalf of York Developments – advising that York Developments does not object to the Planning staff recommendation that is before the Committee this evening; reiterating that York Developments is not objecting to the commercial uses; noting that York Developments has an interest in this matter given that it is another significant commercial matter in the SWAP area; and advising that they do not anticipate that the City’s planning process should be used in any way to regulate competition.   (2013-D14A)

12.   North Routledge

Park Industrial Area

That, the communication, dated June 6, 2013, from Councillor Matt Brown, with respect to the North Routledge Park Industrial Area BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration and to respond directly to Councillor M. Brown.   (2013-D14)

15.   Property located at

2237 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-8163)

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Craig and Maria White, relating to the property located at 2237 Wharncliffe Road South:   a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 18, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting once OPA 541 (Southwest Area Plan), as adopted by the Municipal Council and applied to these lands, comes into full force and effect, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a  Holding Arterial Commercial Special Provision (h-17AC1(3)) Zone, which permits accessory dwelling units, converted dwellings, day care centres, emergency care establishments, existing dwellings, group home type 2, lodging house class 2, professional and service offices, studios, clinics, medical/dental offices and a wellness centre TO a Holding Arterial Commercial Special Provision (h-17AC1()) Zone, to permit office and retail store uses along with the current permitted uses and recognize the existing 0.5m interior side yard setback; it being noted that the special provision will also limit the permitted uses to the existing building and limit the gross floor area of an addition for office and retail store uses to a maximum of 65m2 (700 sq. ft.); and,   b)         the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Arterial Commercial Special Provision (h-17*AC1(3)) Zone, which permits accessory dwelling units, converted dwellings, day care centres, emergency care establishments, existing dwellings, group home type 2, lodging house class 2, professional and service offices, studios, clinics, medical/dental offices and a wellness centre TO an Arterial Commercial (AC4()) Zone, to permit the uses in the AC zone variation, animal hospitals, dwelling units above the first floor, bake shops, catalogue stores, clinics, convenience service establishments, duplicating shops, food stores, financial institutions, home and auto supply stores, medical/dental offices, offices, personal service establishments, printing establishments, restaurants, eat-in, retail stores, service and repair establishments, studios, video rental establishments, and a brewing on premises establishment, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:   i)          the AC zone is intended to implement the Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation in Section 4.4.2 of the Official Plan; ii)         several of the  proposed uses in the AC4 zone are not permitted under the proposed medium density residential designation of the Southwest Area Plan; and, iii)         adequate municipal services have yet to be provided to the subject site to allow for the removal of holding provisions;   it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.  (2013-D14A)

16.   Heritage Inventory

Addition

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the Inventory of Heritage Resources BE AMENDED to delete the property located at 131 Pond Mills Road and to add the property located at 130 Pond Mills Road.  (2013-R01)

18.   Properties located

at 3130 and 3260 Dingman Drive and the rear portion of 4397 and 4407 Wellington Road South (OZ-8120)

