March 29, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1 to 2.13, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   1st Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-02-24 TFAC Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 24, 2021:

a)       the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated February 10, 2021, from S. Meksula, Senior Planner, related to a Draft Plan of Subdivision Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment for the properties located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West:

i)        the above-noted Notice BE DEFERRED to the next Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) meeting; and,

ii)       S. Meksula, Senior Planner or delegate, BE INVITED to attend the next TFAC meeting, to give clarification and provide additional details on the above-noted Notice; and,

b)       clauses 1.1 and 1.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4, 5.1 to 5.4, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   2nd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-03-02 ACE Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on March 3, 2021:

a)       the revised Discussion Primer for the Climate Emergency Action Plan - 2020 document, approved by the members of the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), as appended to the ACE Report, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review; and,

b)       clauses 1.1 and 1.2, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, 4.1 and 5.2, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   1st Report of the Agricultural Advisory Committee

2021-03-17 AAC Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 17, 2021:

a)       the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee BE ADVISED that Steve Twynstra will act as the Agricultural Advisory Committee representative on the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee; and,

b)       clauses 1.1 and 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, 5.2 to 5.5, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.4   Bill 229 and Ontario’s Flooding Strategy

2021-03-29 - SR - Bill 229 - COVID-19 Act - Ontario Flooding Strategy

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the staff report dated March 29, 2021 entitled “Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020, and Ontario’s Flooding Strategy” BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-S08/D03)

Motion Passed

2.5   Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan – Loan Agreements – Delegated Authority By-laws

2021-03-29 - SR - Affordable Housing CIP - Delegated Authority By-law

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 20201 as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Affordable Housing Development Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and Registered Owner of a property providing affordable rental units (the “Borrower”) to provide for a loan for the creation of new affordable rental housing units and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Planner or delegate”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021; and,

b)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B”, being “A by-law to approve and authorize the use of the Additional Residential Unit Loan Agreement template between The Corporation of the City of London (the “City”) and Registered Owner of a property providing affordable rental units (the “Borrower”) to provide for a loan to address affordability of home ownership and to create more long-term, stable rental housing supply to help address low rental vacancy rates, and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Planner or delegate”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021. (2021-S11)

Motion Passed

2.6   Application - 122 Base Line Road West (H-9306)

2021-03-29 - SR - 122 Base Line Road West - H-9306

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Goldfield Ltd., relating to the property located at 122 Base Line Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 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 Bonus Residential R8 (h-5 R8-3B-69) Zone TO a Bonus Residential R8 (R8-3*B-69) Zone to remove the “h-5” holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.7   Application - 2725 Asima Drive (33M-699, Block 53) (P-9282)

2021-03-29 - SR - 2725 Asima Drive - P-9282

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by Rockwood Homes, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to exempt Block 53, Plan 33M-699 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, for a period not exceeding three (3) years. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.8   Application - 335 Kennington Way and 3959 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 1, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 and 3) (P-9304)

2021-03-29 - SR - 335 Kennington Way - P-9304

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, to exempt Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 from Part-Lot Control:

a)       pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting, to exempt Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act, it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(10)) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits street townhouses, with special provisions regulating lot frontage, front yard setback, garage front yard setback and garages shall not project beyond the façade of the dwelling or façade (front face) of any porch, and shall not occupy more than 50% of lot frontage;

b)       the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 as noted in clause a) above:

i)        the applicant be advised that the costs of registration of the said by-laws are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City Policy;

ii)       the applicant submit a draft reference plan to the Development Services for review and approval to ensure the proposed part lots and development plans comply with the regulations of the Zoning By-law, prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

iii)      the applicant submits to the Development Services a digital copy together with a hard copy of each reference plan to be deposited. The digital file shall be assembled in accordance with the City of London’s Digital Submission / Drafting Standards and be referenced to the City’s NAD83 UTM Control Reference;

iv)      the applicant submit each draft reference plan to London Hydro showing driveway locations and obtain approval for hydro servicing locations and above ground hydro equipment locations prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

v)       the applicant submit to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office; any revised lot grading and servicing plans in accordance with the final lot layout to divide the blocks should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan;

vi)      the applicant shall enter into any amending subdivision agreement with the City, if necessary;

vii)     the applicant shall agree to construct all services, including private drain connections and water services, in accordance with the approved final design of the lots;

viii)     the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Development Services that the assignment of municipal numbering has been completed in accordance with the reference plan(s) to be deposited, should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

ix)       the applicant shall obtain approval from the Development Services of each reference plan to be registered prior to the reference plan being registered in the land registry office;

x)        the applicant shall submit to the City, confirmation that an approved reference plan for final lot development has been deposited in the Land Registry Office;

xi)       the applicant shall obtain clearance from the City Engineer that requirements iv), v) and vi) inclusive, outlined above, are satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of building permits by the Building Controls Division for lots being developed in any future reference plan;

xii)      that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the by-law affecting the Lots/Block in question. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.9   Application - 3964 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 2) (P-9305)

2021-03-29 - SR - 3964 Mia Avenue - P-9305

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited to exempt Block 2, Plan 33M-765 from Part-Lot Control:

a)       pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed revised by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting, to exempt Block 2, Plan 33M-765 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(10)) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits street townhouses, with special provisions regulating lot frontage, front yard setback, garage front yard setback and garages shall not project beyond the façade of the dwelling or façade (front face) of any porch, and shall not occupy more than 50% of lot frontage;

b)       the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 2, Plan 33M-765 as noted in clause a) above:

i)        the applicant be advised that the costs of registration of the said by-laws are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City Policy;

ii)        the applicant submit a draft reference plan to the Development Services for review and approval to ensure the proposed part lots and development plans comply with the regulations of the Zoning By-law, prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

iii)       the applicant submits to the Development Services a digital copy together with a hard copy of each reference plan to be deposited. The digital file shall be assembled in accordance with the City of London’s Digital Submission / Drafting Standards and be referenced to the City’s NAD83 UTM Control Reference;

iv)       the applicant submit each draft reference plan to London Hydro showing driveway locations and obtain approval for hydro servicing locations and above ground hydro equipment locations prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

v)        the applicant submit to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office; any revised lot grading and servicing plans in accordance with the final lot layout to divide the block should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan;

vi)        the applicant shall enter into any amending subdivision agreement with the City, if necessary;

vii)       the applicant shall agree to construct all services, including private drain connections and water services, in accordance with the approved final design of the lots;

viii)      the applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Development Services that the assignment of municipal numbering has been completed in accordance with the reference plan(s) to be deposited, should there be further division of property contemplated as a result of the approval of the reference plan prior to the reference plan being deposited in the land registry office;

ix)        the applicant shall obtain approval from the Development Services of each reference plan to be registered prior to the reference plan being registered in the land registry office;

x)         the applicant shall submit to the City, confirmation that an approved reference plan for final lot development has been deposited in the Land Registry Office;

xi)        the applicant shall obtain clearance from the City Engineer that requirements iv), v) and vi) inclusive, outlined above, are satisfactorily completed, prior to any issuance of building permits by the Building Controls Division for lots being developed in any future reference plan;

xii)       that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lots/Block in question. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.10   Application - 3087 White Oak Road, Block 73 (H-9271)

2021-03-29 - SR - 3087 White Oak Road (Block 73) - H-9271

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application of Whiterock Village Inc., relating to the property located at 3112 Petty Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of 3112 Petty Road (formally known as 3087 White Oak Road) FROM a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-71h-100h-161h-227*R6-5(58)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(58))Zone to remove the h, h-71, h-100, h-161 and h-227 holding provisions. (2021-D29)

Motion Passed

2.11   Application - 3493 Colonel Talbot Road – Silverleaf Subdivision Phase 2 – Special Provisions

2021-03-29 - SR - 3493 Colonel Talbot Road - Silverleaf Subdivision 39T-14504-2

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and 2219008 Ontario Limited for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 75, West of the North Branch of the Talbot Road (Geographic Township of Westminster), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the south side of Pack Road, west of Colonel Talbot Road, municipally known as 3493 Colonel Talbot Road.

a)       the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and 2219008 Ontario Limited for the Silverleaf Subdivision, Phase 2 (39T-14504-2) appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)       the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B”; and,

c)       the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.(2021-D12)

Motion Passed

2.12   2021 Post-Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring

2021-03-29 - SR - Post-Development EIS Monitoring

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services and Chief Building Official, the staff report dated March 29, 2021 entitled “2021 Post-Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring” BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

2.13   Building Division Monthly Report for January 2021

2021-03-29 Building Division Monthly Report - January 2021

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Building Division Monthly Report for January 2021 BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-A23)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Downtown Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success (O-9286)

2021-03-29 - SR - O-9286 - Amendment to the Downtown CIP

2021-03-29 Presentation - Downtown CIP

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021, as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to amend the Downtown Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 25, 2021 from C. Butler, by email, with respect to this matter;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities, and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;

● the recommended amendment conforms with the Planning Act, as the loan and grant programs meet the requirements set out in Section 28 related to community improvement;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement; and,

● the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan and the Downtown Community Improvement Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   Old East Village Community Improvement Plan - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success (O-9285)

2021-03-29 - SR - O-9285 - Amendment to the Old East Village CIP

2021-03-29 Presentation - Old East Village CIP

2021-03-29 PPM Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the proposed by-law, appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021, as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to amend the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to add an Appendix that sets out performance measures and indicators of success for the CIP”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 25, 2021 from C. Butler, by email, with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities, and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;

● the recommended amendment conforms with the Planning Act, as the loan and grant programs meet the requirements set out in Section 28 related to community improvement;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement; and,

● the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan and the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan. The recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities, and,

● the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan and the Old East Village Community Improvement Plan. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   Application - 1414 Dundas Street (Z-9276)

2021-03-29 - SR - 1414 Dundas Street- Z-9276

2021-03-29 SR - 1414 Dundas Street - Revised By-law (Final)

2021-03-29 PPM Comments 3.3

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Humane Society London & Middlesex, relating to the property located at 1414 Dundas Street:

a)       the request to amend Zoning-By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone and a Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)        the site layout depicting a surface parking lot between the proposed building and the treed allée, does not conform to the form and urban design policies found within the Council approved London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan (LPHSP);

b)       the proposed revised, by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2020 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (1989), the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan and The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreation (CR) Zone and a Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC2(_)) Zone; it being noted that the revised by-law will provide for parking to be permitted between the treed allée and any building and the provision of a 10.0 metre wide landscaped buffer;

it being noted that the following heritage mitigation measures and recommendations were raised during the application review process:

i)         landscaping treatments be implemented for areas between the treed allée and the building to minimize impacts;

ii)        further consideration to enhance the gateway function of the treed allée where it intersects with Dundas Street by the Humane Society London & Middlesex;

iii)        vehicular access routes to the new Humane Society London & Middlesex facility should be sensitively planned to protect the treed allée; and,

iv)        staging and construction activities should be planned to ensure protection of all trees which form the treed allée and appropriate tree preservation measures are in place to that the root systems are fully avoided within the tree protection area;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

c) pursuant to section 34(17) of the Planning Act, RSO, 1990, c.P. 13, the Municipal Council DETERMINES that no further public notice is to be given with respect to this application as the changes to the proposed by-law are minor in nature;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which direct municipalities to ensure development provides healthy, liveable and safe communities, and encourages settlement areas to be the main focus of growth and development to provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan that promotes the evolution of the area incorporating elements of sustainability, mixed-use development, heritage conservation, walkability and high quality urban design;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, and City Building, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the objectives of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan policies which encourages redevelopment in this specific Transit Oriented Corridor;

● the recommended amendment will facilitate an enhanced form of development in accordance with the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands Secondary Plan Urban Design policies;

● the recommended amendment is appropriate for the site and surrounding context and will assist with the revitalization of a portion of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands; and,

● the recommended amendment to the Zoning By-law with special provisions will provide for an appropriate development of the site. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the matter of Application for 1414 Dundas Street BE REFERRED back to Civic Administration in order for additional discussion with respect to parking location and reduction and the landscaped buffer with the applicant.

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   Application - 1870 Aldersbrook Gate 39CD-20514

2021-03-29 - SR - 1870 Aldersbrook Gate - 39CD-20514

2021-03-29 PPM Comments 3.4

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of LOCO Ventures (Aldersbrook) Ltd., relating to the property located at 1870 Aldersbrook Gate:

a)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 1870 Aldersbrook Gate;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D07)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.5   Application - 101 Meadowlily Road South 39CD-20502 (OZ-9192)

2021-03-29 SR - 101 Meadowlily Road - 39CD-20502-OZ-9192 REVISED

2021-03-29 PPM Comments 3.5

2021-03-29 PS - 101 Meadowlily - C. Richardson (Public Comment)

2021-03-29 PS - 101 Meadowlily - D. Stolarski (Public Comment)

That it BE NOTED that the Planning and Environment Committee was unable to reach a majority decision with respect to the application of 2690015 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South, and pursuant to Section 19.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, the matter is hereby submitted to the Municipal Council for its disposition;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

● a presentation from S. Shannon, Dillon Consulting;

● a communication dated March 16, 2021 from N.J. Small, by e-mail;

● a communication from Lorraine, by e-mail;

● a communication from S. Nichols, by e-mail;

● a communication from E. Sweitzer, by e-mail;

● a communication dated March 21, 2021 from G. Smith and S. High, 141 Meadowlily Road South;

● a communication dated March 14, 2021 from A. Swan, by e-mail;

● the staff presentation; and,

● a communication dated March 26, 2021 from D. Koscinski, Acting Executive Director, Thames Talbot Land Trust;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D08)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2690015 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve Community Growth designation TO a Low Density Residential designation and Open Space designation;

b)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhood Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type;

it being noted that the amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 1 and Map 7 of The London Plan;

c)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2020 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2*UR1) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone;

d)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

i)         increased traffic on Meadowlily Road South and lack of street parking;

ii)        design and spacing of the units;

iii)       minimal buffering on the east and west side of the area facing Meadowlily Road South and Highbury Woods;

e)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

i)         lack of bird-friendly lighting approaches in the design;

f)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the HIA with any recommendation and continue to consult with the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) on future approvals for this matter and to consult with the LACH on HIA related matters.

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following be added to the recommendation:

f) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the HIA with any recommendation and continue to consult with the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) on future approvals for this matter and to consult with the LACH on HIA related matters.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.6   Application - 1153-1155 Dundas Street (O-9207 / Z-9198)

2021-03-29 - SR - 1153-1155 Dundas Street O9207-Z9198

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 1153-1155 Dundas Street:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Light Industrial (LI) designation TO a Main Street Commercial Corridor (MSCC) designation; and,

b)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial 2 (LI2) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone; and,

c)       it being noted that Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves these applications for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which encourages the following: accommodating an appropriate range and mix of employment; promoting economic development and competitiveness; supporting long-term economic prosperity; promoting the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas; supporting and promoting active transportation, transit-supportive land uses; supporting energy conservation, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and climate change adaptation; supporting and promoting intensification and redevelopment to utilize existing services; and, conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes;

● the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the Main Street Commercial Corridor policies of the 1989 Official Plan;

● the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type polices of The London Plan and implements Key Directions of the Plan;

● the adaptive re-use of the subject lands supports Council’s commitment to reducing and mitigating climate change by making efficient use of existing infrastructure, focusing intensification and growth in already-developed areas, and re-using/adapting an existing structure;

● the adaptive re-use of the existing building supports the conservation and enhancement of a listed heritage building in an area identified in Heritage Places 2.0 as having potential to be a Heritage District; and,

● the subject lands are an appropriate location for a mixed-use development. The recommended amendments are consistent with and appropriate for the site and context and will support with developing opportunities for cultural and economic activity both on the site and in the area and will provide a transit-supportive development. (2021-D08)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.7   Temporary Outdoor Patio Expansion (Z-9300)

2021-03-29 - SR - Seasonal Outdoor Patios Z-9300

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, based on the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to seasonal outdoor patios, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend the Zoning By-law Z.-1 to add regulations related to Seasonal Outdoor Patios;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 23, 2021 from D. Szpakowski, CEO & General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association, with respect to this matter;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas as critical to the long-term economic prosperity of communities;

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the 1989 Official Plan, which encourages the management of land and resources to promote economic development; and,

● the recommended amendment is consistent with The London Plan, which encourages economic revitalization and enhancing the business attraction potential of urban main streets. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.8   Application - 1478 Westdel Bourne 39T-20503 (Z-9278)

2021-03-29 - SR - 1478 Westdel Bourne - 39T-20503 Z-9278

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Townline Orchard Property Ltd., relating to the lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR3 Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-4) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-5) Zone; a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision / Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R6-5( )/R8-4( )) Zone; a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision / Residential R5 Special Provision / Residential R6 Special Provision / Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R4-6(11)/R5-7(9)/R6-5(61)/R8-3(5)) Zone; and an Open Space OS1 Zone;

b)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Townline Orchard Property Ltd. relating to the lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne:

i)        traffic control,

ii)       noise and lighting concerns;

c)       the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Townline Orchard Property Ltd., prepared by Stantec (Project No. 161413921 Drawing No. 1), certified by Robert Wood O.L.S., dated October 13, 2020, as red-line revised, which shows a total of 39 low density residential single detached lots, 2 medium density residential blocks, 1 future development block, 1 park block, 1 road widening block, and 2 reserve blocks, served by 2 new streets being the extensions of Fountain Grass Drive and Upper West Avenue, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “B” appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated March 25, 2021 from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it achieves objectives for efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. It represents development of low and medium density forms of housing, including single detached dwelling lots, townhouse and cluster forms of housing, and low-rise apartment buildings taking place within the City’s urban growth area and within an area for which a secondary plan has been approved to guide future community development. It also achieves objectives for promoting compact form, contributes to the neighbourhood mix of housing and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities, supports the use of public transit, and increases community connectivity;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential, Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space designations;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the Riverbend South Secondary Plan, its vision and its principles of connecting the community (through a multi-use pathway, pedestrian connections and street network), providing a range of residential housing types and densities (from single detached dwellings to townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings), promoting healthy living and active transportation (neighbourhood park for passive recreation and a highly connected cycling and pedestrian network), and promoting environmental sustainability (diversity of uses, density and street pattern to facilitate viable public transit); and,

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning represents the third and final phase of the Riverbend South community. In terms of use, form and intensity the proposed subdivision plan is considered appropriate and consistent with the Council-approved plan for guiding community development. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.9   3080 Bostwick Road - 39T-18502 (Z-8931)

2021-03-29 - SR - 3080 Bostwick Road - 39T-18502 Z-8931

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 731675 Ontario Limited (York Developments Inc.), relating to the lands located at 3080 Bostwick Road:

a)       the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR4 Zone and an Environmental Review ER Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Bonus (h-h-100-h-221-h-222-R9-7-B-( )-H45) Zone; a Holding Residential R9 Bonus (h-h-100-h-221-h-222-R9-7-B-( )-H45) Zone; an Open Space OS2 Zone; an Open Space OS4 Zone; and an Urban Reserve UR Special Provision (UR4( )) Zone;

the Bonus Zone applying to Block 2 in the proposed plan of subdivision shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a 189 unit residential apartment building with a maximum height of 18 storeys, and sixteen (16) stacked townhouse dwelling units with a maximum height of 15 metres, and a maximum overall density of 205 units per hectare, which generally implements in principle the site concept and elevation plans appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law, with further refinements to occur through the site plan approval process, in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

i)       high quality architectural design (building/landscaping) including a common design theme applied to street boulevards. Design elements are to have regard for the Urban Design Guidelines prepared for 3080 Bostwick Road;

ii)      underground parking to reduce surface parking requirements. Surface parking spaces are to be largely dedicated for visitor parking;

iii)     large caliper boulevard tree planting with a minimum 100 mm caliper and a minimum distance of 10 m between tree planting for the extent of the site frontage for Bostwick Road and both sides of Street A as early as site construction allows;

iv)     construction of one accessible electric vehicle charging station located on the Bostwick Community Centre lands or in a publically accessible location of Block 2;

v)      construction of one transit shelter along the Bostwick Road frontage, or the commensurate financial equivalent for the feature;

vi)     construction of ten (10) publicly accessible bicycle share facilities/spaces;

the Bonus Zone applying to Block 6 in the proposed plan of subdivision shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of two (2) residential apartment buildings having a total of 387 dwelling units, with a maximum height of 17 storeys, and a maximum density of 320 units per hectare, which generally implements in principle the site concept and elevation plans attached as Schedule “2” to the amending by-law, with further refinements to occur through the site plan approval process, in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

A)       Provision of Affordable Housing

i)        the affordable housing shall consist of a total of thirty (30) rental apartment dwelling units, which shall include nineteen (19) one-bedroom units and eleven (11) two-bedroom units;

ii)        rents shall be set at 85% of the CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London CMA at the time of occupancy;

iii)       the period of affordability will be identified as being thirty (30) years from the point of initial occupancy;

iv)       the Proponent shall enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the nineteen (19) one-bedroom units and eleven (11) two-bedroom units with priority populations;

v)        these conditions shall be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies;

B)        high quality architectural design (building/landscaping) including a common design theme applied to street boulevards. Design elements are to have regard for the Urban Design Guidelines prepared for 3080 Bostwick Road. Underground parking to reduce surface parking requirements;

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting held with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Townline Orchard Property Ltd. relating to the lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne;

c)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision relating to the lands located at 3080 Bostwick Road as submitted by 731675 Ontario Limited (York Developments Inc.), prepared by MHBC Planning (File No. 1094 ’B’ Drawing No. 1 of 1), certified by Terry Dietz O.L.S., dated July 25, 2018 and updated March 27, 2020, as red-line revised, which shows 2 multi-residential development blocks, 1 park block, 1 open space block, 1 walkway block, 5 road widening blocks, and 1 reserve block, served by 3 new streets; SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “B” appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it achieves objectives for efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. It represents development taking place within the City’s urban growth area and within an area for which a secondary plan has been approved to guide future community development. It also achieves objectives for promoting compact form, contributes to the neighbourhood mix of housing and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities, supports the use of public transit, and increases community connectivity;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, High Density Residential and Open Space designations;

● the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, and the intent, purpose and function for high intensity, transit oriented forms of development within the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood; and,

● the provision of facilities and matters in consideration of the proposed height and density bonus are considered reasonable, result in a benefit to the general public and/or an enhancement of the design of the development, and are considered warranted. The height and density bonuses received will not result in a scale of development that is incompatible with adjacent uses or exceeds the capacity of available municipal services. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.10   611-615 Third Street (Z-9268)

2021-03-29 - SR - 611-615 Third Street - Z-9268

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Prince Antony, relating to the property located at 611-615 Third Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 13, 2021 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 TO a Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (R8-4()*B-) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high quality residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 4-storeys, 20 dwelling units and a maximum density of 96 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

i)        Provision of Affordable Housing

The affordable housing shall consist of:

i)        a total of three (3), three-bedroom units and one (1), one-bedroom unit, including one (1) accessible three-bedroom unit and one (1) accessible one-bedroom unit;

ii)       rents for the three (3), three-bedroom units and one (1), one bedroom unit be set at 80% of the CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London CMA at the time of occupancy;

iii)      that the period of affordability be identified as being thirty (30) years from the point of initial occupancy; and,

iv)      that the Proponent enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the three (3), three-bedroom units and one (1), one-bedroom unit with priority populations;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

● the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions;

● the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation and Near-Campus Neighbourhoods; and,

● the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.11   Masonville Draft Secondary Plan (O-8991)

2021-03-29 - SR - Masonville Draft Secondary Plan O-8991 - Full

2021-03-29 - SR - Presentation - Masonville Draft Secondary Plan O-8991

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, the draft Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated March 29, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the draft Masonville Secondary Plan will serve as the basis for further consultation with the community and stakeholders, and that the feedback received through this consultation process and the outcomes of supporting studies will result in a revised Masonville Secondary Plan and implementing Official Plan Amendment that will be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

● a communication dated March 23, 2021 from R. MacFarlane, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Rock Developments;

● a communication dated March 24, 2021 from R. MacFarlane, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Choice Properties; and,

● the staff presentation;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters. (2021-D08)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-03-10 LACH Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on March 10, 2021:

a)       the following actions be taken with respect to the 101 Meadowlily Road South Working Group Report, from its meeting held on February 23, 2021 related to the Revised Notice of Application, dated December 17, 2020, from M. Corby, Senior Planner, with respect to a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to the property located at 101 Meadowlily Road South:

i)        the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated December 13, 2019, from T. Dingman BE RECEIVED and the recommendations, contained therein, BE ACCEPTED;

ii)       the revised Conceptual Development Plan, dated November 11, 2020, from Dillon Consulting, as appended to the London Advisory Committee on Heritage Report, BE RECEIVED and the revisions made in keeping with the mitigation measures in the HIA BE SUPPORTED as follows:

  • removal of all direct access from Meadowlily Road from the townhouse blocks;

  • a minimum of 6 metre setbacks from the road widening, together with internal block in front of townhouse blocks, on the west side of Meadowlily Road; and,

  • a maximum building height of 2.5 metres;

iii)       the following matters BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for further review during the Site Plan Approval process:

  • a Landscape Plan for a naturalized buffer to be located on the proposed block within the condominium plan on the west side of Meadowlily Road;

  • entrance feature design and location; and,

  • fencing, walls and stormwater facilities, if any, along the west side of Meadowlily Road;

iv)       the developer BE ENCOURAGED to revisit the townhouse block elevation for the units facing Meadowlily Road in order to achieve a design more harmonious with the rural setting as recommended by the HIA; it being noted that this appears to have been achieved by the conceptual elevation facing Meadowlily Road for the single units (units 1 and 36);

v)        the above-noted Working Group Report BE FORWARDED to M. Corby, Senior Planner; and,

vi)       the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) on future approvals for this matter and to consult with the LACH on HIA related matters.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2021-03-18 EEPAC Report

2021-03-18 Medway Valley CMP Mapping - REVISED 1 of 2

2021-03-18 Medway Valley CMP Mapping - REVISED 2 of 2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 18, 2021:

a)       the 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)       the Victoria on the River, Phase 6 (1934 Commissioners Road East) Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)       the 435-451 Ridout Street Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

d)       the following actions be taken with respect to the Kelly Stanton Environmentally Significant Area Ecological Restoration Plan Working Group comments:

i)        the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) commends both the City of London and the report authors for their liaising with and involvement of local naturalists in the initial field work and community groups as part of follow-up plans; and,

ii)        the Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

e)        a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of R. Trudeau (lead), L. Banks and S. Levin, with respect to the properties located at 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee reviewed and received a Notice of Draft Plan of Subdivision Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment dated March 10, 2021 from M. Corby, Senior Planner and the associated Environmental Impact Study;

f)         the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee is supportive of the revised, Medway Valley Conservation Master Plan Phase 2 mapping, as appended to the EEPAC Report; and,

g)        clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, 4.4, 5.2 and 5.5, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 9:49 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (5 hours, 51 minutes)

We’re gonna start in three minutes for anybody who interested in that. We’re gonna call the meeting to order. It is now four o’clock, it is four o’clock. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pack@london.ca. First with the disclosures of pecuniary interest. Do any committee members have any disclosures of interest?

There being none that I can see, we’ll move on to the consent agenda. Does anyone wish any matters from the consent agenda to be pulled? I know there’s some comments, but I haven’t been alerted to that yet. All right, can someone move the consent agenda, please?

Moved by Councillor Layman. Seconded by someone, Councillor Hillyer. And it’s been moved and seconded. I know Councillor Hopkins wanted to speak to item 2.12.

Go ahead, some help with your— Yes, I do, but thank you for allowing me just to make a quick comment on 2.12, which is the post-development environmental impacts study monitoring that is going to be, as I understand, a new process that we’re going to be undertaking and picking subdivisions to review the environmental impacts study. So I really want to thank staff for bringing this forward, and we’ll see as we move forward with this monitoring program, how that is going to come about. So thank you for letting me speak to it. Any other comments on any of the consent matters?

Councillor Layman. Thank you. I have a brief questions on 2.5 and then a comment on 2.13. 2.5 through you, Chair, to staff.

This is a great tool that I hope that developers will take advantage of to create more affordable housing. I have a question regarding interest rates and covenants. What interest rates we’ll be looking will be case by case, depending on the applicant, kind of in relation to commercial rates that are currently provided. And secondly, what covenants or collateral will be looking at?

Will there be consistent, I guess, with other financial institutions in their lending for commercial residential projects? Thank you. Can somebody from staff take that one on? Someone from staff able to answer that question?

Yes, sorry, through the chair, this is Graham Bailey. Can start with the first question about the interest rate. Right now, it would be on a case-by-case basis. I know in the agreement, it does talk about the interest rate for the penalty of default, which has been set at 8%, I believe.

I’m just trying to double check here. And that was chosen to be consistent with the interest rates used by the HDC in their contribution agreements. The loans themselves are interest-free, and that interest would be forgiven if they do not default on the loan. But we do calculate interest as a penalty, in case they do default.

As for the second question, I’m just trying to check for the counselor. Hi, this is [INAUDIBLE] speaking through the chair. Can we just get a bit of clarification on the second question? Was it how we ensure that the money is paid back?

So maybe even through your chair. Yeah, just what covenants and collateral that we would have to cover us in advance of default? So through the chair, as with our other loan programs, we do have the ability to put a lien on title. And there is the ability to collect money through property taxes or other means like that if there isn’t the repayment of the loans or if they do go into default.

I apologize for my unsophistication in this area. Would we have first lien before any other banks or any other lending institutions on the property? This is Graham Bailey again. We would generally not be in first position for this loan.

Likely, if there’s a CMHC contribution agreement, it would be ahead of us. And we do have the ability to postpone our lien in favor of mortgages and charges if some certain criteria are met, such as how much equity is in the property. But generally, we would not be in first position. Through you, Chair, so I imagine that due diligence is done and not automatic acceptance on all applications because there is some risk as we’re not first in line on default, is that correct?

Through the Chair, correct. There is a formal application process where all the applications aren’t reviewed. There is a due diligence. We do check into the applicant and that all does occur before a loan commitment is issued and the loan itself is granted or sorry, issued.

Okay, thank you. Just a quick comment on 213. Good to see turnaround continues under 48 hours, despite being up twice as much at the same period last year. Continue to urge our permit division guys and girls to continue to strive as quick as possible on turnaround despite the heavy workload.

I understand that, but I know from a builder’s perspective, they appreciate it, thank you. Thank you, Councilor, any other comments on the consent items, they’ve been moved and seconded. There being none, I will call the vote on the consent items. Chair, this is the mayor.

As I sign into the east gripe, I will vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Posing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero.

Moving on now to the scheduled item. The first matter is a public participation meeting and it is the downtown community improvement plan, performance measures and indicators of success item 3.1. I have a mover and seconder to open the public participation meeting moved by Councilor Hopkins, seconded by the mayor. Any comments?

Call the vote. Posing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. So we’ll move to the staff presentation, go ahead. Hello, it’s Grand Valley again, good afternoon.

So I’ll just do a brief presentation on file 09286 to amend the downtown community improvement plan. So the purpose of the amendment is to add an appendix to the downtown community improvement plan to introduce performance measures, indicators of success and the related targets. This appendix will help manage the loan and grant programs that are currently available through the downtown community improvement plan. Those four programs are the rehabilitation and redevelopment tax grant, the residential development charges grant, the facade improvement loan and the upgrade to building code loan.

The appendix will also establish a formal framework for reviewing the loan and grant programs. It’ll help better determine if the loan and grant programs are being successful in achieving the objectives of the downtown community improvement plan and the London plan. And it’ll also assist civic administration when making recommendations to municipal council on future changes to the programs, including women to reduce funding and/or discontinue or amend the programs. But a background on how we got here, the idea to add measures, indicators and targets to each community improvement plan was introduced during the 2017 comprehensive CIP service review.

Approximately three years of data collection was undertaken to help inform the draft measures and indicators and targets. And those draft measures, indicators and targets were introduced at the November 16th, 2020 tech meeting, and then they were circulated to the public for feedback. Also prior to circulation, staff met with some representatives of the development industry and the downtown BIA to discuss the project and gather input. So after the circulation period, we received some comments, but in the end, the measures, indicators and targets remain the same as they were during the draft from November.

Residential population and assessment value are the two measures for the two tax, or for the two grant program, sorry, with residential population being the primary measure. Building facade condition, percentage of targeted uses on the ground floor, a healthy ground floor, vacancy rate, private sector investment generated by offering public sector loans for building improvements, also what we call the ratio, as well as the number of loans issued per year and their value are the measures for the two loan programs. So taken all together, these measures and indicators and their related targets provide staff with that formal framework for measuring the success of the financial incentive programs and for making future recommendations to counsel on changing these programs. And the recommendation is to add the appendix to the community improvement plan that sets out those measures, indicators of success and targets for the four financial incentive programs.

Thank you, that’s my brief presentation. I’m happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much. Any technical questions only from the committee?

There being none, I do not believe, at least from what I’ve understanding, that there are any delegations, but I’ll go into check that, see if anyone is online or anyone is in either of the rooms to speak to the downtown community improvement plan. Then that there are none. You chair, it’s Kathy Saunders. There’s no one remotely joining us regarding that.

And I don’t see anyone in the breakout room. So I now need a motion to close the public participation meeting move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Unless there’s something further, I’ll call the vote. I’m closing the vote, the motion carries.

Go to questions at the same time, that would be fine. So Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I’ll just be brief. I think this is a good update to these CIPs. I think it’s very important that we have performance metrics included, particularly when we’re talking about grant programs so that we know that the money that’s going out the door is having an impact in the community in a meaningful way. And I know that certainly, particularly this year with the pandemic, it’s going to be hard to get a good measurement on how impactful they will be in 2020 and 2021.

But there is a need there. So I’m glad to see that we’ve got some metrics put in place to start evaluating for the next multi-year budget phase. Does that mean you’re prepared to move the recommendation, Councillor? That does mean I am prepared to move that.

And could someone second please? If they’re prepared to, Councillor Layman seconding it. So it’s on the floor now. And if we could just carry on these questions and comments.

Councillor Layman. Through you, Chair, to staff, when will we be getting a report on how things are being met with the metrics provided? Go ahead, staff. Through the Chair, the next comprehensive CIP service review is scheduled for, well, to be before you prior to 2024.

So sometime, probably in 2023, that would come forward. If you’re looking for something sooner than that, we probably need some direction from you to undertake that. Thank you. Any further, Councillor?

Yeah, it’s quite a way. That’s the next term of council. I’ll understand what Councillor Lewis said during 2020. It’ll be tough because of COVID, but at some point, I think we’d like to see a report on 20.

Yeah, I’ll just refrain from comments right now. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments or questions?

There being none, matters been moved and seconded. So I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. If we could keep up this pace, committee will be in good stead to not pushing anyone, but we do have a full agenda, so that’s great.

Next matter is item 3.2 on the agenda, which is a public participation meeting with regard to the old East Village Community Improvement Plan, performance measures and indicators of success. If someone could move opening in the public participation meeting, Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman, unless there’s any further, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. And if I could just ask for the staff presentation, to go ahead, that would be great.

Good afternoon, it’s Mr. Bailey again. So this is for file 09285. It’s going to be a few minutes ago, so I don’t know if you want the whole presentation just for the sake of the recording, but if not, just let me know.

So the purpose of this file is to add an append— Sorry, go ahead and make it the shorter version unless somebody— Okay, sure, so no problem, we’ll keep up the quick pace. So it is the purposes to add an appendix to the old East Village Community Improvement Plan this time. That’s, again, for the same kind of ideas to help manage the loan and grant programs and for the formal framework of reviewing them and providing counsel with some direction on changes. This time, there was a difference between the draft that was circulated in November and the final.

It was only one small chain of circulation. We had a further discussion with the old East Village BIA, and they asked us to take another look at our residential population targets for the two grant programs, and we went back and did that, and we decided after consulting with them and taking another look at the numbers and the development opportunities that are going on in the old East Village, we decided to increase the population slightly because of those recently completed development projects and the upcoming ones. We increased the residential population targets, but everything else remains the same as I just spoke about. The measures are the residential population, the assessment value, building facade condition, percentage of targeted uses, healthy ground floor vacancy rates, private sector investment generated by offering public sector loans, and then the number of loans issued per year.

So again, the recommendation is to add that appendix to the CIP and said, so thank you and happy again to answer any questions you might have. Technical questions from the committee, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is regarding boundaries. How are they established the CIP boundaries? What’s that process that we undertake look like? Sure, I’ll take again through the chair.

It’s Mr. Bailey, I’ll take a first stab at and anyone else can chime in if they want. So generally it starts with a study area is often picked by staff. I’m just thinking back to my days of when I did the more recent Hamilton Road community improvement plan.

Staff, we decided on a boundary that we thought was appropriate and then we took that out to the community for feedback. And in this case of the Hamilton Road one, for example, we determined that it was actually a good idea to add a little bit more of Hamilton Road into that CIP through the public consultation. If you’re more thinking about how the old East Village community improvement plan was selected, that was back in, I believe, 2004. It was primarily focused along the original boundaries, primarily focused along the Dundas Street corridor between Adelaide and I believe Egerton.

And then in 2005, it was expanded to Charlotte Street along Dundas. Again, that’s a public process. There’s a Planning Act, it’s a public participation meeting, there’s circulation, it would be considered an amendment to the committee improvement plan and to the community improvement project area. So there’s a formal public process that would have to happen.

Thank you for that. I think that’s good information to have when it comes to boundaries that public process has to be followed, I guess. And we’ve just more or less established these CIPs, say within the past 10 years, if there was a reason to change the boundaries would that come from the public? How would that look like?

Through the chair, it could come from the public. There’s definitely been interest from the public anytime a file like this comes before committee and council. If that’s the case, I think we staff likely need direction from council to undertake that study. We could also look at it during the comprehensive CIP reviews that we do periodically to help them form multi-year budgets.

So that would be another option to undertake study. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you. Any other technical questions?

There being none, then I will go to the public. Is there anyone online or in either of the rooms who wishes to speak to this matter? The chair, it’s Kathy Saunders. I just let Valerian Maroch go in.

All right, hello. Good afternoon. Go ahead. You’re looking, can you hear me?

I can, just, this is the chair, Phil Squire. And just so you know, we have, you have five minutes to speak. So go ahead. Yes, reviewing the document, it’s a great program.

As a property owner, the London Cross Cultural Center, we didn’t know about the program for the facade. So participation in the program could be improved if better advertising of the existing programs would be including somehow in the performance measures of the program, because some of the people like us, we might have considered, but we didn’t know about it. So that’s the only comment I have. All right, I think that’s a fair comment.

And perhaps staff could either reply now or indicate you’ll consider some advertising of these programs. Through the chair, I can just give a quick comment. We do try to advertise, we, in Old East Village, we do work closely with the BIA. There are partners in this and they help us a great deal, get the word out to their, to their, to the, you know, the business owners and the property owners in their area.

We also try to get brochures and those kinds of things into like the building division. So people know if they go in for a permit, it’s available, but some, a good idea would maybe be a mail out or something like that, you know, to all the property owners and tenants along in Old East Village or some of the other community improvement project areas to just let them know that these are available. Yeah, and I think your points well taken for the gentleman that the business improvement association is always a good source of everything that’s going on in your area. So that’s, that’s a good place to get information.

Thank you very much for your, for your question. Anybody else wishing to speak? It appears not, so I’ll need a motion to close the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any further comments?

Then I’ll call the vote on the hat. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. So committee, it’s in your hands. You can move the recommendation.

It’s similar to the last matter and any comments would be welcome. Councillor Lewis, the staff recommendation. Thank you. Is there a seconder?

I’m sorry, you’re pointing out. Oh, Councillor Hill here wants to second it. Yeah, I thought he was giving me the peace sign. I’m sorry.

Councillor Helmer, did you wish to comment on this matter? You’re the Councillor for the ward. Go ahead. Much, thanks for recognizing me at the committee.

I did have a question, is related to what Councillor Hopkins was asking about, as you’ll see, there’s several inquiries about expanding the boundary to include more properties. One from York, that was just talking about bringing the boundary west across Adelaide. And another one, which is from a longtime property owner, March to write us, who has the properties kind of in our king and rectory, which have not been included in the community-proven plan area for a long time. And I just wondered if I could ask through the chair to planning staff, if you could describe the evolution of the CIP area in a bit more detail, if you want me to weigh in on it, I’m happy to.

But it’s a great thing that people want to get their properties included. We did expand the boundary not that long ago to include a lot more properties. But this is a bit of a historical artifact. It used to be all along Dundas.

And it’s really just the few properties on king that have been included more recently. So I wonder if staff could just respond to that, properties that came in rectory in particular, why they’re not in the other side of the boundary. Okay, staff, could you respond to that, please? Through the chair, I’ll give it a shot.

So yeah, yeah, just to go back, I guess in 2004, is when the original boundary was set, mostly along Dundas Street. And then, as I mentioned, in 2005, it expanded a bit more easterly to Charlotte. And then I believe it was in 2008, is when it went more south of King Street down, or since of Dundas Street, to King Street between Lyle and Hewitt. And that would be to capture, which is now the medallion, I believe the three residential towers that are constructed by medallion.

Since 2008, I do not think it’s been looked at, again, the boundary. Somebody with a bit more time at the city, maybe able to chime in and speak to that is why it hasn’t been. But it just, I don’t think we’ve actually looked at the boundary since that expansion in 2008. But I’ll ask maybe Mr.

Barrett, or somebody who’s been around a little longer than I have to chime in. Mr. Barrett, did you wanna weigh in on this? Well, for the chair, I don’t have much to add.

I do recall though that the Northern boundary was very much set by the limits of the residential neighborhood to the North. The primary focus of this CIP program in the old East Village focused on the old East Village businesses. And it was driven first initiated by the BIA who has an even much smaller area, even in the first boundary. But the whole focus of the community improvement plan and the associated programs have been business support.

So it’s focused on the business corridor and Dundas Street formed the backbone of that business corridor, which is I think that the strongest reason is to why it’s maintained that focus through time. But Councilor might even have more knowledge on it than me in the more recent past. But that’s the thinking from the original boundaries. Thank you.

Councilor Halmer, back to you. Just a brief comment. I committed to Mr. Stratus.

I’d ask the question he wasn’t able to be here tonight. Hopefully that’s helpful to him. I will say King Street, when the CIP area was first brought in, King Street was primarily residential. And now it’s a rapid transit corridor and we’re gonna see a lot of redevelopment all on King Street.

I do think a boundary adjustment in the future is probably gonna make sense to bring some of those properties that are residential now into the CIP area. But this is not the time to do it. I think we have to have a future discussion about that. I think having it lined up with the regular review of the CIP programs makes sense.

And I’m glad to see York interested in developing something just west of Adelaide. I think that might make sense as well. So I think we can deal with that at the appropriate time and not rush the CIP adjustment. I really appreciate committee’s support of the measures.

I think there’s one in the right direction and it’s important that we track the success of these programs. Thanks very much, Councilor. Any further comments from the committee about the matter at hand? Councilor Hopkins?

Yes, Mr. Chair, I’d be happy to move the motion and obviously it’s been mentioned a number of times here that matrix is important to assist staff when measuring success of the loans. I do wanna thank the resident for coming out and making a comment around getting the information out on these loan program and particularly the facade program and how important that is. I have found in my ward, I have a CIP in Lambeth and I have numerous times been very surprised that businesses are not aware of the loan program.

So I would encourage staff to sort of look at how we do that advertisement and promotion that happy to move the report. Thank you. I think Councilor Lewis moved it so you can second it, Councilor Hopkins, is that fine? Please to do so.

All right. Any other comments or questions, Councilor Layman? Following up on Councilor Hopkins, direct mail is great. However, I would encourage staff to make it as user friendly as possible.

I’ve been on the receiving end of communication from City Hall and sometimes it’s very technical and it can get lost in the shuffle before business is really absorbent. So when designing your communication, you might wanna go to more user friendly and save the technical stuff for the follow up when businesses and residents, developers reach out to you. All right. Anything further committee and not being anything, we will call the question.

Posing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Next matter is item three is a public participation meeting with regard to 1414 Dundas Street. And I will need someone to move and second opening the public participation moving, meeting, moved by Councilor Lewis, seconded by someone I’m hoping, Mayor Holder, unless there’s something else, I’ll call the question. Posing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Go ahead with the staff presentation, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s Elena Riley here, senior planner in current planning.

First of all, before my presentation, I would just like to note that there has been an amendment to the by-law, changing the lingo, the wording. It’s like we’ve lost someone. Someone else can present this matter or what’s— I apologize, I was muted the whole time. No, we heard the first little bit and then you were muted, so go ahead.

Okay, so I am back, sorry. I’m not sure if you heard the part about the amendment to the zoning the by-law itself. Yes, we did hear that. Okay, great.

So moving forward, I do have quite the presentation. I can shorten it if you so please or I can do my full presentation. How long is your presentation? I’m gonna say about 10 minutes.

10 minutes should be fine. Okay, I did provide an on-screen PowerPoint. I don’t know if that’s up, I don’t see it. So anyways, I’m just gonna move forward with regards to the timing.

So this is for 1414 Dundas Street. It is an application for a zoning by-law amendments. The subject site is located on the north side of Dundas Street, east of Highbury Ave. It’s west of the CN rail corridor and is part of the London psychiatric hospital lands, which is part of the secondary plan there.

The lands are irregular in shape and currently have a few buildings on site that were used for the London lawn bowling club. And the site does have a lot of frontage of approximately 75 meters in a lot area of approximately 4.23 hectares. To the west of the site, there’s a treat LA. I think everyone probably has driven down that in the past.

Which is a designated heritage feature. It was once the former internal driveway, as I mentioned, for the LPH lands. On the east portion of the property, along with the CN rail corridor, there’s a small, I would like to note there is a small portion of wetland that’s noted in the official plan. And completely surrounding the leases, we have the CP rail to the north.

And again, the LPH lands to the north. The east CN rail and commercial to the south commercial. And then again, as mentioned to the west, the London psychiatric treat LA. In 2011, this is when the London psychiatric hospital secondary plan was created.