That, on the direction of Municipal Council, in recognition of the circumstance where these lands have been previously zoned and designated to permit a range of commercial uses, and that an “Unevaluated Vegetation Patch” (Patch 10102) as identified on Schedule “B-1” of the Official Plan is located on a portion of these lands, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of PenEquity Realty Corporation, relating to the property located at 3130 and 3260 Dingman Drive and the rear portion of 4397 and 4407 Wellington Road South:   a)            the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2013, to amend the Official Plan as follows:   i)              by adding a special policy in Chapter 10 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit cinema use outside of the downtown area in the New Format Regional Commercial Node; and, ii)             by amending Schedule B-1- Natural Heritage Features, to delete “Unevaluated Vegetation Patch”;   b)            the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 20, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a), above), FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Light Industrial (hRSC1(9)/RSC5/LI6) Zone, a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (hRSC1(9)/RSC3/RSC4(5)/RSC5) Zone, which permits a wide range of service commercial uses such as automobile services, home and auto supply, service repair and light industrial uses and a Community Shopping Area (CSA6) which allows for a large range of commercial uses TO a Holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (hh-5h-18h-55h-103h-141h()*ASA3/ASA5/ASA6 ()/ASA7()/ASA8()) Zone, to allow for commercial retail use, 14,000m2 of commercial recreational use, 4,000m2 cinema use, a gas bar use, and a hotel use, subject to holding provisions to ensure the provision of municipal servicing, archaeological evaluation be completed, a transportation study be completed, Ministry of Transportation permits be obtained, urban design matters be addressed, and a natural heritage compensation agreement between the City and the applicant be entered into to address the natural heritage compensation measures to be implemented resulting from the removal of the Unevaluated Vegetation Patch (Patch 10102);   c)            the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:   -                     ensure a high level of architectural and landscape quality on all portions of the site with visual exposure to Highway 401; -                     ensure that the design of the buildings located along Highway 401 and Dingman drive are of a high design standard and do not appear as “the back of house”; -                     screen all parking areas visible from Highway 401 as well as Dingman Drive using enhanced landscaping; -                     create a block pattern on the site in order to allow for future redevelopment; -                     create a high quality main street through the centre of the site that includes: -                     on-street parking; -                     wide sidewalks; -                     street trees; -                     landscaping as well as street furniture (i.e.: lamp posts, signage, benches, garbage bins, etc…); -                     improved pedestrian experience and access throughout the site; -                     locate buildings along the main street that are oriented towards the street with accented main pedestrian entry points, transparent glass, articulated facades and rooflines, in order to create an active frontage; -                     include a key building at the view terminus of the proposed main street (e.g., proposed movie theatre); -                     provision of a variety of high quality materials (such as transparent glass, brick, stone, etc.) on all proposed buildings, in particular the elevations facing Highway 401, Dingman Drive and the mainstreet; -                     create a centralized public space, located along the main street; -                     provide for continuous pedestrian connections through the site; -                     ensure all buildings have a walkway to the proposed on site main street commercial corridor as well as continuous walkways connecting to other buildings on the site; -                     include adequately sized landscape islands to break up large surface parking areas, these landscape islands should include trees as well as enhanced landscaping;

-                     submit an updated urban design brief to the Urban Design Review Panel for a more comprehensive review of the final proposal through the site plan process; and, -                     plant three trees for every tree removed, at a location of the applicant’s choice, on the property;   d)            the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 from a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Light Industrial (hRSC1(9) /RSC5/LI6) Zone, a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (hRSC1(9)/RSC3/RSC4(5)/RSC5) Zone, which permits a wide range of service commercial uses such as automobile services, home and auto supply, service repair and light industrial uses and a Commercial Shopping Area (CSA6) Zone, which allows for a large range of commercial uses to an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA3/ASA5/ASA6 ()/ASA7()/ASA8) Zone and an Open Space (OS1) Zone, to allow for 50,183m2 of commercial retail use, 13,564m2 of commercial recreational use, 3,921m2 cinema use, a gas bar use and a passive recreational use, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:   i)              the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, including Wise Use and Management of Resources policies; and, ii)             the requested amendment is not consistent with the Environmental policies of the Official Plan;   e)            the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to determine if there are similar instances where “Unevaluated Vegetation Patches” on Schedule “B-1” of the Official Plan are not shown as “Open Space” or  “Environmental Review” on Schedule “A” of the Official Plan, and to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to show these lands as “Open Space” or  “Environmental Review” on Schedule “A” of the Official Plan, noting that this would then make these lands subject to the City’s Tree Conservation By-law (By-Law C.P.-1466-249);   f)              the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the Applicant to develop the Natural Heritage Compensation Agreement required by the h(_) holding provision for Municipal Council approval that reflects the natural heritage value of the natural heritage feature to be removed, and is consistent with the compensation achieved through the Sovereign Woods resolution, it being noted that the Natural Heritage Compensation Agreement may include both natural heritage lands and lands that may be planted; and,   g)         pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as Insert reason why no further notice is required;   it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated June 17, 2013, from Roslyn Houser, Goodmans, with respect to this matter.   (2013-D14A)