And it was an initiative to establish a vision, principles and policies for the evolution of these lands. And during that time, the subject lands were designated transit oriented corridor and a portion of them also open space. Looking at the London plan, the two place types. There’s urban corridor place type and green space place type.

Looking at the 1980 E9 official plan. And it is multifamily medium density residential. And as well, it has some open space. And as mentioned, the LPH secondary plan has designated this transit oriented corridor with some open space.

And the zoning is currently a regional facility and commercial recreation. So the proposal that’s brought forward is for a one story building for the Humane Society administration offices, canals for housing and caring for the animals with some open space and outdoor activity for the animals, along with areas of the building that are to be open to the public. ‘Cause in the future, they’d like to have some students come through and look at the facility, et cetera. The access is proposed directly off of Dundas Street.

So looking at the PPS, staff have taken into consideration the PPS. And with regards to the requirements of the provision for employment uses, including commercial, the proposed development adds to this mix of existing and planned uses within these lands, the LPH lands and surrounding area. The proposal for the new commercial is compatible with surrounding areas and is transit supportive and therefore meets the intent of the PPS. I had some more PPS policies, but I think due to time, I’m just gonna shrink those down.

I should just make a big overall comment that this application does meet the, it is consistent with the PPS. So looking at the policies in the London plan and the 1980 official plan, looking at use, the subject lands are located within the urban corridor place type and the green space is mentioned. So for the London plan, the requested canal would be an offices, accessory offices, would be considered to be permitted use in conjunction with the proposed other accessory uses. The LPH secondary plan does permit the proposed development and therefore staff are satisfied.

That’s, it meets the intent with regards to use. Looking at intensity, the standard minimum height within the urban corridor place type is two stories and maximum height is four stories with bonusing. However, sorry, excuse me, the height ends, the scale of the one-story building is generally consistent with the existing one-story commercial and a building’s along the portion of Dundas Street and is also specifically permitted in the London secondary plan. So the one story is permitted within the London secondary plan.

So there were no special provisions that were requested from the applicant. However, staff are recommending one, which does recognize the existing lot frontage or sorry, front yard setback and two additional regulations with regards to the LPH secondary plan, design and cultural heritage policies. This does not affect the proposed development’s appropriateness in its context from a compatibility and intensity perspective. The proposed development is a suitable intensity for the site and is consistent with the London Plan and Official Plan.

And then I’m just going to go into form and this is where staff have really looked at the specific policies right down to each specific policy in the London Psychiatric Hospital secondary plan. With regards to form, the proposed development estimated does not conform to the form and urban design policies found within the council approved secondary plan. It does note that any development adjacent to the treat LA shall be oriented to the LA. It also notes that the frontage of buildings located on Dundas Street shall be designed to be oriented towards Dundas Street.

So staff are satisfied that the policy speaks to the orientation towards Dundas Street and that has been addressed. The intent to locate the building towards Dundas Street with a strong street edge of 36.5 meters is appropriate and will allow the building to be parallel along this corridor. We have included in our recommendation that a special provision for a maximum lot front yard setback of this has been recommended to ensure that the setback is adhered to. A specific policy that I’m quoting onsite surface or structure parking is not permitted between the building line and the property line adjacent to the cultural heritage landscape area.

So these policies are clear that the building is to be oriented to the treat LA with absolutely no parking between them. Therefore, looking at this policy and to implement this policy, staff are recommending a special provision as well that no parking be permitted between the treat LA and any building. I’m just going to quickly touch on three other points that were noted in my report. Looking at the report, there was a section on natural heritage and I did want to note that there is that unevaluated wetland that is in the official plan.

The proposed development does indicate the 30 meter buffer from this and the applicant and Parks planning are still having conversations about this and the rest will be determined through the site plan approval process. A heritage impact assessment was prepared to assess the impact of the development on the adjacent heritage feature, which is the treat LA. The study in the proposed development was considered by heritage staff and heritage staff have concluded that the heritage impact assessment was sufficient with its proposed mitigative measures. However, these have been also incorporated into the recommendation to ensure that these are dealt with through the site plan approval process.

Traffic transportation, the traffic and transportation impact study was conducted and transportation has accepted this study as advised there is no concerns. Any outstanding issues will be dealt with through the site plan approval process and they have noted that rapid transit service isn’t anticipated to run along King Street from a downtown to Nstero Street and proceed along Dundas Street. So taking all of the policies, relevant policies and the considerations specifically, as I noted, the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan policies staff are recommending that the proposed zoning has requested by the application with the exception of us adding some special provisions in them. The recommended zoning by law amendment is appropriate and desirable for the subject lands and represents sound land use planning.

Thank you. Just to clarify before we go to technical questions, am I right then from listening to you that the one issue that remains outstanding for the committee today is parking lot adjacent to the tree LA that staff is not endorsing? So there’s three special provisions that we are putting forth. There’s specific policies with orientation to the building along Dundas Street, noting that the property is kind of an irregular shape that it’s got the CN rail running along it.

They are satisfied that the applicant has provided to the best they can to meet this policy. That is why we’re including the 36.5 meter front yard setback, just to make sure that they don’t go farther setback ‘cause we know looking at their layout that they can come up that close, if that makes sense. The second provision is we are including no parking between the tree LA and the any building because it’s very specific in the psychiatric secondary plan, London’s psychiatric secondary plan, that policy states there is to be absolutely no parking between the building and the tree LA, which is a cultural heritage feature. And then the last one is the applicant has provided a lovely landscape along the tree LA.

Looking at the London psychiatric hospital land secondary plan, it does have a specific policy in there that requires a five meter. So staff have also recommended in our special provisions that that five meter at least be there. All right, so that’ll enable the applicant to know hopefully the issues they have to address in their presentation. So thank you.

Any technical questions committee? Sorry, I just thought I would clarify what the issues were. For being done, then we will go to the public. Is the applicant here to make a presentation?

I know there are some representatives. Mr. Campbell. Well, Mr.

Chair, can you hear me? It’s Matt Campbell here. I can’t hear you now. Did you listen to the earlier part of the meeting?

Yes, I did hear the staff presentation. Right, so hopefully you can direct yourself to the issues at hand. We understand what the building is and what staff agrees on. Hopefully you can direct yourself to the areas of difference.

Thank you. Yes, absolutely. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the planning committee.

My name is Matt Campbell from Zalinka, preamble. And with us today in a meeting, we have Steve Ryle of the Humane Society, as well as Tom Genevick from SBM. We can answer any questions that the committee may have. So the first thing to keep in mind with this proposal is that this is a highly desirable use for the city of London.

We think this is a wonderful thing. And in terms of planning, this is one of these feel good projects that everyone loves to see. And we’re very excited to bring this to the floor planning committee. Now, we’ll get right to the chase.

The issue at hand is the policy, which speaks to parking between the building line and lands adjacent to the tree delay. And we did provide a letter that I believe was circulated to committee members that offers our interpretation for how this proposal is consistent with that policy. Now, I believe the comment from staff was that there is absolutely no parking, allowed in that location. We disagree with the assessment there because the actual policy makes reference to parking adjacent to the heritage, cultural heritage landscape area, which is that tree delay.

And we are proposing a fairly wide landscape strip. There are 10 meters, which is well in excess of what otherwise would be permitted or not permitted proposed. And that feature allows us to have this interpretation that the parking is far enough away from that feature that we can comply with that policy. The other thing to keep in mind here is when we’re talking about addressing this policy is that this is a highly unique site, this is a highly unique use with very, very specific goals in terms of site layout.

And if time permits, I’m sure Steve from the Humane Society can elaborate, but in simple terms, what we need to do with this site is ensure that there is spatial separation between the publicly accessible areas, which would be the parking area and front doors and the private areas and animal care areas. I know the Humane Society has had issues with people trespassing and trying to get animals back when they really shouldn’t, as well as people just wandering into animal care areas. And the proposed design of this site speaks specifically to addressing those functional needs. And that’s why when staff originally brought this to our attention, we looked at different arrangements for this site and concluded that unfortunately, this site cannot be configured in a way that staff were suggesting and also meet the unique functional requirements of the Humane Society.

When we’re talking about the tree delay, I think it’s also important to note that the comments from heritage planning staff were in agreement with it. And we’re also in agreement with the Heritage Impact Assessment that we submitted along with the application, demonstrating that they were satisfied, that the cultural heritage feature would be protected. Now, we did, we provided the letter for the committee’s consideration and we certainly would request that the committee endorse a amended zoning bylaw that would be brought forward. So that specifically would be to amend, I understand there is the amendment to Roman numeral one, which I believe Elena already mentioned.

And we’re also requesting that Roman numeral two to that bylaw be removed entirely. If we have a little bit of time, I will invite Steve to say a few words about how the Humane Society is excited to be on these lands and prospects from moving forward. You have one minute left. Okay, for the opportunity to speak at Steve Ryle, the Executive Director of the Humane Society, London and Middlesex.

The Humane Society has been in the community for over 120 years now, sitting on a site that’s just under one acre and 9,000 square feet. The new facility will move us to a 37,000 square feet, 11 acre property that will allow us to really fulfill the requirement for animal welfare in today’s standards. One thing I wanna really push is that we’re not just building a shelter here, we’re building a community center. This community center will offer the opportunity for kids camps in the summertime, school programs during the school year.

There’s a large public event hall that will be rentable and also used for that rehabilitation of older animals during the day where they can actually get around and move around a little bit with our winters. That’s made it sure tough over the years. The education center will be also an opportunity for groups, local groups to meet in and have different meeting rooms at different times of the day. And really just a neighborhood regeneration program here.

The public support has been huge. And if I talk about the layout of the building, I’ve been to 29 Humane Societies and Shelters across North America in the last two years. And it’s built for that and designed in that way. For our partnerships and our agreements with provincial animal welfare services and the London Police Services, the building and the layout provides an excellent opportunity to protect those animals from the general public and also from the general public from them and in certain situations.

And so that eastern portion of the property fully fenced with runs inside of it that the animals would be able to use as long as well as trails and trees. Ohio, you’re running up close to six minutes. I’m trying to indulge you a little bit, but if you could wrap up, that would be great. I’m good and appreciate the extra minute.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other public presentations that we’re aware of in either of the rooms or online? I wasn’t aware of any, does not appear so.

So I just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councilor Layman, seconded by Councilor Lewis. Unless there’s something else I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Committee, I’ll turn it over to you.

You have for staff or the applicant and then you can also make comments. Go ahead, Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m going to start through you with just one question to the applicant, Mr. and the representative, actually Mr. Campbell. And I’m just trying to catch up here to make sure I’m looking at the right Roman numerals he referred to that are the points of contention.

I recognize that one is with regard to the parking. I’m wondering if he can just clarify, is the other one with regard to the front yard setback and what the issue he believes is with that? Because that’s, I think the two he’s talking about, but I want to be sure. Go ahead, sir.

I think I’m going to go to Councilor Lewis. It’s Matt Campbell here again. That is correct. I was referring firstly to Roman numeral one, which on the staff report that is appended to today’s agenda makes reference to a lot frontage, whereas it should have been a maximum front yard setback.

I believe that was, that was just an error. And I believe, Ms. Riley mentioned that that is corrected, although I have not seen a new draft bylaw. The item that is most contentious that we were just discussing is Roman numeral two.

And that is the one that we are requesting be removed as an amendment to the bylaw. Thank you, Mr. Campbell, Council. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I recognize that a revised bylaw language has been circulated, but I want to focus on the report and the recommendation in the report. And then staff can address the bylaw and any language changes that need to be tidied up there as they will. So I’m going to just start and get a motion on the floor and then discuss the reasoning behind my motion.

So I’m going to move an amendment recommendation that deletes the special provision prohibiting parking from this and recommend that the application be approved without that special provision in it. All right, do you have a seconder for that motion? Councillor Layman is seconding it. So that motion is on the floor.

So you can proceed to speak to that motion, Councillor, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This was a really frustrating application report for me to read through.

You know, the London Psychiatric Hospital secondary plan, it says right in the purpose is to establish a vision principles and policies. And frankly, I think that we’re missing the vision piece in the recommendation that was going to prohibit parking and really making a strict interpretation of the letter rather than the spirit of the plan. And I actually agree with the applicant that the 10 meter landscape buffer they’re providing does provide a break between the tree LA and the parking. And so there is a buffer there.

And frankly, as someone who lives in this part of the city, it’s a problem for me when I read that the tree LA is to remain a focal point for the community because with all due respect, it has not been a focal point for a long, long time. It’s hard to remain one when you’re not one. And I say this with all due respect to Ms. Riley because I know that this is from the secondary plan and this isn’t her language, that this is just something that has been shared from the plan.

But it’s not helpful when I read editorialized comments like the LA forms of magnificent vista to the north. Magnificent, first of all, is subjective to the individual. And what we have there today is definitely not magnificent. In fact, it’s a bit of an eyesore in the location and it can actually attract some bad behavior.

One of the best ways to address that is feed on the street sort of approaches which the Humane Society development is gonna foster. Imposing a special provision around parking on this weird, I’m gonna call it a weird piece of land because it really is awkward. Your sandwich between two rail lines, a wet land and a tree LA with only one point of entry that you can safely access from Dundas Street because of the rail lines. And that’s vehicle traffic on a four lane artery.

So if we see a note of this, I think we’re gonna accomplish one thing and one thing only. We’re gonna ensure that this land sits undeveloped for more years or perhaps decades. We’ve got support from the Argyle BIA expressed on this. We’ve got support from the next door neighbors at Warehouse Guys on this.

There’s a good community partner here who hasn’t asked the city for a nickel in funding for a badly needed relocation. And it’s an applicant that I think we have to recognize as a real unique set of needs for safe dog run access and animal care, for delivery access and for public access that simply can’t move a parking lot based on how the entrance from Dundas Street is going to go. All the other elements in the report praise the development. You know, it notes the unique rhythm of accurate openings, the use of canopies and the transition in scale being appropriate for this part of London.

It also describes the fact that this is along an auto oriented corridor. So parking is needed. And a limited activation of the streetscape and an underwhelming pedestrian experience, I think is absolutely accurate in this location. But I also noted that the tree inventory and the tree protection plan was submitted and was accepted by a staff without issue on this.

So we’re not putting the trees in the LA or the trees on the property at risk. I believe a couple of trees on the property itself may have to be removed, but that was noted in the report. So to me, this comes down to a really simple scenario. Either we approve this, recognizing that what we have right there now is vacant land, that’s an eyesore.

In fact, I’ve got a note, Mr. Chair. Currently, there is parking adjacent to the tree LA from the old lawn bowling club. When it was a provincial piece of land that was being utilized by the lawn bowling club, parking did happen there.

So we actually have what is sort of a legal and non-conforming situation already. I think that there’s a good opportunity for the LA as the developer creates the residential properties in behind for that to come back to some form of life. But I think having the Humane Society there will only enhance it. So I’m encouraging colleagues to support this motion that’s on the floor.

All right, any other comments with regard to the motion that is now on the floor to amend the original motion councilor Hopkins? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not seeing the motion, I understand we’re deleting a provision to prohibit parking in our policy.

Is that the motion in front of us? And if it is, I’d like to see it, but I would— We’ll make sure you see it, but my understanding is that there’s the issue is parking adjacent to the tree LA and what staff is saying you can’t have parking adjacent to the tree LA and Councilor Lewis is trying to remove that prohibition. So that’s what it is. Thank you for that clarification.

So through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, I’m trying to get a better understanding of the OPH secondary plan and how it works. I’d like to have a better understanding about what our policies are. And through you to staff, if we were going to change the policy in the plan, what would be the process like?

Just to be clear, I don’t think we’re changing the policy, what we’re not doing that, we’re just allowing this to occur. We’re not asking for that, Councilor Lewis, you go ahead. You actually, I’m sorry, do you want someone else to explain that for you or staff? I don’t want to interrupt.

Yeah, go ahead. Okay, so I would like to ask staff can we make these changes? Through you, Mr. Chair, I’d like to ask staff if these, if we make these changes, what will be the ramifications to the plan?

Thank you very much, go ahead, staff. Mr. Chair, it’s Michael Thomas N6 speaking here, and thanks for the opportunity to answer the question. So Mr.

Chair, you’ve heard the interpretation of staff of that policy, and you’ve also heard the interpretation of the applicant’s planner, and Council has the ability to prefer one opinion over the other. To answer Councilor Hopkins’ question, the way I understand it is the changes to the by-law, but not the policy, and so clause two of the by-law that prohibits parking between the building and the property line would be removed, and you would rely on the applicant’s planner for that interpretation of the policy. Thank you for that, and just a follow-up question to that. I understand this still needs to be developed.

Are we setting a precedent in any way if we make changes to the by-law? Go ahead, Mr. Thomas N6. It would certainly open up a different interpretation than the staff had, so it is possible, but it would also depend on, it would be crystal balling on the type of application that would come in the future, and that’s not to say that another application like this would come.

Given the unique dimensions of the site, it is possible that we might not see another one like this, but of course that’s all speculation. One thing I should just getting back to my first question, just to be clear though, it might be better for council, should you choose to support parking between the treat LA and the building face to actually include that as a clause? So rather than just delete clause two, actually specify that parking is permitted, just to be clear. Thank you very much.

I don’t think I’m looking at the mover and seconder. I don’t think they would, would they have a problem with that, Councillor Luz? Yeah, I would have no problem if it’s staff’s advice to say parking is permitted for this application, rather than deleting the clause. I think both accomplish what I’m trying to do, and if the staff recommendation gives them some assurance on the, and Councillor Hopkins, some assurance on the integrity of the policy, I’m fine with that.

All right, why don’t we change the proposed amendment to, as Mr. Thomas has suggested, then. All right, further comments on the amendment? Oh, Councillor Vanholle, you just popped up, Councillor Vanholle, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And interesting, Mr. Campbell said, this was a feel good project.

When I looked at the report, I felt good about it. So I would say that’s correct. I appreciate the amendment as well. I think that’s, I think it’s a good approach.

I think it’s appropriate for here. They were going to include that as part of the by-law. Now, I believe that the applicant was putting in a landscape buffer between the tree LA and the parking. And I’m just wondering to you, to staff, if that’s something that we should also include in the by-law.

Mr. Thomas, Councillor? Yes, Mr. Chair, there is a clause three, Roman numeral three that actually talks about a five meter width of that landscape buffer, but perhaps that could be increased to implement what the applicant is proposing.

Okay, well then, thank you. Perhaps I can ask the applicant for a comment about that inclusion. Go ahead, the applicant. Three, Mr.

Chair, I believe that would be acceptable that isn’t exactly what we are proposing on the site plan. And if we can provide some assurance that that area would be used for landscaping as it is proposed now, I think that would be acceptable to both parties. All right, so it’s a mover content that that also be changed via a 10 meter buffer rather than a five meter buffer. All right, that’s fine too.

So staff, we’re just going to keep changing things till staff comes over and with apologies to the clerk. Yes. - I think 10 meters is fine. So we’re going to take, we’ll keep debating this, but hopefully we’re not going to make too many more changes just because we’re moving towards that.

Councilor Bandholz, did you have anything else? No, I guess, well, I would say in support of the move, maybe I would ask through you to staff what the alternative would be if we didn’t have for this property, if we didn’t have parking between the tree delay and the building. How would that look? I don’t know if that’s for staff or for the applicant.

Does staff prepare to answer that in some way? Mr. Chair, Michael Thomas insecure again. Two options would be to keep the building in its current position and get rid of the surface parking lot.

So it would be quite a wide landscape strip or alternatively move the building further west to get closer to the tree delay about five meters away from the property line. And then parking could be on the east side of the building. Thank you, Mr. Thomas and Councillor.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So in looking at, I actually imagine to myself if we had a three-story building or maybe one three-story building on either side of the tree delay close to it, that would really block the view of that feature from almost anyone driving by, except if they were right in front of it. So I actually, I actually think that the trees will be appreciated much more in this particular layout.

I think it’s gonna turn out to be a very nice thing. So I’m thrilled with the way a committee seems to be moving forward. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Anybody else on the committee wish to comment on that we? So now we’re amending the changing the parking to allow it between the building and the LA, but also increasing the buffer from five meters as was in the by a lot of 10 meters. I don’t, you’re pointing, but I don’t see. Sorry, Mr.

Chair, but there is a hand, Councillor Halmer. All right, he’s not on my screen. I don’t know why that is, but go ahead, Councillor Halmer. Thank you.

As many colleagues will know, this property is actually located in Ward 4, it’s the eastern most boundary really on the north side. And this is an important feature of leading into the psychiatric hospital lands. And we only really get one chance to have the redevelopment proceed. So I think the development proposals is very good.

It’s a bit of a short building for the location, I think, but I persuaded that this kind of development is okay. I listened carefully to what the staff were saying, and I think it can work given the specific kind of use that’s envisioned here. I was discouraged to hear from Mr. Campbell that despite all the creative minds and smart people to have over at that firm that they can’t figure out a way to orient the building and have the parking not be immediately adjacent to the treat LA.

So I wanted to ask through the chair, I think he said that it’s just not possible. And I want to explore that a bit. What is the constraint that prevents the parking from being, say, on the east side of the building when the buildings moved over to the west side of the property? You can still have separation between the private parts and the public parts.

Like there’s lots of different ways of creating that. I wonder if you could just explain what the problem is. Mr. Campbell.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Councillor Halmer. Thanks very much for the question. I do appreciate that.

And I can understand that from the perspective of just looking at the facility at face value. Yes, the building can absolutely be moved to the east and parking located on the west side in a physical sense. But that is completely contrary to the operational criteria that the Humane Society requires for the specific facility. As I mentioned off the bat, there are some security concerns, the requirement of separation of public versus private spaces, as well as a separation from outdoor animal handling areas.

That’s very important to the Humane Society. And for that reason, we cannot locate the parking in a different area and actually make the site work for them. If it was a different user, then perhaps that may be possible. But these are the constraints that are given to us by the unique function of the Humane Society.

If possible, I would ask that Steve Ryle expand on some of their unique operational criteria that may give the committee a better understanding of why this specific arrangement is required. If that’s possible. That’s fine. I think it would help Councillor Halmer.

Is that without helping Councillor? That’s great. Mr. Ryle, just keep your mind-time constraints.

However, when giving your answer, but we’re happy to have you give an answer. Well, thank you for the opportunity. So it’s 100% around the operational needs of the Humane Society. We, if you take to understand that we hold animals for the provincial animal welfare services, these are animals that have had cruelty or abuse to them.

Many a times, those people who are under those accusations will try to enter the facility or remove their animals and get them back. It’s caused nothing but stress and putting our staff in a really bad position. And multiple times through the year, we press our panic buttons to bring one in police services down to help. So the natural barriers that the railroads, two-to-two crossroads of the railroads provide.

And then the building itself with some proper fencing will allow us to keep that privacy and safety for our animals and our 300 volunteers that we have that work with the animals to rehabilitate them and prepare them for their new homes. Thank you very much. Councillor Halmer, anything further? Yeah, okay.

I mean, I understand the need for security. It doesn’t really explain why the building can’t be moved or turned. So I guess my second question is around the actual extent of the parking that’s planned. Do you need all of that parking or could you get by with less parking if less parking was allowed?

Go ahead. So go ahead, Matthew. Great, thanks, Steve. Three, Mr.

Chair, to Councillor Halmer. We are providing parking in excess of what the zoning by-law requires. There may be opportunities for shifting some parking around during the site plan approval process, but largely what we see on the concept plan is the Humane Society’s preferred parking arrangement going forward. Okay, I’m not sure if a committee is gonna like this idea or not, but I would suggest that instead of changing the by-law, you refer it.

I’d like to talk with the applicant and the Humane Society about the constraints that they’re facing for the site. I think the idea of having the Humane Society there is great. I am concerned about putting all the parking along the tree delay. We’ve got two sides of this thing that face the street out of Dundas that the other side will probably redevelop in the future as well.

And then it goes all the way into the major site, which is owned by Old Oak on the other side of the train tracks. And I really would like to avoid starting off the redevelopment of this huge property by saying, yeah, we’ll just allow parking up against the tree delay because I would not want to see it parking all the way down both sides, all the way into the site. That would be ruining. What is it?

Was it an important view shed? And once the site redevelops, it’s going to be an important thing that people are using regularly in the city as they used to in the past. So I think a referral, it doesn’t seem to me like it’s actually impossible to work this out. Sounds like there’s maybe a bit of a disagreement about what is possible or not, but I’d appreciate a bit of time to try and work through it.

So if people think a referral maybe would lead to a better outcome, I’m happy to support that idea. If not, if there’s no way to actually resolve it, I guess at least we’d be wasting one cycle of time and you could deal with the matter again at the next planning meeting. Thank you, Councillor. So I’m in the committee’s hands.

Councillor Hopkins. Does the referral proceed the amendment? Are we following process here? I just want to confirm that we can speak to a referral.

Through the chair, a referral would take precedent over the motion, but it would have to be put on the floor by one of the members. I think we know that. It’s just it’s precedent, yeah. Yeah, thank you for that.

I just wanted to make sure we were following process here. And I would be pleased to put forward the referral to refer this back. Like Councillor Halmer said at least one cycle. And the reason I am supporting the referral because I have heard from staff that there are opportunities maybe to work and to allow for the changes to the form of this building and looking at opportunities.

One of the concerns I do have with this is that it is going to, we are looking at changing what our policy or our plan does dictate here. And we know development, future development is coming here. So how this is all going to work, it does need a little bit more of a discussion to look at opportunities because there are options there. So I would ask for a seconder to refer this back to have staff work with the applicant to look at reworking the plan.

All right, and you do have a seconder for the referral. That’s Councillor Hillier. So the referral is now on the floor and it would refer the matter back. Could we get some idea maybe before we vote on from staff when we would expect to see this matter back so that the members of the committee are aware of what timeframe we’re looking at?

Mr. Chair, it’s Michael Thomas-Inseck here. The absolute quickest given public notification requirements would be two cycles. So we couldn’t make the next one, but it would be the one after that.

All right, Mr. yeoman, your hand was up. Did you want to say? Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair, through you. Mr. Thomas-Inseck is correct. It would also give us an opportunity to advertise the changes that are being proposed of the public way and on the proposal that’s being made, recognizing that to the intent of committee with the previous amendment was differing from the staff recommendation.

I’d also request that some direction be provided that associated with the referral so we can return with the by-law that Council and committee deans needed. All right, I’ll turn that over to Councillor Hopkins. What directions would you like to put with the referral? With the referral to, so we’re looking at a second cycle, but also to make the changes to the by-law as well.

But I think staff, looking for what areas do you want us to, and Mr. yeoman, can you be more specific? Just what is it you’re looking for in terms of direction? Through you, Mr.

Chair, so my understanding from listening is the issues that have been raised related to the parking and the policy that speaks to prohibition, something that’s contrary to that, also related to the landscape buffer and the reduction of parking. All right, I assume we can put that as directions with the referral that those be the things that be considered. On the referral then, Councillor Lewis, you wanted to speak to that. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair. So especially now that I’ve heard two cycles, I’m not going to support the referral. I actually think we’re making this much more complicated than it needs to be. I think this is a fairly straightforward situation.

And we did hear the applicant indicate that they will continue to work with staff, and I’m sure that they would be happy to work with Councillor Helmer through the site plan approval process, moving forward, and that they may, in fact, be able to reduce some of the parking that the draft plan requires. I’m not a fan of constant referral cycles, and I think this application should move forward as amended today. Thank you very much. Further comments on the referral itself, which is what we’re debating right now, before I call the referral, which has been moved and seconded.

Councillor Vanholst, go ahead. Thank you, and Mr. Chair, I realize I’m sorry I might take a few more minutes at this meeting to get some clarification, but it will be a lot less than a month to get to come back to the same point potentially. So I’d like to just ask the applicant to describe how this, how we need the parking to be on the east, on the west side instead of the east side.

I believe that out of the east side of the building, that’s where the animals will run and be dealt with. So if we had some clarification on that, I’d understand why it was set up the way it was. And if I could just help you, you’ve been asked that question before, and I think your answers, if not, you’ve sort of said it’s really important that the building have the parking on the one side, but I think what Councillor Vanholst is trying to get is what is that reason? And I have to admit, I’m maybe I’m the only one who didn’t understand clearly what the reason is, it would be helpful to know.

Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Matt Campbell here again, to Councillor Vanholst. If you have the site plan available in front of you, it’s easy to see how there’s a clear delineation of a public versus private space on the plan. Now, imagine that the entire site would be, or the secure portions of the site, which is generally everything on the east of the site.

And I just, Dr. Mr. Campbell, you’re referring to something. Is it at a page so the committee members can actually be looking at it?

Mr. Chair, I, the eight of our agenda, just pulling up the staff report and how I believe it is included in the staff report. It’s page five of the presentation. Okay, I don’t need everybody at once answering the, I just want to have it in front of me to look at it and you’re saying it’s in front, I’m looking at the agenda.

So what pages are the agenda? If we have the online version available to us, it is on page five of that report. Mr. Chair, may I ask if it’s figure two, the site plan that they’re referring to, ‘cause that’s the only thing I have available to me.

Councillor Vanholst, yes, that is correct. Page 268, Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

I knew somebody would finally help me out, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Now, when looking at that figure, again, the areas on the east side of the building will have security fencing in order to ensure that that area is secure for animal welfare. If you’re looking at the area immediately to the north of the building, there’s a dashed line that indicates a future expansion. Immediately on the one side of that, the left side of that expansion area, there’s actually a security fence that runs straight north and separates the westerly parking area.

And so the easterly parking area is going to be secured parking for employees, service vehicles, things of that nature, that are then separate from the publicly accessible areas. But that’s, again, that’s why the site is laid out that way. I believe there’s the question, why couldn’t we just flip the building and the westerly parking area? Then that would then create a situation where it’s extremely difficult to provide security fencing in order to ensure that the animal areas that need to, and those animal areas need to remain on the east side of the site because we do have that open field area with the wetland feature.

And that is proposed to include dog runs, open space areas for the animals to run around in. And it’s intended that all of that area be secure. And if we were to put the building on the west side, we would lose that security in essence, what would have to happen is that there would be a corridor of security fencing that would run through the site out to the east. And functionally, that would be extremely difficult to control.

I hope that that provides a better understanding. Thank you very much. Councilor Benton. - Thank you.

Anything further, we hope to move this matter to a vote in the near future. So we’ve got two different motions on the floor. So Councilor Van Holst on the referral. Thank you.

So I guess my only other question would be through you to staff is how is the, what’s the justification for this no parking point in the policy? How will it make the site better? Or how is it perceived that would make the site better? It’s not obvious to me.

Mr. Chair, if I may answer that. Go ahead, I’ll stop a second. Thank you.

To the Councillor, there is an actual policy. And I quote, “On site surface or structured parking “is not permitted between the building line “and the property line adjacent “to the cultural heritage landscape area. “And because of that policy, “we worked really, really close with the applicant “to get to where we are today, “but we just couldn’t overcome that policy. ” Staff couldn’t interpret that any other way “that would allow the parking to be permitted “between the building line and the property line.

“But you did hear from the applicant’s planner “a different interpretation, “and the committee is free to favor that interpretation “over the staff interpretation.” Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. And I think that answers that question. Councillor Hillier.

Yes, thank you. I’m just looking at the document on page five, the presentation, and I’m wondering what the parking is well, ‘cause I’m looking at the 20 odd spaces on the west side of the parking lot going in. I’m wondering why they just can’t extend that parking lot out the north one more row, ‘cause they do have the land. Thank you.

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to Councillor Hillier. As I mentioned, there are opportunities to reconfigure the parking area, to some extent through the site plan approval process.

And I think that is something that the Humane Society may look as to the potential— I’m sorry, Mr. Campbell. You’re sort of fading in and out. So I missed part of what she said.

My apologies. I just wanted to say that, as I had mentioned previously, there are opportunities for looking at reconfiguring portions of the parking area to move parking around as Councillor Hillier had mentioned. There may be opportunities to shift parking to the north, or reconfigure that northerly parking area. Thank you, Chair, are you done?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the referral. And I appreciate Councillor Lewis’s concerns about second cycle and the amount of time that we would need to wait for this to come back.

But we’ve heard there are opportunities for further discussions. And to get support for this referral, I would like to confirm with clerks that we are looking at the second cycle being April the 26th. I just want to make sure I have that correct date. And if it pleases the committee, I’d be happy to add that date to the referral.

It’s less than a month, and I am looking for support for this referral. Okay, would the date be April 26th? And maybe we can get staff to confirm if that’s fine that we add that in for the return of this matter. Mr.

Chair, Michael Thomas in sick here. The only concern I would have about that is if we couldn’t meet the date because we were still working with the applicant, for example, we would then have to come back to this committee and ask for an extension. And it just might add to more committee reports unnecessarily. So I can assure you that we’ll work as quickly as we can with the applicant, but I just don’t want to be locked into a date in case we’re progressing.

That valid point, Mr. Thomas in saying. So the staff suggesting we not put a date in. Go ahead, Councillor Harkin.

I heard that, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the comment. So through you to staff, is it possible to have it back by the second cycle? Mr.

Chair, Michael Thomas in sick here again. It would all depend on how well we work together with the applicant. If we’re making progress, but still need more time than it’s possible, we may not be able to make it. In fact, that would be the concern about committing to that date.

We certainly want to expedite this as quickly as possible. Thank you for answering the question of expediting this process. I think that’s really important that this committee hears that. Working with the applicant, I’m okay with not putting the date in if that’s pressure that I’m pleased to hear that staff and are willing to expedite this process.

Councillor Layton. Thank you. I spoke to Ms. Riley of the Humane Society and also took a drive out to the site.

It’s a very unique site. It’s as sat vacant for quite a long time. It’s kind of a pie shape between two train tracks. I looked at the rendering of what they have planned.

I think it’s quite impressive what this project will add to the area. I’ve heard from Ms. Riley and my conversations with him and also from the similar questions that were raised today. This site and a plan, a lot of work has gone into this plan.

And I can see why. Humane Society has a very intricate needs and they have to deal with the public and also with animals within a city. From my understandings, I can’t see ever the building being moved over to the tree line as the building needs to be directly accessible to the green space for the animals, for the, you know, people are visiting, which there will be because they’re planning to engage the community, which I thought was an excellent byproduct of this as an education center. So, you know, people can learn about, you know, the animal population in our city.

They’re going to be expanding from, you know, as an area right now where this, the humane site we’re currently sits right now, the building has seen its day. I can see why they need to go quickly on this. They’ll go from 200 animals to over 400 plus animal capacity. They’re busing at the seams right now.

So I’m concerned about a delay ‘cause I think we’ll just be back at the same spot. The needs of the Humane Society are very specific and this site allows for their needs. And I think we’d be hard pressed to find another site within a city because of the nature of the facility. Usually these facilities are on the outskirts of the city because of the nature of, you know, animal care, traffic, et cetera.

So we have an opportunity here to provide a first class facility for London and for the animal protections side of things in a site that I think would sit, could easily sit vacant for quite a while due to the nature of it ‘cause we’ll be faced with this again. They can’t have the building along the tree line. I think parking issues can be resolved through site planning. I think they’ll be willing to work, you know, with the city to make some minor changes.

But I don’t see a major change being conducive to this. I think we’re a danger of losing this opportunity. So I can’t see how a referral will assist here. So I won’t support the referral and then we’ll take it from there.

All right. Please keep in mind, hopefully people, we’re speaking to the referral. I think everybody agrees that the Humane Society is a meritorious application. I think everybody agrees.

But we’re talking about referring it to deal with this parking issue. So Mr. Mayor, go ahead. Thanks very much Shature, I won’t be supporting the referral.

You know, we forget that we don’t forget that organizations have options. And I think Councillor Lehman’s comment about an organization like this, typically on the fringes of town. But I think where they’re considering locating, they put obviously clear thought into this. And I respect that decision-making process.

I don’t think we’re all that far apart. But I think the considerations that you’ve heard as recommended by Councillor Lewis is the direction that I certainly intend to support. But I won’t be supporting the referral because again, we sometimes get caught up at the, what is that expression that the aim for perfection gets in the way of the very good? And you know, I think this is a respectful application.

I think it’s one that Londoners would get behind if we can all support it. And I say it with deep respect to the Council for the word. And I would, I will not be supporting the referral. Okay, Councillor Hillier, you wanted to speak to the referral.

‘Cause that’s what we’re debating right now, the referral. Yes, thank you. I seconded this referral just to keep the democratic process moving forward. So we have a discussion on it.

Now I have been listening closely and I know it’s unusual, but I won’t be voting for the referral just because I am satisfied that staff will be able to move forward with this and work together with the applicant. Thank you. Anything else? Most people have already expressed their opinion on the referral?

Yes, Adam Clark, do I have? Thank you through the chair. I just wanted to provide some additional information with respect to the meeting cycles. The next meeting of the planning and environment committee is scheduled for April the 19th.

There is a meeting tentatively scheduled for April the 26th as an if needed meeting. Both of those meetings will be going to the May 4th council meeting. So that’s all one cycle. I just want that clarification for the committee’s consideration.

Very helpful, thank you very much. So everybody has spoken to the referral several times. I’m sorry? If I can sum up?

Well, you can, you can certainly sum up, but I can tell you that if I was chair of council, I would not recognize summing up. It’s a creation of, it’s a creation quite frankly. There’s no provision for summing up. I’ll let you do it, but I hope you’ll cover new territory.

I hope I’ll cover new territory as well, Mr. Chair, because I would like to make comments from comments that I just received from the committee here. And what I heard, why this should not be supported. First of all, we have heard from the clerk.

It is one cycle. Secondly, I’m kind of surprised here that there’s conversation around the applicant maybe looking at another site. I don’t think we’re there. I think there are opportunities here for the applicant staff to further work on this given some of the concerns.

And I don’t think we are looking for perfection either with this referral. It can be referred back one cycle and I would encourage the committee to do that. All right, if there’s nothing further than we’re gonna vote on the referral only. We’re closing the vote, the motion fails two to four.

All right, then we’re gonna go for a fail. We’ll go back to the amendment to the motion, which we discussed earlier. And that was to make the changes with regard to the allowing the parking lot near the tree LA. So there are further comments on that particular issue before we call the vote on the amendment.

There being none, then we’ll call the amendment. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to one. On the main motion as amended, no, it’s all done. Great, thank you very much.

We’ll now move on to the next matter, which is item 3.4. I understand there will be no presentation on this matter, but we will have to open the public participation meeting. Could someone do that? Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

And unless there’s something further, I will call the vote on that. Three, six to zero. And just for the committee’s benefit, this matter may take a presentation. After that, it’s my intention to call a brief recess so the committee can have a break.

Not overly long, but just a brief recess. So public presentation, go ahead, or the staff presentation, go ahead, please. So, Chair, I am Mike Corby here. So just to clarify, this is the staff presentation for metal lily, right?

It is, yes. Okay, sorry. And just before I start that, there is a presentation. Okay, well, well, well, I’m sorry, it’s all just okay, I’m sorry.

Everybody looks at me like I just made a small error there, folks, a small slip up. We’re gonna do all of this work, Mr. Corby. So that was my mistake, which I quickly became aware of.

Thank you, it was a little confused, but. That’s all right. We’ll go back to all of this, right? There is no staff presentation, I understand.

So I’ll turn this matter over to the committee. Okay, thank you. ‘Cause I don’t think there’s any public presentations. But can you wish to make a short presentation?

That’s okay. Sorry, this is Caitlin with Zalenka Priemmo here on behalf of the owner. We have read the staff report and believe that we can agree to the conditions. That’s it, thanks.

Thank you very much. Turn it over to the committee at this point in time. Is someone prepared to move the recommendation? The mayor is moving the recommendation.

We haven’t closed the PPM. We need a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, all in favor. Well, we’re gonna vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, go ahead, committee. The mayor wants to move the recommendation and I’ll get to see if someone wants to second it. Councillor Lewis, and I got it.

And all the ward Councillors here and I’ll let him speak to it since he’s probably more aware of it than any of us. Go ahead, Councillor Hurd. Sorry, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, thank you, Chair.

And I just have a quick question for staff because really the only concerns that I’ve heard in the area associated with this development are related to the traffic flows in the area. As you know, there’s a very busy high school. The intersection of Alders Brook Gate and Fanshawe is a busy one and one that can be difficult to navigate at certain times of the day. So my question for staff just is, as these developments come forward that are moving towards filling in the area with residential and some commercial, which will be forthcoming, of course, too, are we monitoring the intersection flows and how often are we doing traffic studies on that intersection to see if it warrants anything like advanced signalization?

Thank you, Mr. Councillor, and through the chair, we’re constantly looking at those things, but perhaps I should pass the question off to Mr. Dales in transportation, who I believe is here and can speak to specifics. Yes.

Thanks, Matt, and through the chair, Scarfield deals from the transportation division. So yes, we do routinely monitor traffic volumes, particularly at signalized intersections in order to identify concerns or areas of adjustment associated with the traffic signals. So that would be something that we would regularly do as part, particularly with the arterial roadway. Great, and through the chair, thank you to staff for that.

Again, that was the only significant concern that I had heard from area residents. So I leave that for the committee’s consideration. Otherwise, I’m sure this won’t be the last development in that area that I’m here to talk about. Thank you very much, Stephanie Mayor.

Councillor Hill here, you want to speak to this? Yeah, so I’m just looking at the development. I’m just curious about visitor parking because it’s on a turning circle. So I’ll be walking distance quite a while.

How much visitor parking is in this development? My key manager of site plan. So this came through a site plan application and it’s registered as it stands right now. There’s a certain ratio that’s provided for visitor parking in addition to the required parking in the zoning by-law.

I could say that based on the metrics of the site plan by-law, this does meet it. There is a couple of parking spaces that are provided in accordance with the site plan control by-law. So only a couple of parking spaces like two. Through the chair, that’s correct.

Generally, that’s been the metric that’s been applied and through the discussion through the site plan, that’s what we determined of the applicant that they were comfortable with for their use, noting that the site does provide for what’s required in the zoning by-law in terms of the driveway parking and any sort of private parking on the site. I’m sure the applicant’s quite comfortable with it. I’m more concerned about the neighborhood and the overflow parking like I’m considering a holiday weekend. And this little complex gets a lot of visitors.

It’s going to overflow into the neighborhood. So that’s just my concern. Okay, do staff want to respond to that? Through the chair or to the chair, thanks.

It’s Mike again. So just putting up a plan to more time. It looks like there’s actually five visitor parking spaces along the centerly property line. Just, sorry, I’m juggling screen, just south of the block that’s facing Alders Brook Gate.

So there’s three visitor parking spaces and two barrier free parking spaces. And as noted, there’s private garages with the driveways that do provide for individual access and parking. Thank you. I think further on this matter, I should say on microphone.

All right, do we have a mover and seconds or have we done that? Yeah, so we’ll call the vote on this matter. We’re closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Moving on to item 3.5, which is the public participation meeting, relating to 101 Meadow-Lilly Road South.

The first item of business we have to do is this was a matter that was dealt with by Latch and they made decisions in paragraph 4.3 of their report. So that section of the Latch report should be moved up to be dealt with with this application. Can I just do that or do any emotion to do that? All right, just move, we’re just, thank you very much.

So we’ll now need to open the public participation meeting with regard to this matter, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. If there’s nothing further, we will vote on that. We’re closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, I’ll look for the staff presentation, please.

Is someone prepared to make a presentation on this matter? For you, Mr. Chair, my core be here. Thank you.

I have a presentation available for this. And also it’s included in the added agenda if people want to follow along with it. And before I start, I forgot a slide. Just a reminder, this application didn’t go to the Planning and Environment Committee back in October 5th of 2020.

At that meeting, the applicant sought to get this deferred back to staff. Their original proposal showed three story town homes and through our recommendation, we required a maximum of two and a half stories. So the applicant sought deferral and so they’ve gone back. And now we’re here today with a slightly revised application.

So the subject site is 101 Meadowlily Road. It’s located in the northeast corner of a highway out south and commissioners road east. It’s between the high very woods on the west side of the site and the Meadowlily Woods ESA along the east side of the site. The nature of the application.

So part of this application is a city initiated official plan amendment, changing the urban reserve community growth designation of the 1989 official plan to low density residential. Along with that is a zoning amendment application and vacant land condominium application that would permit an 88 unit cluster residential development, 36 single detached dwelling units within it and 10 town homes totaling 52 units within them. The conceptual site plan you can see in there identifies open space area and naturalized area on the west side of the property. Those lands will be zoned and designated as open space and dedicated to the city as part of the site plan approval process.

You can see the units that are now fronting along Meadowlily Road previously had driveways out to Meadowlily Road. They’ve been moved internally and access those buildings from street B. Those buildings also along Meadowlily Road have been reduced to two stories in height. In terms of the policy within the London plan, the site is within the neighborhood place type designation.

The proposed cluster residential development is keeping with the range of permitted uses within this place type. In the 1989 official plan, as mentioned, this is within the urban reserve community growth designation. This designation is used to identify lands that will be used for a mix of urban land uses in the future. The city has initiated an application to change these low density residential and feel it’s appropriate on a site specific basis given that the London plan has already designated these lands as a neighborhood place type.

Through this process, there was a lot of public concern. A lot of this was addressed at the original meeting, but we’ll go through the main issues again. So one of the main issues was traffic. And so through the review process, it was determined that the proposed use will not generate significant levels of traffic and should not have any adverse effects in the area.

Safety was a concern and through the application, a site line analysis was completed to ensure safe site lines are available along Meadowlily Road. A reduction in speed to 40 kilometers an hour is forthcoming through a council approved initiative to reduce speeds on local roads throughout London. And as mentioned, the applicant has removed 14 driveways from accessing Meadowlily Road, south helping improve safety along the road. Parking was another main concern, specifically on street parking and the ongoing issues they’re having with that.

The vacant land condo proposed originally had 10 visitor parking spaces through the revised plan. They’d increased this to 31 visitor parking spaces, which is well above what’s required. Impacts on the surrounding feature in terms of the budding woodland to the east and the Meadowlily BSA to the west. Staff feel appropriate buffering has been provided between these land uses.