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Amend clause 18 in part g) by deleting the words “Insert reason why no further notice is required;” and by replacing them with the words “the by-law is consistent with the request of the applicant, is consistent with what was circulated to the public and the changes are minor in nature;”.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Amend clause 18 by deleting part b) it in its entirety and by replacing it with the following new part b):   b)         the proposed revised by-law attached hereto as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 25, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above, FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/Light Industrial (hRSC1(9)/RSC5/LI6) Zone, a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (hRSC1(9)/RSC3/RSC4(5)/RSC5) Zone which permits a wide range of service commercial uses such as automobile services, home and auto supply, service repair and light industrial uses and a Community Shopping Area (CSA6) which allows for a large range of commercial uses TO a Holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (hh-5h-18h-55h-103h-141h()*ASA3/ASA5/ASA6 ()/ASA7()/ASA8()) Zone to allow for commercial retail use, 14,000m2 of commercial recreational use, 4,000m2 cinema use, a gas bar use, a hotel use, home improvement and furnishing stores, and liquor, beer and wine stores subject to holding provisions to ensure the provision of municipal servicing, archaeological evaluation be completed, a transportation study be completed, Ministry of Transportation permits be obtained, urban design matters be addressed, and a natural heritage compensation agreement between the City and the applicant be entered into to address the natural heritage compensation measures to be implemented resulting from the removal of the Unevaluated Vegetation Patch (Patch 10102);

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

At 8:52 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana places Councillor P. Van Meerbergen in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

At 9:08 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana resumes the Chair and Councillor P. Van Meerbergen takes his seat at the Council Board.

Moved by Councillor H.L. Usher

Seconded by Councillor P. Hubert

Refer the matter to the Civic Administration to complete an Environmental Impact Study, which is to include an evaluation and comment on the status of the woodlot and/or wetland; a summary of the net jobs, including a description of jobs that will be created by this proposal; and to permit the applicant an opportunity to further consider the potential to retain some, or all of the woodlot, and to report back thereon to the Planning and Environment Committee.

Councillor J.L. Baechler appeals the ruling of the Chair.   Pursuant to section 10.5 of the Council Procedure By-law the question “Shall the ruling of the Chair be Sustained?” is put.

The ruling of the Chair is not sustained.

At 9:51 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana places Councillor B. Armstrong in the Chair and leaves the meeting.

At 10:03 PM Mayor J.F. Fontana resumes the Chair and Councillor B. Armstrong takes his seat at the Council Board.   The motion to Refer clause 18 is put.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

19.   Draft Downtown

Master Plan

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the Downtown Master Plan:   a)            the staff report, dated June 18, 2013, relating to the Downtown Master Plan BE CIRCULATED for public review and comment; it being noted that a public participation meeting to adopt the Downtown Master Plan, as may be revised following the public consultation process, will be presented at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee; and,   b)            the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee regarding the implementation strategy for the Downtown Master Plan, including an identification of projects that are currently identified and funded or currently identified and planned to be funded in future budgets, and those projects that will require funding through future budget deliberations;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated June 13, 2013, from J. MacDonald, Executive Director, Downtown London, R.T. Usher, Chair, London Downtown Business Association and J. Adams, Chair, MainStreet London, with respect to this matter;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual made an oral submission in connection therewith:    -                     Gary Brown, 35A – 59 Ridout Street – requesting more enhanced cycling in the Downtown Master Plan.   (2013-D19)

That, the application of the PenEquity Realty Corporation, relating to the properties located at 3130 and 3260 Dingman Drive and the rear portion of 4397/4407 Wellington Road South, BE REFERRED to the June 20, 2013 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for further consideration; it being noted that the Civic Administration is to report back with an amended By-law to reflect the applicant’s request as outlined in the attached communication;   it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated January 14, 2013, from K. Patpatia, 1787996 Ontario Inc., and J. Manocha, Flexion Properties Inc., with respect to this matter;   it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:   -                    David Johnson, CEO and President, PenEquity Realty Corporation – advising that PenEquity has a long standing track record for recognizing properties that have special qualities and developing them to their full potential; indicating that this has resulted in successful quality developments that interested stakeholders are proud to be a part of; advising that, at the 2011 Mayor’s Breakfast, he was given the privilege of saying a few words about this proposed development; expressing appreciation to the staff for recognizing that the lands  be given the New Format Regional Commercial Node designation; advising that the development cannot proceed with any part of the woodlot remaining on the property in its current location; indicating that the lands are currently zoned for Commercial and Light Industrial uses with no Open Space designations; advising that they are not here asking to rezone Open Space lands or to remove a designation protecting the woodlot; indicating that a key factor for entering into the development was because the lands are zoned for development; advising that the current process is to refine the use of the lands; noting that it is not to establish the principal of development; indicating that their goal is to achieve a balance between economics for the City and the development, the environment and civic responsibility; indicating that, while they are fully within their rights to cut down the woodlot, good stewardship and the manner in which PenEquity conducts business led them down the road of public process and good corporate citizenship; indicating that they did not abandon their rights, but, in good faith, they agreed to review the woodlot with AECOM as recommended by city staff; indicating that the woodlot hit some of the City’s markers; indicating that AECOM concluded that given the planned function of this node under the City’s Official Plan, the long-term viability of the patch as a functioning woodlot is dubious due to the disconnective nature of the natural heritage features within the immediate surrounding landscape and the disturbance from existing and future land uses; indicating that the woodlot does not contain any species at risk; indicating that the ecological feature is not considered unique within the City of London; advising that the woodlot areas have a high invasive plant cover that compromises the patch; advising that the patch is severed by a sewer easement that has and will be maintained as a clear area; indicating that the woodlot is isolated from other patches; indicating that they are willing to compensate the City by donating land and contributing to the City’s million tree challenge; advising that their offer is on public record with both staff and the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee; advising that they have offered a gift of land of 6 acres in the southeast corner of the property to be either reforested and available to the public or to serve as a fourplex arena complex, which is included in the City’s Capital Budget; advising that they also offered a major contribution to the City’s million tree challenge, which has a definite need given the City’s emerald ash borer problem; indicating that this package has an approximate value of $3,500,000; advising that the current value of the woodlot is approximately $5,500 an acre; noting that the property is not available and is not accessible; however, if it was it would garner about 600 acres of land; advising that their goal is to produce a special development which takes advantage of the unique 401 location that promotes the City and other stakeholders while acting as an anchor; indicating that this will promote economic opportunity and prosperity; advising that this is an approximately $200,000,000 investment in the City of London, excluding spin offs; advising that it will result in approximately 681 person years in employment in construction; advising that it will also create approximately 323 person years of employment regarding materials and services; advising that approximately 1,200 jobs will be created in retail; advising that it will produce approximately $9,400,000 in development charge revenue for the City; advising that it will create building permit revenue in excess of $440,000 and annual property taxes in excess of $2,800,000; and, indicating that the removal of the woodlot is both permitted and essential to move forward, balanced by the gateway and economic benefits to the City, including a significant compensation package which promotes both sustainability and accessibility to all stakeholders. -                    Leger Xavier, Vice-President, Development and Leasing, PenEquity Realty Corporation – indicating that they have spent a lot of time trying to outline a plan that resonated with the community and met the terms and conditions that they were scoped and tasked with; indicating that Wellington Road South and Highway 401 is a gateway for the City of London; indicating that this is a great opportunity to create branding and a sense of awareness that you are in the City of London at one of London’s key entrance points; noting that it is the only entrance point to the Downtown; advising that 30,000,000 people a year drive by this interchange; indicating that this is an amazing opportunity to do something really special; advising that it has already been identified as a major gateway into the City and