Now we’re receiving a 35 meter setback from the drift line of the hybrid woods. All lands outside the development limit will be dedicated to the city and zone and designated open space. The existing right of way for Meadowlily Road provides a significant buffer and hard boundary between the land uses to the east and does not allow for the potential encroachment of the proposed development into the natural heritage feature. This right of way combined with the proposed setbacks creates an appropriate buffer and separation between land uses resulting in minimal impacts from the proposed development on the budding ESA.

Heritage concerns and maintaining that real context was also raised at the original public meeting. Staff feel that with the reduced height along Meadowlily Road, as well as the proposed setbacks and the removal of the driveways and garages, the development provides an appropriate response to the budding lands and the real setting of the area. The large, more functional green space now provided in front of the development will provide a greater opportunity to implement the recommendations outlined through the heritage impact assessment in an effort to maintain the real context. Some of the budding property owners had concerns about stormwater and flooding and what a little effective property or not.

As part of the site plan approval process, the applicant is required to demonstrate that stormwater will not impact the surrounding lands. Through the site plan process, the applicant has been able to prove that the site’s stormwater management design will match and/or improve the site’s pre-development conditions so there shall be no impacts on the budding properties. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments. The proposal is keeping with the policies of the 1989 official plan, the London plan and the provincial policy statement.

The proposal will facilitate the development of an underutilized property and encourages an appropriate form of development. The subject lands are located in close proximity to arterial roads ensuring easy access to the 401 and other areas and services within the city and the site is situated near two community commercial modes which will support and benefit from the proposed increase in density for the community. That’s it, thank you. Thank you very much.

From the committee, technical questions only please. Being no technical questions, we’ll go to public participation. And first all here, we’ll hear I should say, from the applicant. And again, everyone will have five minutes to speak.

Is there someone from the applicant who wishes to make a presentation? Yes, hi, I’m Melanie Nier from Dillon Consulting. A planner for the applicant? Go ahead.

Thank you, committee members. We would like to just give a brief overview. The presentation was already included in the agenda package. The project overview on October 5th, 2020, a public meeting, as Mr.

Corvius said, for this proposed development was held at City Hall based on the concerns brought forward by the residents as well as the municipality. We redesigned some of the proposal to address many of the concerns as possible. The proposed development consists of the following 36 single detached dwelling units, which was one less than what was originally proposed, and 52 town home dwelling units for a total of 88 units. All units have been designed to a maximum of two and a half stories in height as required by the bylaw, reduction from the three story as Mr.

Corvius indicated, that we had already proposed. Direct access to metal low road for individual town home units have been removed and internal access provided, allowing for a larger setback from the ESA and additional landscaping and tree planting to intensify the visual buffer between the road and the development. Private sanitary sewers and storm sewers, including a private sanitary pump station and horseman are to be provided. A public private water main will be constructed to service the development.

Buffers from the Highbury Woods Park and the Meadow Lily ESA in accordance with provincial and municipal requirements are being maintained, landscaping and heritage compensation features, complementary to the natural existing landscaper being included. As Mr. Corvius indicated, visitor parking from the site will be increased from the required 10 to 31 spaces well over the number of spaces required under the bylaw. Since the public meeting, the city has approved our request to reduce the speed limit of Meadow Lily Road South from the existing 50 kilometers an hour to 40, which is anticipated to go to council sometime within 2021.

The next page shows the changes to the conceptual development plan with the enhanced buffer along Meadow Lily Road, as well as the naturalized areas and the open space that will be dedicated to the municipality and reason. We also included some renderings of the, both the single detached as well as the townhome units, the ones facing Meadow Lily Road, which are on the second page of the renderings. They include the access only via sidewalks to trail and the open space with the following page showing the garages in the rear along the internal road, and as well the front and side facing views of the traditional units, which are further interior to the proposed development, as well as the back, sorry. And we have some views looking along private street A and Meadow Lily Road South, both looking south and looking north along Meadow Lily Road.

With regards to some response to some of the additional public comments received, they talked about asking about overflow to the pump station, where would it go? And that it should not outlet to the water course or the ESA and our response is that the sanitary sewer pumping station has a large capacity, concrete holding tank with a two pump design, one primary and one backup pump. There is no overflow outlet to any water course, nor to any part of the ESA, as it is a closed system. The pumping station is designed and is in compliance with ministry regulations.

Who’s responsible, who’s responsibility will it be to maintain the pumping station and alarm system? It should be noted that the condominium corporation will own and maintain the pump station via a maintenance contract with the city approved contractor and will include a proactive maintenance schedule. There is a backup pump in the pump station in case the primary pump malfunctions and requires repair. Pump station will have automatic alarm notification via telephone to the maintenance contractor.

Another concern was that, are there any erosion concerns and potential drainage into the TTLT property? And this has been addressed in the storm water management design, the storm water is to be managed onsite, mainline sewers and or holding chambers before releasing it into the city storm sewer system. A comprehensive erosion and sediment control management plan has also been developed and provided as part of this submission. There were also concerns with regards to flooding as Mr.

Corby indicated and his response is what we have designed, which is, it’s addressed in the storm water management design. Concerns with the need for compensation seedlings and monitoring of the butternut trees. The habitat zone, which is a 50 meter radius of a single category to retainable butternut will be disturbed by the grading work. As a result of the anticipated disturbance, 10 butternut saplings will be planted as compensation within the cultural metal area of the subject property as well as 10 compensation trees as specified in the regulations.

A butternut health assessment report has been filed and approved by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Prior to disturbance of the butternut habitat zone, the impact will be registered with the MEACP in accordance with section 23-7 under the Ontario right. The locations of the 10 butternut saplings will be provided in a planting plan following confirmation of the compensation ratio for other trees removed from the subject property with the city. We’re now over five minutes, like giving you a little extra time but if you could wrap up, that would be great.

Sure, basically we’re in a complete agreement with the recommendations of administration and are here to answer any questions. I also have our engineers, sorry, here as well. Jason Johnson and Sam Shannon as well as the developer himself in case anyone has any questions. Great, thank you very much.

So now we’ll go to the public and just before we start that, each person will be allowed up to five minutes. If you could identify yourself with your name and your address if you would like, that would be really helpful. If you could just keep in mind that we try to keep these meetings civil, I know those strong opinions, but if you could refrain from any personal remarks or any cheering and clapping, that would be really helpful as there may be people with a different point of view as you. In terms of questions, this is not sort of a question and answer session, but if you ask questions or there’s things you want to know and I can try to get the answers from staff or the applicant for you, I will make sure I do that.

So with that being said, we’re looking forward to hearing from you and are we going to do online first or in the meeting rooms, right? Why don’t we go to online? And the first one I have is Daniel Heinz. That was the name I’m given.

So perhaps I could just find out who is online waiting to speak. Mr. Chair, this is Kathy Saunders. Yep.

Mr. Wier is ready to speak. Go ahead. We’re still not hearing anyone.

To where he is, I’m muted. I’m not sure why he is unable to speak. Perhaps he could go on to Mr. Richardson in the meantime.

Good afternoon. My name is Bruce Richardson. I’m a resident at 25 Metal Lily Road South and have been for approximately 15 years. The main thing that we’re speaking to my neighbors seems to be the consensus is we all do support some kind of low density development.

Certainly surprised that 88 units would be considered low density is approximately anywhere from 176 people up to 264 people, depending on the family size. We personally or a few of us have discussed this and we definitely think that it would be more advantageous for the development to be private family homes. We understand that the approximately 13 acre property is down to about 12 acres because of the abundance or the space between the ESAs. But the other thing that we always bring up is the traffic in the parking, both human and vehicles.

The traffic down here in the last year has gone 10 times what it was already with visitors to the park. There’s obvious safety problems. The speed’s been addressed that’s wonderful. There is a blind curve on the road.

There is no sidewalk. There is people and children walking up and down these roads almost every day. So it’s certainly a safety concern having, you know, 264 people. I mean, up to, it could be 88 units, could be 176 cars.

The other thing that we are happy to hear that the Thames Talbot Land Trust property, the metal lily nature preserve has been recognized. I want to remind council that this development is surrounded by three ESAs. So you’ve got hybrid woods, metal lily woods, and the TTL soon nature preserve. And we are always available to talk to anyone on this matter.

You know, we’re very concerned with the land and the animals and the visitors that we have down here in the park. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Have a great day. Thank you, sir.

Who’s up next? Mr. Shannon is next. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Shannon is part of the Dylan.

Yeah, the names you’re giving the Clark are actually Dylan. Your Shannon, Johnson, Richter, and Riley are all members of the applicant. Apologize, we have no way of knowing— No, that’s fine. The registration comes in, so— Sure.

Mr. Johnson is also— Yes. Is Richart, Richard, R-I-C-H-T-E-R? That’s again, someone with Dylan.

Again, the names with Dylan are Muir, Shannon, Johnson, Richter, and Riley. Rosemary Boyd? Ms. Boyd?

I’m here watching from home. Okay, did you want to speak to us? Oh, probably just the obvious that I’m an avid hiker in the area. I’m very familiar with it.

And I really hope that, you know, we’ll all be gone someday. And I think that keeping this land free from development period would be a really nice legacy for our children. Thank you. All right, thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Weir. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, thank you.

Yes, I spoke originally in the October meeting. I’m very much against this proposal. As with the previous speaker, I think we need to look to the future and maintain the EGLE system. This is so close to a nature preserve that this development would sadly distract from the protected area.

It’s just a disaster waiting to happen. It’s just too dense of population proposed. The hazards in the winter time, increased traffic, potential for accidents with pedestrians with increased number of homes in that area. I think most landowners that visit this area would really like to see it kept the way it is.

The minor changes that they made since October don’t really make any difference whatsoever with respect to that concern. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next.

I’m Ms. Sameington. Go ahead. Mr.

Chairman, thank you and committee members. My question has to do with, is there a heritage study attached to this development proposal? Especially, there was a previous heritage study that focused on Park Farm on Meadow Lily Road, but there appears to be no heritage studies attached to this particular application. Are there any available?

There is a neighborhood tradition that there was a long house situated at 101 Meadow Lily Road. And so my question is, what archeological review will be undertaken to see if in fact, this is indigenous land previously? Also, there have been things found in the adjoining properties, early, early 19th century artifacts, including some military artifacts that seem to be connected to the war of 1812. So not only is this a very, very important environmental gem in the city of London, but I also think that we have to look at the historical importance.

And so much of our history, unfortunately, has been lost and developed over. And just speaking for myself, I appreciate what the developer and what the consultant have said about that humping situation, but boy, if anything can go wrong, it will. And that’s a lot of sewage in that area. So thank you very much for allowing me to speak.

And as I said, I’d very much like to know if there will be an archeological investigation prior to any development. Thank you again. Thank you. Who is next?

Mr. Richardson. Bruce Richardson spoke. Melanie, Oh, sorry, sorry.

Oh, sorry, go ahead. Yes, hello. I just wanted to comment on, I’m surprised that development would be allowed in this spot, just because of the ESA and the nature there. So however disappointing that is, the traffic will increase.

And I think that would be a really big concern for that area. And just the taking away from that, from the forested area there. So I just wanted to mention my concerns. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Nancy Toski. Go ahead, Ms. Toski.

Now I’m muted. You are unmuted now. I seem to have lost the visual aspect of this meeting, but if you can hear me, that’s okay. Yeah, it’s fine if we can hear you.

Okay. I want to say that I appreciate the chance that the developers made to meet some of our earlier complaints. And also I want to commend the latch report based largely on the HIA for this development. And I think it’s very good.

And I want to commend all of its recommendations. I have three points I want to make myself. And they all go a bit further. First, I do agree with the people who are saying that there should be no development here.

I think that surrounded as it is by natural areas and two important historical sites, three if one includes the remains of the mill, that it’s not the right place for development of this size. I prefer to see no development here. If there is to be one, I think it should be a development of much lower density. If there’s going to be a development here, I think that the designers are losing an opportunity to do something original and very interesting and trying to make the development more suitable for its rural site.

As it is with the density and the spacing, there’s really quite a strong urban flavor to the development and also one that is, I think rather depressing, the development, there’s a sameness about all the buildings, especially the individual buildings, the ones that are designed to carry one family. And even though they’ve added some historical detail to the buildings, they still have a strong urban flavor. If you look around the picture of the road, the interior road, it looks more like an urban institution than it does a series of rural houses. And I think there would have been lots of room to do something more interesting, both in design and spacing.

And if we’re going to keep it there, which I’d refer that we didn’t, I’d really like to see it substantially rearranged. My second comment has to do with the relationship to the road, mentally road is very old. It was the path used to bring people to the mill from south of London very early in the 19th century. And although it’s no longer simply a dirt path, it still is a road that retains a strong urban character with its narrowness, its lack of curbs, the growth on both sides of the road.

And if we put in curbs and widen the road, that rural character and that historic quality is going to be entirely gone. I would like to see stronger buffering on the west side of the road. The view of the townhouses shown in the proponents presentation, again, has a much more urban character than a rural one. I’d like to see buffering as sick as that on the east side of the road.

And finally, I really can’t understand the logic that decided there should be an urban development in this site of any sort surrounded as it is by historical and natural protected sites. I’m not against density and increasing the density in London. I think the idea of increasing the density to make, to protect agricultural and natural and important natural lands is a very good one. But I don’t understand why this was not a protected natural land.

I know it’s late in the process to make this observation. I have made it from the beginning. And so with many other people. And I don’t suppose that accepted our dreams.

There’s any chance of going back to making it a natural site. But if there were any way that the city could help the developer relocate on some other site, I have many other people. Thousands, I think, would very much appreciate it. Thanks for listening to me.

Although you may think from this last comment that I’ve been cooped up too long. Thank you very much. We’ve all been cooped up so long. Don’t worry about that.

Who’s next to speak? Erica Diddy. Go ahead. Thank you.

You hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Perfect. I’m resident of London as well.

And I also am against this proposal. I’m in agreement of private family homes at this site because it’s more in keeping with what’s already on site on that road. I also appreciate the attempts to mitigate the effects of the development, but disagree that these measures are sufficient. Changing to low density residential from urban reserve community growth designation.

I just had a couple of questions. I was wondering when this site was actually designated urban reserve community growth, when it was given to be a mix of urban uses in the future. Basically, London declared a climate emergency. So I don’t know when this designation was taken into effect, but even more recent than that, was the climate emergency declaration.

And I don’t think we should be taking the word emergency lightly. It means immediate action. And so we’re actually going against that. Also, the reports of planning and environment committees states that London’s growth and development is well planned and sustainable over the long term.

It also says that the development will be serviced by new private roads, access for Medellini Road South, and will include 31 visitor parking spaces on site. This is so close to a nature preserve and an environmentally significant area. And it doesn’t meet the requirements of a sustainable city. The requested amendment is to permit a vacant land to have 88 units.

The mitigation measure was what? To decrease it by one unit? It’s nothing and a half a floor. What about the bird population right next door?

I don’t think that was really taken into consideration. An increased visitor parking spaces is great for the residents of the complex, but it also means more urbanization. The city is expanding and we’re clogging the land, not letting the water penetrate into the soil. The more water we use, the more waste we produce.

And so as like, you know, I know that it sounds like they’re putting a lot of effort into making a stormwater management plan, but unfortunately these designs aren’t always fail proof. Our own pollution plants over fill, whenever there’s heavy rains and it’s outputting into the Thames River. We need effective stormwater management to manage quality and quantity. And so, and also, how are these pumps running?

Is this gonna be, are they gonna be run by renewable energy? Even if we put in permeable concrete here, permeable concrete is not as effective in these winter climates that we have here in London. And they also require a lot of maintenance. And yeah, the 40 kilometer an hour beat limit is not a big accomplishment.

It’s a very steep hill. And yeah, there’s a lot of pedestrians using it, especially if the visitor parking is over full. Where are those people gonna park? You guessed it.

They’re parking on meadowly with all the other trail users and the other residents that already live on that street. And the buffer leaving minimal impacts on the ESA. Science says otherwise, again and again, it does not take a lot of effort to find articles proving this. And I’m happy to sense them your way if you’d like.

The reduced height and setbacks are not enough considering the setting of this area. And one other question was about the Jefferson salamander. There’s new technology using a handheld point of need tool to sample, extract and analyze the waterways. That is an endangered species.

So I’d like to know more about the efforts made for Jefferson salamander to identify if they are in this area or not. But yeah, I respectfully disagree. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Next online speaker. Mr. Chair, that is the last person we have registered to join us remotely. I have a number of individuals who are joined us or aren’t registered nor am I sure how they received the link.

Perhaps the chair would like to ask if any of them are here to speak to this model. How would they do that? I mean, would they just adapt and notify you or do they just? They could unmute and indicate if they’re here for metal really and if you don’t hear anything, I would then assume that you could go to the rooms.

Okay, I’m sorry, they could unmute and indicate. All right, okay, there’s anyone that’s watching right now that wishes to speak. If so, unmute yourself and let me know and we will allow you to speak for up to five minutes. Thank you very much.

So there being no other online speakers, we will go to in person in the breakout rooms. I think there’s committee rooms one and two and five. Let’s go first committee room one and two. Is there someone there that wishes to speak on this matter?

We could just get your name and address it possible and then you’ll have five minutes. My name is Annemarie Velastro. I’m at one, three, three, John Street. The staff report states that public comments opposing this development haven’t changed even with the revisions and you’ve heard those grievances again today tonight.

I don’t understand how one applicant can change the entire character of an area despite the collective voices of those that travel across the city to experience a rural country, road charm of metal living. The design is jolting. It doesn’t even try to embrace the cultural heritage value of metal lily. All it offers is to hide behind cedar hedges.

And I don’t understand why this committee doesn’t uphold these values and insist on integrating this design into the natural and rural characteristics of the area because it’s back now a second time. There are no demands placed on the applicant to utilize low impact development techniques to lessen the load of runoff into the Thames River. This development needs a pumping water station and its own storm water, which is an indication that is, it means it is an over intensification of the site. Why is a planning committee, why as a planning committee you cannot set a higher standard and point to values that have been identified in both official plans, the provincial policy statement and by Londoners to achieve a less intrusive design and respect the fact that Londoners want this area preserved.

I’m under the impression that this committee must approve this application as is because somehow it needs regulatory rules. The natural heritage inventory report from 2013 that helped identify the boundaries of metal lily ESA master plan did not appear to survey this parcel of land for natural heritage features for wildlife or vegetation. The trees you can see through binoculars, you can see this on the maps. And the city’s environmental management guides are from 2003 and the official plan is from 1989 and the environmental impact statement only dealt with buffers, stray cats and bird strikes.

The natural heritage section of the provincial policy statement was updated in 2014. It was controversial at the time because it weakened protection for the north but it’s strengthening protection for southern Ontario by using stronger language such as shell. A term that removes exemptions unless explicitly stated in policy and the inclusion of ecological function which cannot be fulfilled easily by prescriptive guidelines like a pumping station, like cedar hedges. The city’s regulatory rules are old.

They’re too old to adhere to the new rules of the provincial policy statement. A provincial significant wetland was confirmed in the inventory in 2013, commissioned by the city of London. That’s your responsibility to make sure that no harm comes to that wetland. The provincial policy statement clearly states that in 2.8, development and site alterations shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6, unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there would be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

You haven’t done that which is required for you to meet the above criteria. The survey is already eight years old. It was only an inventory. It did not measure ecological function as stated above and the perky cutter approach to the city’s environmental management guidelines are old.

You have 30 seconds remaining. This application needs to be sent back until it embraces a low impact approach to avoid ecological damage and integrates into the cultural heritage values of metal lily. This one application should not be so dominant that it disturbs a very pleasure of visiting metal lily ESA. And I really think this land should be expropriated.

The city has expropriated a lot of land for traffic. The least you can do is expropriated to expand green space. Thank you. Thank you.

Other speakers in the midi rooms, please come forward if you wish to speak. I get your name please and your address if you like. My name is Dorothy Stalarski. My address is 416 Wellington Street and Ingersoll, Ontario.

I’m advocating for 147 metal lily road south as I was, that is my family home and my mother still lives there. So I’m making just a presentation and pivoting a bit from, you know, the letters that you’re receiving today. But I do echo and support the previous speaker. So I’m going to just change things a little bit.

I’m going to read a poem, it’s entitled “I Am Green.” I am not white or black or blue or red. I’m green, I am green, I surround you. You come to me when you have sorrow or you need breath. I am green, I am green.

You come to me when you want shelter. I am here for those that are caretakers of my being. I shelter the wise ones from the rain, wind and snow. I am green, I am green.

The foolish rip my foundation overwork me and their folly remains unnoticed. I wait for the caretakers because they are wise to advocate for me. My voice is but a whisper because I am green. I hear the caretaker sorrows and give them breath because I am green.

The caretakers come to advocate for me in my name as I have many, one being meadow lily. Now is the time for leaders to see through the lens of the foolish and through the lens of the caretaker. For I am green and only speak in whispers. Not all hear me, but those that can heed my call and know what I am saying, I am green.

So that’s a poem just to summarize what we’re going through with this application for the condo development and maybe in another way to get through to city council, what meadow lily means to the people of London. I fought for many years between 2008 and 13 and we’ve done a lot and now it’s time for the residents to speak up. And I have, I appreciate your time and hearing me today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other speakers in the committee rooms? Is there anyone in committee room five I should ask? Or am I just looking at the one room?

We’ll go ahead and come in. There’s no one in committee room five. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms.

Keating. Thank you. And I’m hoping that you can hear me through the mask. My name is Kelly McEating.

I live at 329 Victoria Street. And I am speaking on behalf of the architectural conservancy of Ontario’s London region branch. We made a presentation at the PPM last October. And while there have been a couple of positive changes here, I think that we still have a number of concerns as do many citizens of London.

People may not believe it, but both ACO London and I are big supporters of urban intensification. So long as it’s in the right location. Meadow Lily Road isn’t the right location in my opinion. This proposal to put a development squarely in the middle of one of the last remaining rural landscapes in the city is in our view the antithesis of urban intensification and the London Plan’s emphasis on growing our city inward and upward.

As other people have mentioned, this is a proposal to put 88 residential units within a U-shape bounded on three sides by nature preserve protective land. Of concern in all of this is the precedent that could be set because I understand that there is another property on Meadow Lily Road where there’s also potential for development in the near future. I think that this is a place that should remain natural. And if it doesn’t remain natural, the density should be a lot lower than 88 houses.

If the proposed development does proceed, then I think that the buffering that is being proposed should be made stronger rather than the manicured land that we see in the renderings, very dense brush trees and bushes on the city road allowance that basically make the townhouses invisible from the road would be a great idea. While two access points is certainly an improvement over 16 access points, a single access point at the south end of the development would be preferred. One of the concerns that I have with this proposal is not just what the developer is proposing, but also the collateral damage that the city might actually inflict on the area afterwards. The staff report makes reference to the road widening dedication.

And while I understand and hope that road widening is not in the immediate future for Meadow Lily Road, I think the reality is is that if you let these 88 housing units be built with 176 or so people who live in them, there’s going to be more traffic. And eventually someone’s going to say, it’s not safe. We’ve got to widen the road. We’ve got to remove some trees to improve the sightlines.