the Downtown; advising that it is part of an existing retail node; reiterating that the lands are already zoned New Format Regional Commercial Node and zoned for development; indicating that there are a lot of great complimentary uses in the area; advising that the site is 80 acres in size; indicating that the development has to be meaningful in a variety of ways, including size, development and design; indicating that they have come up with themed neighbourhoods that are accessible and connected to the core area within a three to five minute walk; noting that the themes are fashion, retail and goods and sports and entertainment; indicating that this creates a strong designation for South London where you do not have to get back in your car; looking for a way to establish and sell through the gateway idea; noting that the gateway would be a way to brand the community; advising that London has an opportunity to do something really special along its 401 highway; and, expressing belief in this unique opportunity to not only establish a major development at the interchange but to also bring branding and presence to London. -                    Dean Sheppard, Chair, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) – advising that the EEPAC reviewed the subject lands status report in January, 2013; indicating that the EEPAC made recommendations about the significance of the woodland and the boundary of the woodland as marked; indicating that the EEPAC advised of technical deficiencies that they found in the report, including the protection of uncommon communities and the need for an Environmental Impact Study to determine the impacts from development and what the fate of the woodland would be once the impacts were specified; indicating that the woodland was evaluated based on eight evaluation factors; advising that one high score in one of those evaluation factors is sufficient for a woodland to be considered a significant part of a natural heritage system; advising that five evaluation criteria were marked as high; indicating that this is a high quality woodland and is clearly a significant part of our natural heritage system; indicating that AECOM, who prepared the subject lands status report, agrees that the woodland is significant; advising that there is less than eight percent woodland cover in London; indicating that there are only two ways to increase that number, those being to naturalize a lot more land and to stop cutting down existing woodlands; indicating that woodlands are not clear cut because it is short sighted, natural areas are community assets, natural areas do pay us back, there’s a lot of ecological goods and services and community value in an existing, healthy, natural, mature, natural area; advising that, in his view, it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that the public good is achieved; indicating that woodlands are being cut faster than we are planting; indicating that there is a clear policy mandate in the Provincial Policy Statement and London’s Official Plan; advising that the public expects the City to be good stewards of our natural assets; noting that there is a really good example in tonight’s agenda in the comments from the Glanworth Community Association; advising that staff have done a really good job of explaining what a land status report is; indicating that no one knows if a woodland is in a healthy state until an Environmental Impact Study has been completed; advising that the proponent is talking about some circumstances in an attempt to clear cut the woodland; reiterating that the scoring still showed five high scores; indicating that the circumstances outlined can be easily individually challenged; noting that in EEPAC’s review of the report, the EEPAC made comments specifically challenging, refuting or questioning some of the circumstances that were going to lead to the non-viability of the woodland; advising that the EEPAC does not agree with the predictions of the doom of the woodland; incorporating the woodland into this proposed development is a perfect example of how we can have both economic development and a build out and still protect our existing woodland; seeing no reason why both cannot occur; advising that the   preservation of the woodland is funded through parkland dedication; noting that it will function as part of the stormwater management facility on site; and, requesting that the woodland be preserved. -                    Steve Gammon, Senior Project Manager, Senior Planner, MMM Group, on behalf of Costco Wholesale – advising that Costco’s legal and consultant team have reviewed the transportation study, planning justification report and urban design brief as submitted in support of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan amendments; indicating that they feel this application is premature, as outlined in the communication, dated June 17, 2013,  submitted by Goodman’s, LLP, on behalf of Costco; expressing significant concerns with the traffic on Roxborough Road and the anticipated impact that this will have on Costco members, as well as the function of Roxborough Road, and the existing Costco warehouse site, including access to the site, egress from the site and on-site movement; indicating that the transportation work completed to date has not demonstrated that the uses permitted by the by-law can be accommodated with acceptable impacts to the neighbours, particularly Costco; noting that this is a requirement under Section 4.5 of the Official Plan; understanding that city staff have requested an additional transportation study be undertaken; noting that city staff have recommended the protection of the existing woodland that will precipitate the redesign of the conceptual site plan; advising that the redesign of the proposed development will alter the traffic patterns; indicating that Costco has been in touch with PenEquity; understanding that there is an agreement to involve Costco in discussions with the City with respect to the redesign of the proposed development and resolution of the transportation issues with the City; advising that it is their opinion