We’ve got to plow through and get rid of that line curve. And very soon, the magical place that is Meadow Lily Road and Meadow Lily Road would will not be there any longer. The development services heritage planning staff’s recommendation that the property owner considered design refinements, including articulated massing and roof lines and different needs heights to de-emphasize the dense urban character of the repeated four unit townhouse block. And I’m reading, doesn’t appear to have been heated.

So we’ve got a very dense development being proposed in the wrong place of the wrong design. And I certainly hope that counselors decide to nix this in its current proposed form. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Next speaker in the committee room. I hope you can hear it through the mask. Could I get your name please? Oh, Carol Richardson.

I live on 1200 Riverside Drive in London. And I’m a member of the executive of Friends of Meadow Lily Road at Meadow Lily Woods. Go ahead. I’d like to begin my comments by saying that I support any reduction in number of units that could be considered, hoping for a lowering of the R6 zoning.

My opening question of the design as presented is, what will this look like? This development is being represented as low density, but it will increase the population of Meadow Lily Road by over 200%. Based on input from the previous public participation meeting, there have been definite improvements, especially lowering the numbers of driveways directly off Meadow Lily from 16. And I thought it was one, but apparently it’s two.

I don’t know why there isn’t just one road with egress and entrance. Sorry, excuse me. Now, I’m just making a note. Last Thursday, I turned left onto Meadow Lily Road from Commissioner’s Road.

And I was quickly met by an older lady in a motorized wheelchair moving along the east side of the road in a southerly direction. Some children also use this road to walk to school or the YMCA located on Hamilton Road. I often encounter people rollerblading. And many times pedestrians pushing baby strollers that was really evident during the warm weather.

Cyclists often use this as a transportation corridor to get to downtown and return. Can there be warning signs for both people and vehicles near the specific subdivision driveway, warning them of how little space there is to share the road specifically at that location? And then I think the city should be honest and planning and answer this question. Is there a provision to widen the road because that’s been brought up by Kelly as well?

Since this is a rural setting, the developer has proposed shielding the view of the subdivision by a buffer with trees planted side by side. So they’re trying to hedge it as much as possible. But you won’t retain the rural feeling with that kind of cedar intense hedge. Surely there is a native species of trees that would fill in to provide a visual barrier and not plant it all in a row like soldiers, but in a way that perhaps alternatively, so that each tree has room to spread its branches.

I’m sure there’s good tree consultants that are available to the city to advise in order to allow future growth of each tree and which trees would thrive in that area. Also that buffer along Middle Italy Road is really narrow compared with the buffer to hybrid woods. And I’m just wondering if there’s any way that that could be adjusted with a way a wider buffer on the roadside and maybe somehow if they could adjust it with the other side so that it would be of greater value to the neighbors. And then I was asking the question and I’ll leave my presentations because I appreciate the chair saying that some of our questions can be answered.

We didn’t expect them all to be answered today, but I just wondered what the different buffers were. And I heard tonight, I believe it’s a 35 meter buffer with hybrid woods, but I know it’s narrower for the road. I’m requesting tonight that the Planning Environment Committee make a motion that city council direct staff to include the following in any approval of the subdivision plan. That one native tree be planted for each residence and that some kind of native thicket hedges of one to two meters be planted along all shared boundaries with the Middle Italy nature preserve and hybrid woods.

This would be a way to prevent residents from throwing their garden waste over the fence into the natural areas. This has been a significant challenge in other subdivisions in spite of best efforts by the city of London with pamphlets and signage discouraging this degradation of natural areas by introducing plants that can be invasive and can crowd out the natural species. This measure would also help prevent wildlife from invading the subdivision itself as there’s a significant deer population in that area. And it would also provide a haven for smaller wildlife, some of whom will be displaced by construction of this subdivision.

All of these measures— You have 30— You have 30— Climate change. Excuse me, 30 seconds left. Okay, and other people have mentioned this, but I wondered whether earth-friendly approaches could be taken, bird-friendly lighting, solar used for hot water heating, LED lighting, anything like that. And my question is, which municipal building codes have changed to make these earth-friendly options mandatory?

Thank you sincerely for the opportunity to speak at the public participation meeting. And thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak at the meeting, okay? My name’s Andrew Stalarski.

I live on 1140 Pond View Road, which is just as beautiful as Metalilly Road. It’s located by Westminster Pond. Single low-density residential homes are there. It’s something, possibly, but I was hoping the Metalilly would be 12 to 16 homes to coincide with the homes on top of the hill.

But I only have one quick question. I submitted to rethink zoning that Metalilly Road self be included in that. And I hope that it is put on record because I think we have a lot of problems when it comes to zoning. And I think you need basically citizens to speak up in what they want for London and how they want to develop it.

I remember 10 years ago when we did rethink London and we were proposing what was gonna happen to Metalilly and surrounding areas. I think was Mr. Fielding was our planner at that time. And I remember we were giving tables and we did cutouts.

And a lot of us on Friends of Middle-Lilly Woods proceeded to put homes similar to what was already there running down to the bridge. And I wonder what happened to that. Didn’t anybody see that? That’s all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in committee room one and two wishing to speak? Okay.

A last opportunity for public participation calling once twice paid. We’re gonna move to close the public participation meeting. Councilor. There is someone, sorry.

Mr. Grant has raised his hand on the remote. All right. Mr.

Grant. Hey, can you hear me all right? I can hear you. Yes, go ahead.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. I know you asked. Hearing Mr.

Grant anymore. I’ve asked him too. There we go, there we go. Do you got it?

Okay, could you start again? Yeah, no problem. We don’t like it. I think it’s clear the citizens have won and are not behind this idea.

I’ve sat in on quite a few meetings now and I don’t see opposition to other developments. I mean, like what’s going to happen? Is this it? It just gets accepted.

I don’t understand why. I know all the worded areas in the city and mentally is everyone calls it a gem, it’s a gem. It’s a wild area. There are 30 people living on a road.

And I don’t know how many of you people have actually walked on this road. It’s a steep, steep hill. One of the speakers talked about strollers and rollerbladers and runners and cyclists. That’s how it’s used.

There are 30 people living on it. At the base, at the base of the hill, there’s the footbridge. You guys had a ceremony 10 years ago or 15 years ago when the bridge was reopened. The city of London is aware of the character of this neighborhood.

They celebrate again. And so it’s having 90 new homes in a tiny country lane. It just doesn’t make sense. Not from a neighborhood point of view.

I mean, lots of people are already talking about the environmental impact. I won’t even weigh in on that. Just from a safety and neighborhood point of view, it doesn’t belong here. Nobody likes it.

We don’t want it. They filled out their applications properly. But I think the citizens have been clear that they don’t want it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else now after Mr. Grant? Can I ask again?

Anybody wishing to speak once, twice? We’ll close the public participation meeting. Somebody prepared to move that. Councillor Hopkins.

Seconded by Councillor Lewis. There’s nothing further. We’ll call that question. Councillor Layman.

Closing the vote, the motion carries. 6 to 0. All right. There were some questions raised from the public.

And I’d like to just put them forward in some form. And hopefully, I would ask staff, when if staff needs support from the applicant to try to answer them, I would ask you to do as brief as possible in answering the questions. The first question was whether there was a heritage study or an archaeological investigation attached to the application. Or I take it undertaken as part of the application.

Could staff answer that place? For you, Mr. Chair, my core be here. So as part of a complete application, the applicant was required to submit a heritage impact assessment, which was reviewed by our heritage staff.

And they also submitted a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment, which was accepted by staff as well. And I take it that’s not attached to the application today, but it’s something you reviewed, am I right? So the heritage impact assessment can— yeah, they’re not attached. The heritage impact assessment is available to the public.

However, the archaeological assessment is not. All right. Thank you. And there was a question about some clarification on the different types of buffers.

And what the buffers were. And maybe you could just briefly set that out again. I can take that through you, Mr. Chair, Bruce Page.

There’s a 35-meter buffer set back from the engine, the drip line. In there, offset from the rear lot line is a fence actually right on the property line of fence. And then a pathway close to the rear lot lines, which would, in fact, limit any sort of encroachment or garbage into that natural heritage area now. Thank you.

And the one speaker raised the issue of having one mature tree for each resident and a hedge for every resident to deal with this garden waste issue. Is that something we’ve done in the past, or can you help me with that? That wasn’t contemplated with this application. There has been some compensation areas done in other developments.

Right now, with the proposed application, there isn’t compensation. But Council could direct staff to require that. Thank you. The next was a bird-friendly lighting question that was asked and what standards we’re using.

Through the Chair, Mike Pease from Site Plan. The Site Plan Control By-law was recently amended within the last year, year and a half, to include the goals for bird-friendly lighting, which is effectively downward lighting. It is something that we’ll be reviewing through the Site Plan process. Thank you.

And the last was how this development integrates with the re-think-zoning process that we’re going through. Can you help me with that? Through the Chair, it’s Greg Barrett speaking. Maybe I can take first cut at that.

Re-think zoning is actually just starting. This application is being reviewed under the current zoning by-law. There’s not a new zoning by-law in place to be considered. All right, thank you.

All right, I’m gonna, I hope that helps. I just wanted to clarify those questions since they were asked. I’m gonna turn the matter over to committee for questions, I think, first. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the public for coming out. I do have a couple more questions, if I may, Mr.

Chair, just to, since the public is listening in about the buffering, I understand it’s 35 meters, is that buffering around the three sides of the development, the 35 meters? Go ahead, staff. Through you, Chair, it’s Bruce Pace speaking. It doesn’t go around all three sides.

It’s narrow on the south and the north end, but at the Westerly end, it is that portion. And it’ll vary a little bit as it moves in and out. And that would be from the edge of the trip line. So we know what the buffering will be, or is that still to be determined?

Go ahead. We do know what the buffering is, trying to pull up the site plan right now, but it’ll indicate on the site plan what’s on either side. In that buffer area, there’ll be a landscape, call it a landscape plan, but a buffer planting plan that would provide additional species in there that would protect the existing natural heritage feature. Just sort of looking, it looks like it’s about 11 meters from the north.

There’s a buffer from 11 meters from the north, and so it’s rang the river. Is Mr. Page or is his dog just stepped in as? My dog seems to be wanting to answer, sorry.

Okay, it happens. So the buffer that’s on the north in the south and we’ll also have a landscape and plan associated with it. We’ll have natural vegetation in it. Thank you for that.

And there was a question around the widening of the road, do we know for sure that the plans are not to be widened for the road? Mr. Chair, it’s Garfield Dale’s from, excuse me from transportation. So we have identified road widening as part of this submission, but typically that, in a case like this, could accommodate obviously other things beyond payment width in terms of drainage, sidewalks, active transportation facilities.

So that would be the intent behind the road widening. Thank you for that. I guess that standard practice then for the city to take a certain amount for potential wide roadening, but we aren’t right now widening the road. I just wanted to make that clear to the public.

And my last question, and Mr. Chair, I would like to maybe propose an amendment as well. Is regarding the pumping station. And I know I spoke to one of the residents about the pumping station.

And we heard in the presentation from staff that the applicant is responsible or the condominium owners will be responsible for this pumping station. What would be the procedure for residents in this area if there is a problem with their own septic systems? I’m just wondering, would they just reach out to the city? Or where would they be directed to deal with their, if they have challenges with their own septic systems with this development coming in?

Through the chair to the council, just clarification, you’re asking what the adjacent neighbors would do if their septic systems failed? Yes, as a result of this development. That was a question that was asked to me. I guess the best approach would be for them to reach out to the city.

But then if they were able to demonstrate that something occurred in their septic system, they could potentially have cause. That said, the septic system should be an independent and self-contained unit that the developer, or the individual resident would not typically have an issue with from a development of this nature. In addition to that, staff in engineering are actually starting the process to look at a servicing study for Meadowlily. And they’ll be looking at finding a more permanent solution than just the pumping station.

So in future, there could be an opportunity for these residents where they would be able to connect to municipal infrastructure as opposed to relying on septic. Thank you for that information. I think that’s quite helpful. I didn’t think that the community realized that there would be some potential work being done in the future to provide water and sewer to their properties.

So I know that’s still to come. Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to propose an amendment given listening to the public. And again, I wanna thank the public for coming out.

We heard a lot of questions around the Heritage Impact Statement. And staff did say that it’s not the assessment, the Heritage Impact Assessment is not available to the public. And I would like to propose an amendment that we add that or give staff direction to add that to the recommendation. And I think we’ve heard loud and clear from the community that they’d like to see it, understand it, but we also see this process, even though we’re dealing with the zoning application, we’re also looking at the site plan application as well at the same time here.

And it’s important information to go to be added to this recommendation. So if the amendment could be giving staff direction to add the Heritage Impact Assessment to this recommendation, and I would respectfully add the F part on our latch report that also our civic administration be requested to include the London Advisory Committee on Heritage on future approvals for this matter and to consult the latch on the HIA related matters. I think it all kind of works together. We’ve heard loud and clear from this community.

We can’t ignore the concerns about the importance of the heritage significance in this area. And I think this will just add to the process that is being undertaken at the moment. So I plan is being looked at as well as zoning. And so I don’t know if the clerk’s got that.

It’s the— Okay, so I did ask for questions first, but you’ve sort of gone beyond that now and you wanna— Well, I’ll come back to it. Yeah, and just one thing, just to be clear, it wasn’t that the heritage study isn’t available to the public. It is available, it just wasn’t appended to this report. Maybe I can get clarification from staff ‘cause I heard that the study is available but not the assessment, the HIA.

If, and that is what I would like— Okay, well let’s clarify that then. Staff, can you clarify that place? For you, Madam, or Mr. Chair, it’s Mike Corby here again.

Just to clarify that, the HIA heritage and back assessment is available to the public. Possibly with the new website, a lot of information was removed ‘cause it wasn’t AODA compliant, but it is available and they can email me to get a copy of it. It’s the archeological assessment that is not available to the public. That’s what I understood, so just so we’re clear.

Okay, so why don’t we finish questions and then if people wanna bring motions, perhaps we can do that and thanks here and proceed sort of orderly and that we’ll be getting all the information we need and then bringing any motions or things such as that. Councillor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I’ll just focus on my question for now. I’ll come back to my comments later. Right in section A of the staff recommendation. Designation of the subject lands from an urban reserve community growth designation to a low density residential designation open space designation.

But when I open the city zoning by-law section 10, the zone being requested is an R6-5 special provision. The R6 zone in our own language on our own website says these zone variations provide for and regulate medium density development in various forms and clusters of housing and single detached dwellings to town houses and apartments. So the staff recommendation says low density, but the zone being requested is medium density. So can staff please, through you, Mr.

Chair, clarify which is correct. Go ahead, staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, the zone does say medium density residential in terms of the uses.

It does a permit of range of uses and a range of densities. This zone is commonly used in low density residential areas. However, to implement cluster townhounds, whether it’s all single detached dwellings or a mixture. In this case, the resulting density of this development is 27 units per hectare, which is in keeping with the policies of low density residential and also in the London Plan, which is the future official plan of this site does not regulate by density, it regulates by form policies more so.

So it isn’t keeping with the low density policies and the neighborhood place has policies of the London Plan. Councillor. So just a quick follow up then, because staff referenced the future London Plan. And I would argue, but I’ll save the comments about the form not fitting for later.

So which is in effect the 1989 Official Plan or the London Plan, which policies are in force right now, Mr. Corby, through you, Mr. Chair. Ah.

Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Mr. yeoman. We are in one of those situations, which we have been for a number of years now, where both plans are in force and effect.

So we are considering both plans. The London Plan is the most current plan of Council’s thinking and articulation of the planning framework for our city. To the Councillor’s question about the zoning, not matching up with the preamble and the recommended designations, that is one of the challenges we have with the zoning bylaw that we have currently in place. It is not fully aligned with the London Plan in terms of the preamble.

If you recall, a report was taken from planning policy to the committee not too long ago to explain this discrepancy, recognizing that we’re going to be applying the zone that implements the policies of the London Plan, recognizing that they do have to be updated through the rethink London’s zoning process. Any further questions, no? Any other questions from the committee before we get into debate, Councillor Layman? Thank you, comments.

The Urban Reserve Community Growth designation was referenced on wonder staff could explain what that is and why this area would have been given this designation. Go ahead, staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, my Corby gun.

Basically, this designation is used on lands that we will see develop in the future, but at some point, or at that point in time, they weren’t ready to develop. You would have seen it in North London, as lands were annexed. And then a secondary plan would come over those lands and redesignate them and rezone them to residential or commercial uses. So these lands were identified that they’d have the potential to develop in the future.

And so it remains there until, in this case, it’s not a secondary plan, but now we have a plan to substitute ahead of us that’s looking to re-designate those lands. So it’s almost like a placeholder to simplify it until development applications come in. Any further questions? All right.

So I’ll turn it over to committee now for debate and don’t know who wishes to start out. I know Councillor Hopkins had a suggested amendment. Go ahead. Thank you for that.

So getting back to what we heard loud and clear is that heritage impact assessment is important to understand, and as we deal with the site plan process at the same time as we are dealing with the zoning change here, I would ask the committee to support amendment to attach or give staff direction to attach. I think the HIA, which I understand there is an archeological plan there too. But I think latch refers to the HIA, and I would like to attach that assessment to this recommendation along with the paragraph F, which you will find in the latch report, requesting that latch be notified for future approvals for this matter and to consult with latch on the HIA related matters as well. So I think it’s important that it be part of this recommendation and looking for a seconder.

Councillor Lewis is seconding that. So any debate on the amendment? Thank you through the chair. So is the Councillor moving the staff recommendation with the addition of the F, or just the consideration of the F part at this point?

I think she’s just moving the amendment, but I’ll let her speak for herself. I’m adding just an F cause to the recommendation, giving staff direction to attach the HIA to this recommendation along with paragraph F to work with latch on future considerations as it relates to the HIA. Confused because we moved in an amendment earlier, but Councillor Lewis, you said you would second that? I did, and now I am a little confused and need some clarification because I, and I just say this respectfully to Councillor Hopkins, I don’t actually support the staff recommendation, although I support what you’re trying to add to it.

If it were to pass, I would certainly want to see those things, but I think from a process position, because we don’t have the staff recommendation on the floor yet, I’m not sure where we’re going with this. Okay, so if somebody prepared to move the staff recommendation, that’s what we need to do then. Is someone prepared to move the staff recommendation? The mayor is prepared to move it.

We have a seconder, Mr. Hillyer is seconding it. I think, and to be fair to Councillor Hill, you want to get it on the floor. He may not agree with it either, but I don’t want, sometimes people think if they’re moving and seconding, they’re approving of it, but in fact, they’re just trying to get it on the floor.

So the staff recommendation is on the floor. So now let’s have a debate on that. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So some comments on this application. I grew up in a bit of a rural setting myself, and I will say that to me, 88 condos are not a rural character setting. The form that I see in the proposal is not a respective of the rural character of the road.

I’m mindful of the fact that just a couple of hours ago now, we had a recommendation to not allow the Humane Society to have some parking with a 10-meter buffer next to a tree LA, and now we’re being told it’s okay to drop an 88-unit condo complex basically in the middle of a forest. Before I was on this council, many years before, as a community in concerned citizen, I worked with people like Gina Barber and Irene Maths and to push back against the commercialization of the corner of Meadowland-Lily Road South and a smart center’s Walmart development because of the impact it was gonna have on the ESA, and I have the exact same concerns about the intensity of this residential development that’s before us tonight. While there may be some conflicting preamble, I think in our sixth zone, what I’m seeing is a medium density development, and I don’t think it’s an appropriate development for this particular neighborhood. As I was reading through the application, I also saw a reference to, well, you know, if parking’s an issue, we’ll move to no parking on the street, and people can park at city-wide sports to access the ESA.

I certainly don’t think that that’s, frankly, a relevant or an appropriate solution on game nights where there’s football or soccer going on, the parking at the city-wide sports complex is dedicated to that use, and that’s why we put it there, and we’d be effectively closing off an access point to the ESA for the community as well. It says, right in the report, this is an intensification that’s both outside the built area boundary and isn’t in a primary transit area. The traffic on commissioners is already very heavy. It’s a primary artery, and given the proximity to high berry’s cloverleaf access, there’d have to be signalized traffic at that intersection, and that puts two signalized controls very close together.

You are quadrupling the residential population or more on this small little street, and for the residents, traffic will be a problem. Access getting in and out of the middle of the road south will be a problem, as will the noise and the light pollution that was referenced by residents tonight. When the reported indicates the right of way of the road itself provides a buffer for the ESA, but the animal life that calls the ESA home doesn’t recognize the road as a boundary. And if you are walking there at the right time, and I have been out there for hikes, you will see coyotes on the road.

You will see deer on the road. You will see other wildlife and abundance in that area. The report indicates that in 2014, Latch requested a cultural heritage landscape assessment, and that that actually wasn’t done. The assessment was limited to the ESA itself.

So when I look at Medley Road, and I’ve been out there many times, this proposal does not fit the neighborhood. It does not respect the natural environment in the area, and it raises all kinds of concerns for me that we heard from the citizens tonight as well. So I will not support this staff recommendation. I think this is just not an appropriate development.

And to me, as I said before, an R6-5, to me it’s in the preamble, that’s a medium density development, what I’m seeing here tonight. Thank you. Councillor Layman, do you want to speak? Thank you.

I drove out to this area, it’s the first time I’ve had the pleasure to see this little gem in our city. When I entered Middle Italy Road, it struck me, it was not a road, but more of a laneway, that kind of provided entrance into a conservation area. When I looked at the particular site in question, it’s a very small site in the middle of Middle Italy woods and highberry woods. And then when I look at the map on the city map, I see a very small separation right in the middle of both these conservation areas or ESAs splitting the two.

We’ve heard from folks tonight that have expressed concerns of how this will impact this area. And I can see where they’re coming from, ‘cause as I was out there, I thought about how it would look at 10 townhouse blocks and a density of 88 units. And it didn’t really seem to fit this particular area. I think of the future, there will be road widening and light post put in, and probably further development of this area that will come from this.

I just don’t think this development fits in nature of this particular area. So I think I’m going to listen to what other counselors have to say, but I really hear what the folks have been saying tonight and their concerns ‘cause having experienced that area for myself, I can sympathize and I understand where they’re coming from. Councillor Hill here. Thank you very much.

Close this. Okay, here we are again. Another proposal checks off all the boxes on the London plan. Similar to the sidewalk issue in that lots of people don’t want it, but it does fit the London plan.

Just another reason I don’t like these all-encompassing plans. Now the big difference between metalily woods ESA and the sidewalk issue is simple. Residents don’t drive from all over the area to visit your sidewalk, but they do come to visit our metalily woods and we love it. My family enjoys the area and we walk there.

It’s gorgeous as do my neighbors and Londoners from all over the city. And believe me, I’ve heard from all of them on this issue. Now the development community understands that the land beside these ESAs is very valuable. And they are going to try and maximize every square meter of land as any business person would.

It just makes sense. And because of this, we need zoning in place to protect these buffer zones around our ESAs so they don’t become concentration points for developers. Please keep in mind, one 29 metalily woods is just up the road and it’s already been discussed for development. And what happens here tonight will set the direction of the area around an ESA creating an example for future developments.