that the additional studies be undertaken so that the transportation impacts can be understood and that all transportation issues can be resolved prior to any amendments to zoning by-laws being considered; advising that if the transportation issues are left until the site plan stage, Costco will have no status under the Planning Act and will have no right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; and, advising that, in their opinion, it would be a mistake to pass the zoning by-law amendment at this point as it will force Costco to appeal the decision in order to protect the impact on their business. -                    Gary Brown, 35A-59 Ridout Street – agreeing with the comments made by Mr. Sheppard, on behalf of the EEPAC; advising that every city that he drives into has glorified strip malls in the corners; and, advising that he does not think this development will distinguish London. -                    Stewart Kernohan, Lumberteria Home Hardware – advising that his property backs onto the proposed development; indicating that he has been at this location for 49 years; indicating that there has been a decided lack of development in this area; advising that the last development was Costco which is over 25 years ago; indicating that the vision that PenEquity has is not the standard that other cities have, by proposing a gateway development, not just a standard strip mall development; advising that the wetland area was created by digging out the gravel for the overpass on Highway 401 and Wellington Road when it was part of Westminster Township; advising that Westminster Township originally zoned this area as a commercial development area; recommending development of this area; and advising that this development will greatly enhance this area.    -                    Victoria White, President, Glanworth Community Association – advising that she has very little sympathy for the applicant bemoaning the fact that they purchased commercial property with woodland on it; advising that they should have done their research better before purchasing the property; expressing support for Mr. Sheppard’s comments; believing that a full environmental study should be completed for the property; indicating that the current study is not complete; expressing concern with the compensation package; noting that a couple of trees planted somewhere does not make a forest; and, advising that there is no compensation for a woodland that has been identified as a significant woodland. -                    Barbara Shore, Vice-President, Glanworth Community Association – indicating that she has specific ideas for the downtown intensification; advising that she believes that we should be going up and not out; advising that nothing can compare to the salvation of these key ecological woodlands in the area; indicating that if we let one woodland and one wetland go to development, a precedent is being set; indicating that there are over 250 commercial buildings for lease, 141 commercial industrial buildings for sale and 42 vacant parcels for sale in London; advising that she has back problems and was excited at the prospect of not having to walk far, but all she saw was cement which did not coincide with the vision she had for this development; expressing disappointment; and, expressing concern about retail saturation in London. -                    Jug Manocha, Flexion Properties Inc. – expressing appreciation to the applicant; advising that they are encouraged to see people building along the 401 corridor; and, advising that we should respect the wishes of Westminster Township, who zoned this area commercial. -                    Mark Lisbon, CRL Developments, 3330 Dingman Drive – indicating that they have owned their property since 2004; advising that what people see from Wellington Road/401 does not reflect London because of the uninviting industrial buildings along the 401; advising that he is a business person and concentrates on numbers; advising that the biggest one for him is the 1,200 jobs that will be created on an ongoing basis; noting that you also have the $200,000,000 construction project that creates jobs; and expressing support for the application. -                    Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – expressing appreciation to the owner for their stewardship over the years; expressing excitement upon reading the staff recommendation as it would show the world that development and an environmental feature can co-exist; indicating that you have to deal with Provincial Policies and the City of London’s Official Plan policies; noting that the Official Plan policies have been successfully defended at the Ontario Municipal Board and one that went to the Supreme Court of Canada; pointing out that planting individual trees does not replace a woodland; noting that it takes a lot of time, if you plant it as a woodland; further noting that if you scatter the trees around the city, it is not a replacement of the woodland; indicating that the parallel that he draws is to the significant woodland on the east side of Hyde Park Road, north of Gainsborough Road, as it coexists with residential and commercial development; advising that this is an amenity for that neighbourhood; expressing concern that, if this woodland is removed, it would be the second time that a significant woodland would be lost if the Planning and Environment Committee and the Municipal Council adopt a contrary recommendation to the staff recommendation; advising that there is a  message that gets sent to Londoners based on the actions that the Municipal Council undertakes, whether or not the Policies mean something, that they are more than just words; and, requesting that the Municipal Council adopt the staff recommendation, with all of the holding provisions or refer the recommendation back to staff for additional discussions with the proponent to come up with something that does make London stand out, both on the environmental side and the development side. -                     Scott Snider, Turkstra Mazza Shirehoft Associates, on behalf of PenEquity Realty Corporation –  