I believe that rethink zoning will address some of the future problems, but I’m wondering is it too late to save the buffer area around metalily woods? If council says no and the project fits the London plan, what are the chances of it being appealed and the odds it was winning? I’d like to hear from staff on what the process would be if we turned down the project and possibly change the zoning in the buffer areas around the ESA to limit development. It’s almost a legal question that you’re asking about what will happen if we turned down an application and the repercussions of us making a vote on a certain area.

I just, I don’t know how staff feels about that, but I’m uncomfortable with that kind of question being asked. I mean, it’s up to us as a committee councilor to decide if we want to go along with the staff recommendation or not, but then to further ask staff, by the way, we’re not gonna agree with your recommendation. Tell us what’s gonna happen. I’m not sure that’s within their purview.

So if you have another way of asking it or what? I will withdraw that question and reserve the right to come back. Sound like a lawyer, I’m not a holder. So I’ll reserve my right counselor to make some comments on this and why I support the staff recommendation.

Look, this came forward when the developer, I believe in good faith made a decision to develop the property. Concerned neighbors expressed a number of concerns and it was appropriately modified. You heard some folks today say that they wish to be modified more, and many others said, no, we don’t want it at all, I get that. But you know, here you’ve got to develop again, I believe acting in good faith who has shown flexibility.

Look at the recommendations made by staff in terms of their rationale. It’s consistent with PPS 2020. It conforms to the enforced policies of the 1989 official plan. It conforms to the enforced policies of the London plan and that it’s considered appropriate and conformity both with the London plan and official plan is recommended and consistent with the provincial policy statement.

Is this gets defeated at committee and council? Yes, I do believe the, and I’m not here to suggest but I do believe that the developer will take this to help that. And then what will ever happen will happen except we’ve at least delayed things here. But you know what we’re saying by turning this down, we’re saying that no development ever could be made compatible with an ESA.

And if that’s what we’re saying, so be it. But that’s really what we’re saying. And I think there are bigger implications to this than just simply saying after we’ve heard from really thoughtful residents about their genuine concerns. And we’ve heard from staff about their position.

What I think we’re saying if we defeat this is no. If there’s enough community concern associated with an ESA, we will not support it. I’m not sure that’s exactly what I heard but really that’s the outcome. But would I be surprised if this gets ultimately defeated to council that it wouldn’t go before LPAT?

That’s up to the developer to make that decision. Thank you. Councilor Van Holes, I see your hand is up. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I may have a question or two. But first, I’ll thank the proponent. The changes that were made, I think, address a number of the issues.

And I was pleased to see those. The number of people have asked for a bigger buffer. You know, myself have in the past walked that area weekly. It’s very close to my home.

And the, I wondered, there’s a 35 meter buffer between the development and the West. I wonder if it would be possible to shift it further. That whole subdivision, shift that further. So there’s a bigger buffer between the ESA to the East.

And there might be an opportunity to put in a berm along the road. And then that would shield that even more from the people who would be walking by. But I wondered through you, since this was suggested by some of the residents, if staff could address that issue. Is that a possibility?

Staff, go ahead if you can answer that. Thank you and through the Chair to the Councilor. We could certainly look at expanding the buffer, but that would mean we’d be looking at a new site plan application and we’d essentially be changing the entire layer of the plan at this point. So it may essentially be starting from scratch.

Thank you, Councilor. Okay, well, that’s unfortunate. It does look on the map like it could just be translated. And, you know, if I cut out the little picture, I could slide it to the West a bit, but I’ll take your word, that was a question.

And just so people understand, and the Mayor said that this was purchased and the developer sought to place some housing here in good faith, I think we’re obliged to allow some form of development, but in the preamble when it says low residential, are we obliged to re-zone this to at least one of those R6 zoning? So for instance, could we insist that it was an R6-1, for instance, which says that there’s only single detached dwellings allowed as opposed to the R6-5, which allows for also semi-detached duplex, triplex townhouse dwelling, stack townhouse dwelling, apartment buildings and fourplex dwellings. So there’s a question, I’ll pose just so we get a better understanding of what we are facing and what our obligations are. There’s a question, I hope staff understood the question or got the question.

And through the chair, if I’ve got it correct and perhaps Councilor can confirm, looking at changing the density through the zoning to look at potentially a different product on the site, is that correct? Right, so if we, I guess that are, are we obliged to allow development on this site might be the first question? And through the chair, so through the report that was tabled in October, we identified the development was appropriate for this site and the form of development that’s been proposed is something that staff feel is consistent with the policy of the London plan and zoning. So if we were to change the plan at this point and change the density, we’d potentially be looking, well, we’d be looking at a new application and we’d be again going back to the beginning, right?

I think that’s a challenge, Councilor, that offering up things which substantially change what’s before us would be a new application. And I mean, that’s where we are, so. Okay, so I guess I understand that well enough then. Thank you.

Thank you. Further comments on this matter? Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, I have a question before I put my amendment back on again, but my question is if, ‘cause I’m just kind of seeing how the voting is gonna go here.

If this fails, what are the, what’s the timelines before the applicant can appeal this? And staff, just on the time limits. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, once Council makes their decision and the notice goes out, there’s the 20-day appeal period. So they’ll have 20 days within your decision and notice going out to make that appeal for the decision. Thank you for that. So, boy, so this is a tough one here because we’ve heard loud and clear the importance of listening to the public.

And we’ve heard that this is a little bit too intense. Is there a possibility of just referring this back to the applicant to see if we can make some further changes? For you, Mr. Chair.

I think what the question would be is whether that would be productive or not. You know, is there some opportunity for changes or is this the sort of final thing that’s been arrived at through it being referred back? I think it was referred back before, was it not? So I think that would be helpful probably to know.

Through the Chair and perhaps one of my colleagues might wanna jump in if I’ve got this slightly incorrect. But I believe that we’re past our statutory timeline at this point. So the applicant would be able to appeal for non-decision. And we’ve presented some options and suggested that development is appropriate for this property.

Hopefully that helps. I’m not sure if anyone else wants to add anything. I think it’s wise not to, for my point of view. And I appreciate the positions we’re putting staff in.

So I think it rests with the committee to deal with what they wish to do. So thank you very much. So Mr. Chair, I would like to put forward my amendments.

All right. To the recommendation, ‘cause I think when I originally started off with, it was to, well then I can’t see what it is. So it is up on the board here. And I guess I’m looking for a seconder.

Well, can I just clarify with the clerk what the clerk wishes us to do? So the motion itself is moved in on the floor, the main motion. So how does Councillor Hopkins get her amendments? Can she just move now to amend the motion?

We deal with her motion and then the main motion as amended? Is that, that’s what I would think we would do. All right. Go ahead then, Councillor.

You have a motion and if you wanna present it, we’ll amend the main motion and then we’ll go back and vote on the main motion. With yours included. So my amendment appears up on the board here that civic administration be requested to include the HI with any recommendation and continue to consult with the London Advisory Committee which is latched on future approvals for this matter and to consult with latched on the HIA related matters. That’s my amendment.

All right. So that was seconded by Councillor Lewis. So just so the committees aware, we’re not voting on the main motion. We’re just making some changes to the adding to the recommendation before we vote on it in its entirety.

So any comments on the amendment? Yes, Mayor Holder. I’ll be prepared to support the Councillor Hopkins amendment. Thank you.

So unless there’s something further, we’ll call the question on that. Will the motion carries six to zero. All right, that was easy part of this. So we’ve amended the motion and now the main motion as amended is on the floor.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak before we call the vote on this matter, right? I’ll turn the chair over to Councillor Hopkins. I have the chair, Councillor Squire. So I think we’re putting ourselves into a somewhat difficult position.

I appreciate all of the comments that were made by the public. The first point I would make to the public is I think the option and the idea that there would be no development on this site is not one that is probably supportable under the London plan or any of our policies. I don’t know if that’s the position of some of my colleagues, but I think that’s a challenge. So then we’re left with the proposal that staff in good faith has reached with the developer that they’re recommending to us.

So if we vote against it, they will appeal and they’ll have a wonderful record, in my opinion, for appealing in that our staff has recommended this so that when they go to the next level, probably, I’m just not guessing, but I think the fact that council may not support this development, there’s another avenue for the developer to proceed with it. So I think we should all be aware of that at this point in time that that may or may not be the result and that doesn’t have to change the vote at all. So that’s where we are. And so we’ll proceed on from there.

I know the word counselor wanted to speak in and that’s about it. I’ll turn it back over to you next time. I’ll return the chair back to you, Councillor Square. Okay, Councillor Hillier, go ahead.

Actually, thank you very much, but the questions have been asked and answered. All right, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, if I can make my comments now and I’m gonna reserve the right to change my mind before council as well. And this is a really difficult one for me.

I wanted to let this committee know. And I remember many years ago when one of the owners transferred the land over to the Land Trust Fund. And there was this feeling in this community that there was gonna be hope to preserve this area, to maintain it in its natural state. There was such optimism.

I remember those conversations. I wish we could keep it that way, but the reality is there’s gonna be some form of development here. And I am not prepared to have this go right now to an appeal process because we know there may be more development on this property. And I would like to think that we can work with this applicant to minimize the impacts as much as possible.

I’ve got concerns around the buffering as well. It’s great to hear 35 meters on one side, but 11 meters on another side has concerns for me. And how do we embrace the natural area? I was involved many, many years ago in an application very similar to this.

And I hear the angst in this community. I felt it. And now I’m in a position here because of my concerns that there may be more coming forward here. I am going to for this moment support this recommendation.

And I wanna thank the committee for supporting the amendment that I brought forward. But I know when this comes to council, there’ll be a further debate. I think that it is really important that we really understand what may happen here. And again, this is very difficult, but I will for now be supporting the motion.

Any further comments? And I’m gonna call the vote on the amended staff recommendation. Has it come up, Chair? Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, it’s up now. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to four. So we’re going to take a brief break now. I’m suggesting 15 minutes, which will take us to about 10 to eight.

It’d be a chance to get something to drink and use the washroom. So I need a motion for a recess. Mr. yeoman, you wanted to say something?

Give me Mr. Chair, my apologies. With the failure of the motion to approve the staff recommendation, I believe there still does need to be a determination on the application that is before you, per the Planning Act. Are you Mr.

Mayor or Mr. Chair? It’s Taffy, if I could help. It’s just a, there’s no recommendation that goes forward to council.

The council will debate it and make a decision at that meeting. Thank you. So the motion for recess is moved by councilor Lewis, seconded by councilor Hopkins, all in favor. Hand vote is fine.

We will be back at about, it’s getting close to 22, why don’t we say five days? Into the meeting and we’re going to go to item 3.6 on the agenda, which is a public participation meeting for 11.53 to 11.55 Dundas Street. And I will just need a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Lewis is opening, is moving to open it and Councilor Layman is seconding, unless there’s something more, which I’m hoping there won’t be, we’ll call the vote.

I’ll take the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you very much. Staff presentation, please.

Good evening, Chair Squire, members of the committee, staff and members of the audience. My name is Laurel Davies Snyder. I’m a planner with urban regeneration in city planning. And I have a very brief presentation for the planning application for 1153 1155 Dundas Street, which is in your agenda package.

So in terms of the subject site, it’s located on the southeast corner of Dundas and Eleanor streets as shown on the map in your package. It’s in an older industrial area called the Smokestack District, which is transitioning away from light industrial uses to a range of different uses, more in line with the current economy. It’s a listed building built around 1919, currently used as a warehouse wholesale establishment with some office support. In terms of transportation and access, it’s accessible by sidewalks surrounding the site, which you can see in some of the pictures I’ve provided.

Serviced by public transit, parking is located at the rear of the site and it’s within walking distance of established neighborhoods. In terms of the requested amendment, there are two. I did neglect to put one on the slides and I apologize for that. One is a zoning bylaw amendment from the applicant and the request is to change the zoning from light industrial to to a site specific business district commercial zone, which would allow for a mix of office, retail, arts and workshops, restaurant, craft brewery, and a reduction in parking and exemption of outdoor patio spaces from parking requirements.

So the special provision part of this amendment is to reduce the parking to permit 55 onsite parking spaces at the rear. Four of those will be accessible and to exempt outdoor patio spaces up to 225 meters square from parking requirements. There’s also an official plan amendment as part of this application. The city undertook an OPA to bring the 1989 official plan designation into conformity with the London plan place type.

More specifically, this is a change from light industrial to main street commercial corridor and that’s consistent with the rapid transit corridor place type. So through the public process, no concerns were identified by the public. There were three issues or areas of focus that I wanted to highlight, which are outlined in the report and were outlined as part of the circulation and application. The first is heritage and built form.

So the proposed project is actually what we call an adaptive reuse project of the site and building. Rendering of the proposed development are on pages 523 and 524 of your agenda package. There’s no change proposed to the massing or height of the building. And the proposed work will enhance the building.

So it’s heritage and street presence, repairing the brick, removing blocked windows, removing cladding where possible and highlighting the entrances will all enhance the building and its placement on the street. In terms of heritage and built form, the proposal is consistent with the policies and directions and priorities of the provincial policy statement, the London plan, the 1989 official plan and heritage places 2.0. There were no concerns from the city’s heritage planner and of note, the owner is interested in pursuing designation in the future. The second issue is species at risk, chimney swifts and barn swallows.

There were occurrences of chimney swifts on the subject site and occurrences of barn swallows identified in the general area. In this type of situation, the applicant is required to complete a species at risk field assessment, which they did to address the policies and requirements of these species at risk. This assessment was accepted by the species at risk branch of the Ministry of the Environment. And the assessment was also reviewed and accepted by the city’s ecologist who has no concerns with moving forward.

The final issue or area of focus identified is public transit, active transportation and parking. This is an adaptive reuse project and the applicant is asking for a reduction in parking. So it was important to understand all of these issues. The proposal is consistent with the planning framework of the provincial policy statement, the London plan, the 1989 official plan, which do encourage and support transit supportive development, reducing vehicular use and active transportation and using existing sites and infrastructure.

The proposed parking of 55 spaces is located at the rear of the site, which is also in line with design principles in the London plan. I’d like to note that a parking study was completed as part of a complete application and the applicant has consulted with site plan to ensure that the site functions as well as possible. The site is in the rapid transit corridor place type. It’s on a rapid transit boulevard, well supported and serviced by existing and planned public and active transportation networks and within walking distance of on street parking, established neighborhoods and future residential.

I’d also like to note that due to the mix of uses, it’s anticipated that parking demand and peak usage will vary throughout the day. The reduction in parking request for reduction in parking is supported by the city of London transportation. So in conclusion, this is a very quick summary. Staff recommends that the requested amendments to the zoning bylaw and official plan are approved for these reasons.

The proposed uses and mixed use nature of the development are consistent with and support the planning framework and legislation. So the provincial policy statement, the official 1989 official plan and the London plan, the adaptive reuse project supports our key goals, including countless commitment to reducing and mitigating climate change through adaptive reuse of a building and site, reducing reliance on public and private vehicles. Conservation and heritage of a listed building is another goal that this proposal would be achieving. And the mixed use development in existing settlement areas, supporting regeneration, providing for cultural and economic opportunities also implements policies and directions in the London plan.

This concludes my presentation. I’m happy to answer questions as are my colleagues and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much. Any technical questions from the committee?

There being none, then I will look to any comments from the public. I don’t have anyone listed. I don’t know if the applicant wanted to make some brief comments. Oh, there is someone, I’m sorry.

Go ahead, sir. Good evening, Councillors, Mr. Mayor. My name’s Michael Pearson.

I live on 1195 King Street. I have a concern with the craft brewery. Craft breweries used to be quaint establishments, you know, older men that would stir big bats of brew. But basically, there are bars now, most of them.

And we already have two other bars in that area within a stone store, one on Ashland and Dundas, and then the powerhouse brewery, paradigm spirits. There’s an outdoor patio and bar. So that would be three drinking establishments with one to two would have outdoor drinking within a stone store. Most of that area is residential, and yes, there has always been commercial, but that would definitely change the nature of the area.

Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Anybody else in committee room one and two? Go ahead.

Hello, thank you for allowing me to speak. I have concerns that, well, first of all, I’m really glad that something’s being done with that building. There’s been a lot of graffiti, drug gangs and stuff like that. And so I’m glad that something’s being done with that.

However, I do have concerns with a bar, a patio, basically, with people drinking. There’s already issues, concerns with prostitution, drug dealers, people being stabbed. There was a man just this year stabbed half a block from my house, and that was just outside the hub that my husband mentioned. So I have witnessed, we’ve been there for 15 plus years, and I see problems with prostitution, and I really have a concern with another facility like this, and all that it brings to the neighborhood.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public? Oh, sorry, I need to get your name, excuse me.

The person that just spoke, I need her name. Sorry to bring you back up. That’s okay. It’s Susan Pierce, and I live at the same house as my husband Michael.

There you go. Thank you. Any other members of the public? I don’t know if the applicant wishes to speak and perhaps address the issue that was raised by the two members of the public, if you could.

Good evening, Chair and committee members. My name is Ben McCauley. I’m with Zalimka Parram, a limited representing the property owner. To address the concerns that were just brought to our attention from the public.

I’d just like to thank them from coming out and providing those, that feedback. Compared to the existing range of uses that are in the building, we believe that the proposed range of uses will be a positive addition to the community. And in terms of the concern about outdoor establishments or areas that are relevant to this proposal, in a form there has been a maximum of 225 square meters established here as part of our exemption from the outdoor patio space from the parking requirement. So in a form here without, we would have to basically provide more parking if we were to go over that 225 square meters.

And we don’t have an intention to go over that 225 square meters and it may even be less. So that’s just a way to, I guess, try to alleviate some of the concerns with the outdoor space. Okay, maybe you could just, so that I understand. When you seem to say it’s only 225 meters does that mean it’s a small, it would be a small patio compared to say the ones in the other areas such as the group of public kelors.

In comparison, it would be smaller. It’s the intent here is for the craft brewery to be associated with a restaurant use. It’s not necessarily exclusively a restaurant use and nor will the parking area be a large patio. Thank you.

Thank you. There’s no other speakers then. We could close the public participation meeting. Somebody move that.

Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Layman. Unless there’s anything else called the vote. Chair, my screen is frozen, I’ll vote yes. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion’s passed six to zero. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. And is there any further discussion on the motion? Sorry about that.

Councillor Halmer. Councillor Halmer. I’m terrible at seeing the hand. I’m the kind of person you got to yell at, but I know Councillor Halmer won’t do that.

So do polite for that. So go ahead, Councillor Halmer. You’re on. Thanks through the chair.

I just wanted to say I’m glad to see that the recommendations already been moved and seconded. This is a very positive development proposal really in keeping with the transition of what was a industrial area that’s really moving into a much more commercial recreation entertainment kind of focused corridor. And it’s obviously building on the success that’s happened with 100 Kellogg. I was just talking to the fellow who owns the property across the street at the old McCormick factory about what he thought about this proposal.

And he thought it was very well in line with what we’re seeing all up and down the corridor and even with what they want to do on the other side of the street with that very large redevelopment of the old factory site. And I think that the density of the craft breweries, a little bit in contrast to what we heard from the residents who lived down the street on King, it’s actually a very positive thing to have them located relatively close together. You know, if someone Burbrook, Anderson, and the London Brewing Co-op, some on the South side of Dundas at our house and then this one. But I think it’s gonna create a really good draw for people who are interested in that particular kind of activity and to come into the area and bring people in and it’s a great tourism.

I kind of draw to have everything close together like that. So I’m glad to see the proposal. It’s certainly much better than the vacant building that’s there now and the repurposing of the heritage building, keeping it intact. I think it’s really important, you know, like this is a building that could have gone the other way and it’s great to see an owner that wants to work with what they’ve got, create something unique and bring some new things into this part of the neighborhood.

So hopefully people will support it. Great project. Thank you very much, Councilor. Any other Councilor Lewis you wanted to comment?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll be brief ‘cause Councilor Helmer covered off a lot of what I wanted to say anyway. And he and I agree on this one for sure.

I do want to acknowledge the residents. Certainly we hear the concern and I have to say that it’s not sadly unique to your neighborhood. It’s a concern that we hear in many parts of the city, including further east in the Argyle area. But often the redevelopment of properties and the feed on the street, as it’s described, can actually help reduce some of those problems.

So, well, we’re not dismissing your concerns. I think that this development may actually help address some of them. So thank you for taking the time to come tonight. Thank you, any further comments?

Then moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote on this. I’m closing the vote on to item 3.7, which is a public participatory outdoor patio expansion. And we’ll have to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Unless there’s something further, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Presentation. Through the chair, if I may, I’d like to introduce Jasmine Hall, who is a new planner who recently started with the city back in December. I mean, this is her first time presenting to the committee.

We don’t have any slides, but Jasmine is happy to provide a very brief overview of the recommendation that’s before you. Welcome to the committee, Jasmine, and a brief is good. Go ahead. With that pressure put on, you go ahead.

Thank you so much. Good evening, everyone. The item before you is a city-wide zoning by-law amendment to allow seasonal outdoor patios as a permitted use. COVID-19 social distancing rules greatly reduce the interior capacity for businesses.

So the AGCO and the city allowed for the expansion of licensed establishments. The London Recovery Network and the Back to Business groups heard support for more permanent regulatory changes to allow for temporary patio expansion. The current zoning by-law allows for outdoor patios for restaurants and taverns and has regulations for capacity, location, loading, lighting, and parking. Parking is required for that added gross floor area from the outdoor patio space at the same race geo as the interior GFA.

The proposed zoning by-law amendment 9300 allows seasonal outdoor patios as a permitted use. Regulations include that they are only permitted between March 15th and November 15th. There’s a minimum six meter step back from residential only zones. There is no additional parking required.

Seasonal outdoor patio spaces are permitted within spaces designated for commercial uses. And not permitted in areas for residential parking. And all other outdoor patio regulations still apply to seasonal outdoor patios. Staff recommends that the proposed by-law be introduced at the Municipal Council meeting on April 13th, 2021 to a man’s zoning by-law Z-1 to add regulations related to seasonal outdoor patios.

Staff is now prepared to answer any questions. The committee may have. Thank you very much. Any technical questions only?

Councillor Layman. Through the staff, would this apply city wide or just to certain BIA’s? Go ahead. Through the chair, this is a city wide by-law amendment.

Thank you for the question. All right, thank you very much. So I don’t have any indication of pre-registration for delegations. So is there anybody in any of the rooms or online?

So chair, there’s no one online regarding this matter. Thank you. And nobody in the, nobody’s standing up, okay? So I think we can close the public participation meeting.

I just need a motion. Move and seconder, move by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Unless there’s something further, I’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

All right, recommendation, move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion, hopefully brief. Not to cut anybody off, but hopefully brief. Go ahead, Councillor.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I’ll be brief. I just think this is a great opportunity to support businesses in the London area. Citywide obviously is really important here.

And there’s something to be said when you are out and about. I know it was suggested that sometimes there is a concern that could be had with people drinking outside, but there is that element of eyes on the street and a sort of a great way for people to be outside and enjoying the businesses. So very supportive of this coming forward. Thank you, anything further, Mayor Holder?

Thanks very much. First, I’d like to thank our staff member for introducing and explaining what we’re looking to do here. And I appreciated her explanation and the rationale behind it. I support both Councillors’ direction to proceed with this.