indicating that the principal issue is the woodlot; advising that this is where the disconnect with staff is; referencing the modified recommendation that was provided to the Council Members at the meeting; expressing interest in the EEPAC representatives comments that we can have it all; advising that his client agrees, but not in the same way that EEPAC sees having it all; advising that he has done a fair bit of looking at the policies and there has been some suggestion that they should be complying with the policies of the City of London; revealing that what they are proposing complies in every way with the policies of the City of London and the Official Plan; indicating that they are quite happy to rely on the existing land use permissions that they have; looking at the forestry position, one of the policies in London is the right tree in the right place; advising that their own consultant said yes, it meets some of the criteria, but the location for these trees is not in the right place, you cannot have both; advising that the trees in the current location and the development proposed by his client is not going to work; advising that they cannot give you the project that they want to give you with the trees in that location; advising that what his client has indicated, and the City policies permit this, is a compensation proposal; indicating that that is why it was right for one of the speakers to talk about that; noting that she was not happy with the compensation program, but that is really the issue, because as it stands today, my client has purchased lands that are designated for a commercial node in your Official Plan and it is zoned for development; advising that that is what they purchased and that is what they intend to do; noting that that is what is reflected in the good planning documents and policies of this City; indicating that the question whether or not they have the right compensation package; noting that the City of London   policy regime does not require the preservation of this woodlot in its current location; indicating that it does not require his client to compensate, either because of the nature of the land use approvals but his client has said forget that and the compensation package that they have offered is the one that has already been described to you, six acres of serviced development land that you can use to replant into a woodlot if you wish or you can use the equivalent funds to buy woodlots wherever you want; advising that that is something specifically permitted in the City’s policy regime and he heard one of the speakers say that it has been done before; noting that staff has mentioned that it has been done before; indicating that the example was the Sovereign Road example; noting that the speaker mentioned that in a negative light, but in fact, what happened there was that a significant area of land was preserved long term in a woodlot which is accessible to the public and can be preserved and maintained as a woodlot; noting that one woodlot was taken down and a significant area was preserved, and that is what we are proposing here as well; advising that he takes issue with the staff analysis of their program because they are not comparing apples to apples, in that case  the woodlot was designated Open Space and therefore protected in your policy regime; indicating that, as he understands it, it was city owned; indicating that it is not the case here, nevertheless, his client gets it, wants to be good corporate citizens, they get that there is some significance to this woodlot even though it is not protected, they are prepared to provide this compensation; indicating that that has to be the focus of the discussion otherwise you are not going to get the best of both worlds; indicating that the City will be stuck with a situation where they are not going to get this development and will have a woodlot that is not accessible and is not protected; reiterating that the property is already zoned for development; reiterating that the woodlot is the major disconnect with staff; advising that they have been trying to engage Costco in this application; indicating that Costco had originally wanted part of the lands for something that they had wanted to do; advising that they could not come to an agreement; indicating that Costco would then not speak to them because they were looking at other things to do; indicating that at the end of the day the speaker talked about access, egress and on-site movement; noting that is what a site plan is for; advising that what they are really saying is that they do not want you to approve the zoning because they want to keep a hammer and appeal your choice on the site plan and the lifting of the “h” provision  which would include a further traffic impact study; indicating that, had they been engaged earlier, if they had had an opportunity, he does not think that they would even be here, but to come at the 11th hour and to say please defer this so that we can maintain a hammer over what you do is just not acceptable; indicating that the City will deal with this through site plan and the removal of the “h”, which is completely appropriate;  advising that if Costco threatens to appeal and they want to appeal, so be it; indicating that that should not drive the decision of this Committee; indicating that one of the comments made relates to their recommendation and was the issue of what if they are not given any compensation; advising that one of the conditions that we are suggesting as part of the “h” is that an agreement be entered into addressing the removal of that unevaluated patch, the dedication of the six acres of land and the further financial contribution towards the City’s million tree challenge of $250,000; reiterating that that will all be done in the form of an agreement before the “h” is lifted; advising that it will be completely enforceable, there will be no doubt that the compensation will occur; indicating that you will not find that there are not many changes to what staff recommended and are encouraging the Planning and Environment Committee to approve.    (2013-D14A)

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Approve clauses 1 to 9, inclusive.

20.   3rd Report of the Council Housing

Leadership Committee

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Council Housing Leadership Committee (CHLC) from its meeting held on June 12, 2013:   a)         on the recommendation of the Director of Municipal Housing, with the concurrence of the Managing Director, Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be taken with respect to the project proposals received under the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) Program RFP13-13:   i)          Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. BE APPROVED to receive a municipal allocation of $55,000 per unit for twenty two (22) IAH units, plus $5,000 per unit for three (3) accessible units, for a total municipal allocation of $1,225,000 and a federal/provincial allocation of $60,000 per unit, for a project located at 77 Tecumseh Avenue, London;   ii)         Tricar Group BE APPROVED to receive a municipal allocation of $49,109 per unit for thirty five (35) IAH units, plus $5,000 per unit for three (3) accessible units, for a total municipal allocation of $1,733,815 and a federal/provincial allocation of $45,891 per unit, for a project located at 27 Centre Street, London;   iii)         Namje Cho & Jinsun Kim BE APPROVED to receive a municipal allocation of $54,983 per unit for four (4) IAH units, for a total municipal allocation of $219,930 and a federal/provincial allocation of $35,438 per unit, for a project located at 668 Dundas Street, London;   iv)        1718794 Ontario Limited BE APPROVED to receive a federal/provincial allocation of $60,000 per unit for a six (6) IAH unit  project, located at 173 Main Street, Glencoe; v)         1822039 Ontario Ltd. BE APPROVED to receive a federal/provincial allocation of $60,000 per unit for a twelve (12) IAH unit  project, located at 602 Albert Street, Strathroy;   vi)        Woodfield Developments BE APPROVED to receive a municipal allocation of $53,500 per unit for thirty three (33) IAH units, plus $5,000 per unit for four (4) accessible units, for a total municipal allocation of $1,785,500 and a federal/provincial allocation of $60,000 per unit for a project located at Princess Avenue, London; it being noted that this proposal will be submitted to the Province as part of the IAH 2014/2015 fiscal year beginning April 1, 2014;   vi)           the above-noted project proposals BE FORWARDED to the Province for program funding approval under the Investment in Affordable Housing Program;   viii)       the funding allocation from the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund, for the total municipal allocation of $4,964,245 recommended above, BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report attached; and,               ix)        in accordance with Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law No A.-5814-11, the  attached by-laws BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 25, 1013, to:   A)           authorize a Municipal Contribution Agreement, substantially in the form of an agreement appended to the by-laws and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor for each of the above-noted proponents; and,   B)           authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the said Agreement(s);   b)         on the recommendation of the Director of Municipal Housing, with the concurrence of the Managing Director of Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be taken with respect to the securing of Housing Development Corporation Project Management and Consultant Services - RFP13-12:               i)          the proposal submitted by SHS Inc. (Operating as SHS Consulting), 70 East Beaver Creek Road, Unit 46, Richmond Hill, ON, L4B 3B2, for project management and consulting services at a proposed amount of $119,957, inclusive of HST, disbursements, and not inclusive of negotiated cost reductions through payment incentives, BE ACCEPTED;               ii)         the funding for this purchased service BE APPROVED through existing operating allocations within the Housing Division 2013 administration budget;               iii)         approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or purchase order or contract record related to this approval; and,               iv)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to execute the said Agreement; and,   c)         clauses, 3 and 4 BE RECEIVED.

Moved by Councillor J.P. Bryant

Approve clauses 1 to 6, inclusive.

9.   Draft Old Victoria

Hospital Lands Secondary Plan

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

X.   DEFERRED

MATTERS

XI.   ENQUIRIES

Councillor N. Branscombe enquires as to when a report will be coming forward with respect to how the City of London would deal with flooding situations, similar to that which is currently occurring in Calgary, Alberta.  The Civic Administration indicates that a report will be presented to the Civic Works Committee in September.

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 P. Van Meerbergen

Approve the introduction and first reading of Bill No. 280

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor S. Orser

Approve second reading of Bill No. 280.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Approve third reading and enactment of Bill No. 280.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor D. Brown

Approve the introduction  and first reading of Bill No. 303.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Approve second reading of Bill No. 303.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill

Seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Approve third reading and enactment of Bill No. 303.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Approve second reading of the added Bill No.s 313 and 320.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor D. Brown

Seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Approve third reading and enactment of the added Bill No.s 313 and 320.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

Moved by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by Councillor D. Brown

Approve introduction and first reading of Bill No.s 276 to 279, 281 to 302, 304 to 308, and the added Bill No.s 309, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 318, 319 and 321 to 326.

Motion Passed

Motion Passed

XIV.   ADJOURNMENT