If there’s a time particularly now as we’ve moved into red to be able to support thoughtfully businesses, particularly in the restaurant bar area around the city, that’s important, but specifically in this area here. So I would look to have colleagues support this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Any further comments? If not, I’m going to call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Moving on to eight, which is a public participation meeting with regard to 1478 Westdale, born.

And we’ll have to open the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis as I stare him down to do that. Anything further? I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

This is when you’ll have to keep an eye on me ‘cause as I get going quickly, I’m left. So please keep your eye on me as we move forward. Staff presentation, please. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. This is Larry Montrum with Development Services, Senior Planner, and I have a verbal presentation only. Thank you. Okay.

This is an application by Townline Orchard Property Limited for approval of draft plan of subdivision and zoning bylaw amendments. The subject lands consist of a 5.75 Hector property located at 1478 Westdale, born. It currently contains a former apple orchard with single detached dwelling. The proposal is for 39 single detached residential lots, two medium density residential blocks, one park block, and two new streets being the extensions of Fountain Grass Drive and Upper West Avenue.

This proposal represents the third and final phase of the Riverbend South Community. Subdivision development has progressed in phases since the Riverbend South Secondary Plan was adopted by City Council in 2015. The secondary plan designates the easterly portion of the site has low density residential and park, and the Westerly portion as medium density residential. The secondary plan also identified collector road connections and Fountain Grass Drive is classified as the secondary collector in the 1989 official plan and a neighborhood connector in the London plan.

The peculiar traffic generated by this development will have access to public road connections at Westdale, born Upper Point Avenue, Fountain Grass Drive, and Upper West Avenue. There will be multiple access routes to disperse traffic and minimize congestion and impacts on the existing neighborhood. Concerns were expressed by residents regarding increased traffic on Westdale, born, particularly speeds, vehicle speeds, traffic noise, safety for pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists. Due to the increasing traffic on Westdale, born, as a result of the city’s growth and development, it is expected that road widening and upgrades will be necessary in the near future.

A road widening dedication across the frontage of the subject lands will be required, and this draft plan identifies a .25 hectare block to be dedicated to the city for road widening purposes. Also as part of the conditions of draft plan approval, the developer will be required to submit a design and criteria for left turn and right turn lanes on Westdale, born at Fountain Grass Drive to be constructed by the developer and for review and acceptance by the city. Concerns were expressed by residents on the west side of Westdale, born about future installation of street lights along Westdale, born frontage, and the impact from light pollution. The street lights that have recently been installed along that side of Westdale, born to the north are the LED style of street lights, which are typically designed to direct light downward to the public road right away, rather than on the properties behind.

It is expected that installation of similar street lights will continue to the south in the future. We have draft plan conditions with respect to this subdivision that will require the owner to identify the street lighting on Westdale, born along the entire frontage of this plan, as well as the location and type of lighting for the streets within the subdivision. The details with respect to the lighting will be determined at the design and engineering drawing review stage prior to final approval. Riverbend’s south secondary plan identified three neighborhood connector or secondary collector road connections on Westdale, born, which came out of the recommendations of the traffic impact study prepared as part of the secondary plan process.

Two of these connections, upper point Boulevard and upper point gate have recently been completed further to the north. This draft plan of subdivision provides the third collector road connection between fountain grass drive, consistent being fountain grass drive consistent with the alignment and location of street J as shown on the secondary plan. One of the concerns raised by residences with regards to vehicles turning from fountain grass drive onto Westdale, born and car headlights shining on homes located on the opposite side of the intersection. There are existing material trees and some hedges along the West side of West Elborn that provide some screening.

The concern was discussed with affected residents and the applicant is receptive to working with them, as well as with city staff to review opportunities for additional screening once the designs details of the intersection have been worked out. So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, staff find the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning are appropriate and conform with the 1989 official plan, the London plan and the River Bend South secondary plan and its vision of a community that is well connected through multi-use pathway and pedestrian connections in the street network provides a range of residential housing types and densities from single detached dwellings to townhouses and low rise apartment buildings, maximum four stories. And it promotes healthy living and active transportation through the incorporation of a neighborhood park for passive recreation.

And again, the highly connected cycling and pedestrian network. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any technical questions only from the committee?

Councillor Hopkins go ahead. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a technical question around the two medium density blocks that are up here.

Do we know what’s going in these two blocks? Yes, Madam Chair, the block that is proposed for development would be zoned for cluster townhouses as well as low rise apartment buildings concept plans that were provided in that accompanied the application indicate a four story, four story apartment building. And the density would be around 130 to 133 units. If it were townhouses, it would be approximately 60 to 65 units.

That’s interpreted that. Any other technical questions only? Right, that being done. I have one indication of one speaker from the public, Natalie and Arthur Craig.

I don’t know if it’s one of them who wishes to speak. I don’t know if they’re on the line. Yeah, it’s Natalie Craig. Welcome.

Oh, thank you. Yeah, we are concerned with regards to the quantity of home, not so much the homes, but the four story walk up. There’s a tremendous amount of traffic currently on West Melbourne, even without this development occurring. And we’ve lived here for 39 years and of course have witnessed from a small, you know, community gravel road and peaceful tranquil to now my husband and I are fortunately now retired.

And one of the things about retirement is being able to possibly sleep in in the morning through a change, which is absolutely impossible already at this point. It is so noisy on this road. The traffic basically from 6 a.m. till about 9 a.m.

You cannot sleep because it is just so, so loud. The speed at which the traffic flows far surpasses the posted 60 kilometer per hour zone. We certainly think that speed limit should be reduced, but more so policed. If you don’t have police officers out here trafficking and providing traffic tickets, people will just take advantage of it and go double the speed limit or even more.

We are concerned about possibly, you know, when you go to pull out of the driveway right now, it’s difficult and it’s going to become even more dangerous once that development occurs because the traffic will be substantially increased. Also our driveway is right in front of Fountain Grass Drive. So again, there’s going to, I’m sure be, traffic stopped and backups to turn. They’re in the sift and development.

There is a school that’s going in there as well. So there will be cars that will be utilizing Fountain Grass Drive to also get to the school to pick up their children or whatever. So besides what’s occurring at the 1478, there will be, I think, a lot of traffic to access some of the other things, like I said, like the school. So we’re very concerned about that.

We’re concerned that our home that we’ve worked so hard and long to stay here will not be a property that people will want to even purchase in the future because of the noise and also the amount of traffic in front of our home and the light. So we have spoken with Craig Linton and expressed our concern and he does seem to be very cooperative as understanding. And we’re hoping that the city also realizes that they need to look at speed limits, enforcement of police. And also I would like to see rather than perhaps a four-story unit with, I’m not sure exactly how many, 168 or whatever number you quoted.

Perhaps townhouses would be a better option. It’s still a lot, but it’s certainly better than the alternative. So that’s kind of what our concerns are. Thank you very much.

Very much appreciated that you came to speak today. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this matter? I didn’t see anyone else online. Mr.

Chair, Barry and Rita Nagel are online. Great, welcome. Go ahead. Yes, good evening.

Good evening. Rita Nagel from 1499 West Delbourne. Thank you for letting us speak this evening. I will be very brief.

I concur with everything that Natalie has just proposed. We understand that the development is inevitable, but we do feel that perhaps lower density would be more suitable for this neighborhood. I spoke with Karl Grabowski, the transport design engineer last June with concerns regarding the noise and how deafening it was just in front of our yard. Prior to us moving here in 2011, we understand that the city redesigned West Delbourne and raised the road, which has created a tremendous amount of noise, traffic noise.

And so we feel that we have just caused to complain about this that it possibly a review. Yes, lowering traffic speed would be one solution. That would be very helpful, but I don’t believe that increasing height or medium density would help this neighborhood at all. I know that is one of the concerns, even though there’s only two of us speaking this evening, that it is a general concern on this street is the speed and the noise as a result of this traffic increase.

Also, I just want to point out something that I was quite impressed when I was listening to the Middle Lily Road Committee. We have a lot of wildlife around here as well. We’re on the outskirts of town where, and so that needs to be considered as well. And I appreciate that.

It’s very efficient for all the people now that jog and bicycle are on our road, it could become a real dangerous situation the more we keep growing this area. So if we want to keep that in mind, it’s got to be pedestrian, family and cyclist friendly as well. So increasing medium density, I don’t think is a good solution in this area at this time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else online or in the room who wish to speak? Mr. Chair.

Mr. Linton is joining us remotely. Okay, and Mr. Linton is, I heard his name mentioned, he’s the applicant, okay.

Mr. Linton, I wonder, thank you for joining us. I wondered if you’d like to speak. I wonder if you could address the concerns that were raised by the residents in particular.

Yes, good evening, everyone. Thank you through the chair to the rest of the committee members and members of the public in attendance. Thank you. This plan is consistent with the Riverbend South Secondary Area Plan.

And quite frankly, if I would have brought anything forward that was different, it would have been rejected by staff. So this is really the last, the very last small piece of the Riverbend South Secondary Plan puzzle, so to speak. So it is the last 15 acres in what is probably over 200 acres’ worth of development on that southeast corner of Oxford and West L. Borne.

With respect to the concerns about the medium density, it is medium density, it’s designated as medium density and the proposal put forward is in keeping with that. It is at the top end of what it would be considered to be medium density, but we do need to make sure that generally speaking, we are building to the highest and best possible use on every site in this city. And I’ll just leave it at that for right now. I’ll entertain any questions as necessary.

All right, thank you. Anybody else at this point in time? Every time I ask that, we get one more person. So I’m taking my chances here.

Is there anybody online or in one of the rooms? All right, that being said, we’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, unless there’s something else I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, then it’s on the table unless there’s anything else we wanna discuss.

Is someone prepared to move the recommendation? Four questions, no, okay. Well, Councillor Lewis is gonna move it. Is there a seconder for it?

Councillor Hayley, all right. Let’s just go to questions and comments together, whatever the committee wishes. If there are, in fact, any questions or comments, go ahead Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair. This is a development in Ward 9. And I just wanna let the committee know we had a virtual open house about a month ago and there were a number of residents attending as well as city staff and as well as the applicant too. And I wanna thank everyone that attended that open house, ‘cause it was very constructive.

There was a great dialogue and listening to the concerns. And this is an area for those of you who are not familiar with this part of West Elborn, which is a south of Oxford. It’s where urban and rural are clashing. This whole area is developing and changing.

And of course with that change comes a number of issues. And we’ve heard from the residents tonight and thank you very much for coming out. And passing on your comments. The concern of safety moving around this road is extremely unsafe.

It is used quite a bit, not only by cars, but also by people with their bikes as well. And I wanna, based on that open house meeting, we did reach out to city staff to see if we could get a reduction of the speed limit going from 60 to 50 from firing baseline all the way up to Keynes to have consistency in the speed limit as well. And that is hopefully gonna be supported when it comes to committee. But that just for the community’s information is in the process.

But I am supportive of this application. I think it’s really important to understand that this is coming from the Riverbend South Secondary Plan. It’s a continuation, it’s the last phase of development. We saw the development to the north and this is the last parcel.

And it conforms to the secondary plan. So I am going to be supporting it even though, I think it’s really important to understand the changes that will be experienced on West Elbourn with this development coming forward. I do wanna thank the applicant as well to encourage the applicant to work with the neighbors to deal with some of the issues. And I understand the applicant has reached out to the neighbors to keep to work on the buffering that can be or possible improvements when headlights from cars are coming in and out of the road.

So I just wanna really just, I love the idea of collaboration with city staff and applicants and the community trying to understand the change, which is always difficult, but also having an opportunity to really hear and listen to all the challenges that this community is experiencing and there are many. So I just wanna thank the committee and there you go. All right, anything further on this? Anyone wishes to speak?

All right, I’ll call the questions if I moved in seconded. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Moving on to item 3.9, which station meeting with regard to 3080 Bostwick Road. And I’d like to open the public participation meeting.

I’m gonna ask Mayor Holder to move because he’s looking like he’s ready to move something. Come on, put your hand up, Mr. Mayor. Help me out.

Look at him. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Seconder, Councillor Halyer, there’s something else.

I’ll call the question. He was hesitant there to help me out. I don’t know. Zero.

The public presentation on this matter or the I should say staff presentation on this matter, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I have a verbal presentation.

This won’t be long. This is an application by York developments for lands located at 3080 Bostwick Road. This request is for approval of a draft plan of subdivision consisting of two high density residential blocks, one neighborhood park block, one walkway block, one open space block and three new streets, as well as for approval of zoning by law amendments associated with the proposed subdivision plan, including bonus for increased density and height applying to the two high density residential blocks. So the first block is block number two, identified on the draft plan.

And the residential component proposed for this block consists of a 189 unit apartment building having a height of 18 stories and two blocks of stacked townhouses consisting of 16 units and three and a half stories in height. Parking would be provided underground with surface visitor parking. This apartment building would be located close to the street front edge along Bostwick Road with a transition of building form and intensity to low rise a stacked townhouses fronting onto street A and oriented to the neighborhood park and open space corridor on the opposite side of street A. The other block is block six identified on your draft plan.

Here there will be two residential apartment buildings which are proposed consisting of a 17 story 238 unit building located on the Southerly portion of the block and a 15 story 149 unit building on the northerly portion positioned close to the front edge along street B and oriented to the Bostwick Community Center. All parking is located behind the building in underground parking facilities with some resident and visitor parking on the surface located in the rear portion of the site in order to minimize the visual impact on the public realm. Building density and height is generally consistent with the proposed intensity of an adjacent development lands to the north, which will include a 17 story 208 unit apartment building, which is currently under development. With respect to natural heritage features, there is a narrow stream corridor known as the Thornecroft drain, which flows from north to south through the site and it’s regulated by the UTRCA.

Further to the south, which is lands outside the limits of the draft plan, the stream corridor leads to a large woodland patch containing a wetland feature. There is also a small area of ponding, which is considered a wetland on the westerly half of the site. Further discussion with this city is required regarding opportunities for potential relocation and compensation of that wetland to the south adjacent to the woodland patch. An environmental impact study was submitted and reviewed by the city and UTRCA as part of the application review process.

The response received from the conservation authority indicated that there are outstanding concerns on the EIS, but they can be addressed in a final report addendum as a condition of draft plan approval. The response from the UTRCA also indicated that there are outstanding concerns with respect to maintaining groundwater flows from the site to the Thornecroft drain and the natural heritage feature to the south. Further discussions to resolve those concerns have led to an agreed upon solution to utilize the applicant’s lands to the south of street sea for groundwater recharge to be incorporated into a future buffer zone adjacent to the woodland wetland patch. Therefore, the UTRCA has requested conditions of draft approval to that effect and that a final hydrogiological and water balance study be prepared to the satisfaction of the UTRCA.

Within the limits of the proposed draft plan and subdivision development is not proposed adjacent to the Thornecroft drain with the exception of the neighborhood park a four meter wide walkway block and the street sea crossing. Buffers along this stretch of the drain corridor have previously been agreed upon in conjunction with the EIS work that was prepared for the community center in 2014. The plan location of the proposed street sea crossing is aligned with a recently completed storm water outlet located on the east side of the drain. That’s just to summarize the bonus zoning provisions with respect to block two, of bonusing is being given consideration for high quality architectural design having regard for urban design guidelines prepared for 3080 Bostwick Road, provision of underground parking, provision of Boulevard tree planting along Bostwick Road and Street A, and other facilities including a publicly accessible electric vehicle charging station, a bus transit shelter and 10 publicly accessible bicycle share facility spaces.

Or a bonus thing for block six, consideration is being given for provision of affordable housing consisting of 30 rental apartment dwelling units including 19 one bedroom units and 11 two bedroom units with rents set at 85% of the C-MHC average market rent at the time of occupancy for a duration of 30 years from the point of initial occupancy as well as consideration for high quality architectural design that has regard for the approved urban design guidelines for 3080 Bostwick Road. And these concept plans for the building designs have been vetted through the urban design review panel several times. The provision of facilities and matters in consideration of the proposed proposed height and density bonus are considered a result in a benefit to the general public and are an enhancement of the design of the development and are considered warranted. So the proposed draft plan of subdivision, the draft conditions recommended zoning and holding provisions are appropriate and conform with the 1989 official plan, the London plan.

The proposal also conforms with the Southwest Area Secondary Plan and specifically the policies for the Bostwick residential neighborhood which are intended for high intensity transit oriented forms of development. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions. Thank you very much.

Any technical questions from the committee for being done? We will go, there are one speaker from the public that I have on my list which is Mohammed Musa. Mr. Musa, are you online?

No, he is not, Mr. Chair. We do have Mr. Allen on the line.

Okay, go ahead, sir. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee got Allen from MHBC. At this point, I would just like to thank Mr.

Matram for his report, advice, accounts of the committee that we are supportive of the findings and recommendations of that report. And thank staff for their hard work through this process. It’s been a lengthy draft plan review given the scope and nature of this project. And we are satisfied with the direction moving forward.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other speakers online or in any of the rooms? No, then we’re gonna need a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Move by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Unless there’s something else, I will call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Someone prepared to move the recommendation.

Move by Councillor Layman, I need a seconder. Someone raise their hand to second, please. Mayor Holder, further discussion or comments? Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I wanna thank staff for the report and I wanna thank the applicant too on the work to date that’s being done on this. There’s some progress made.

I know when this came to council a couple years ago, I didn’t support it. I had concerns not so much about the development and the high intensity that’s allowed but how we are gonna proceed with this kind of development given the challenges of the thorny cough drain and the natural heritage features that exist in this area. So I do have a couple of questions just to make sure we’re sort of not kicking the can down the road to speak. And through you, Mr.

Chair, to staff, I do wanna find out a little bit more about the process as we approve this recommended a data moving forward. What, when will we see this application coming back as there’s a number of conditions laid out here and in particular the H22 as well? And just wanted to understand will we see this application coming back as it relates to the number of conditions that are in this recommendation. Well, thank you, through the chair.

So this application has been around for quite a while. It’s dating back to when we brought forward the community center. And since then we’ve had a number of rezoning, consent and consent agreements. And this process allows us to put a draft plan of subdivision over the lands.

And with that it allows us to address a number of the servicing matters, hydrogeology, natural heritage, and look at those holistically as opposed to in piecemeal through the rezoning and site plans. So as far as how we would come back, we’d be coming back, we have a number of holding provisions on the various sites on the property, but we also would be coming back for the subdivision agreement in order to install servicing. And then there could potentially be, I mean, if the applicant were to change their approach and do a different product, they might come in for rezoning. I hope that answers your question, Councilor.

Yes, through the chair it does. And I think it’s important for the committee to understand that this is just part of that process. And I know in the recommendation, it speaks to the final EIS that still needs to be done, as well as the hydrogeological work that still needs to happen. So with knowing that and the holding provisions that are listed, I guess just one further question about the holding provision.

Will the work, how would the work proceed lifting the holding provision when it comes to the hydrogeo and the EIS? Is that something that staff would work with upper 10s or just wanting to have a better understanding of that process? Certainly and through the chair. What we’ll be doing over the next of the while is really solidifying some of the servicing and some of the site plan matters, which allows us to look at the hydrogeological issues and the amount of impervious and pervious area over the different sites.

So again, as we come forward, we’ll be coming forward with subdivision agreements and then subsequently or in conjunction, we’d also be bringing forward the holding provision removals, which would require some input from upper 10s in order to release those. Thank you for that. And I am generally supportive. Obviously we need all this housing in place.

These buildings are gonna be pretty high for this area and intensification is allowed. But for me, the challenge is making sure that we do not undermine the environmental impacts in this area too. So I look forward to following the process with this application. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further on this matter? All right. Then I will, it’s been moved and seconded.

I’ll call the vote. Housing to vote the motion carries six to zero. And the next item three point one zero, which is a public participation meeting with regards to six 11 to six 15 third street. This is not a matter that we’ll have a staff presentation, but I still need to open a public participation meeting.

Moved by Councillor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Anything further? I’ll call the vote.

Housing to vote the motion for technical questions from the committee. Thank you. There being none, I don’t have any speakers from the public unless the applicant wishes to say something. Was this a public member who wishes to speak?

Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. I’m Manish Pardar with Pardar Planning. I’m the planner for the proponent who’s here tonight.

And I just wanted to thank staff, Development Services staff for all their hard work. And we agree with their recommendation and obviously wanted to thank Housing Development Corporation staff as well, as well as Councillor Mosley, who helped facilitate proactive engagement with members of his constituency that had any questions. So thank you very much and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Seconded by Councillor Lewis. You keep telling me that and I’ll keep trying to be better next time. Anything further, I’ll call the vote then. I’ll sing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Through item 3.11, which is the last scheduled item, which is a public participation meeting on the Masonville draft secondary plan. Yeah, I’m sorry, we do have to do that. So if someone move and second the staff recommendation, thank you, Councillor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Layman.

Anything further, call the vote. I’ll sing the vote, the motion carries six. We will move on now to item 3.11, which is a public participation meeting regarding the Masonville plan. I’ll just need to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lewis.

Seconded by Councillor Layman, surprising it. And I will, unless there’s something else, I will call the vote. I’ll sing the vote, the motion. So before we have, I just want to remind everyone that this is not a decision point tonight of approving the Masonville plan.

In other words, not voting on its approval. What we’re seeking is public input to inform the process moving forward. So that’s where we are at this point. So for the benefit of all of us and the public, we will not be just saying gay or nay to the Masonville secondary plan tonight, but we certainly wish to receive input.

So that being said, I will turn it over for the staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Sonia Wise and thank you for the introduction.

I’ll be referring to some slides that are available on the city’s website under item 3.11 or starting on page 829 of the online agenda. So this is for the draft Masonville secondary plan, which is the first secondary plan for transit village. Slide one shows the plan boundary. So this includes all lands within the transit village place type.

In the London plan, the vision for transit villages includes exceptionally designed, high density, mixed use urban neighborhoods that are connected by rapid transit. So this is a high growth plan and area of the city. There are specific policies that have been, that have received recent planning approval. Those are shown as the hatched areas on slide one.

Those are proposed to be carried forward in the secondary plan. Slide two describes the various community engagements events. So following the launch of this project in early 2019, there was a wide variety of events like community information meetings, walking tours and office hours that took place. This was primarily to gather input from the community and to identify areas of focus for the plan.

In 2020, we reviewed the feedback that we received, spent some time with research and prepared the policies and direction of the draft plan. Slide three shows the community structure. So these included some of the key aspects of the plan. In point one, we’re planning for three new parks.

Those are shown as green stars in the northeast, northwest and southeast quadrants of the area. So this is to ensure that there is adequate open space and green spaces to support additional people and jobs anticipated. Point two is really to focus and celebrate the transit station. So this would be through policies related to building an orientation as well as pedestrian access.

Point three plans new connections to break up the large blocks and make it easier to move around. Point four identifies a commercial priority area where ground floor commercial presence would be required. And then point five, six and seven include focused areas of high rise, mid rise and low rise areas. Slide four shows the two main land uses.

So there is a low rise residential that’s the yellow area, which recognizes the existing residential neighborhoods. And then the majority of the lands are orange, which is within the transit village mixed use area. And this permits a wide variety of uses, including things like residential, commercial, retail, office, mixed use, institutional, recreational, community facility and entertainment uses. Slide five shows the building heights.

So there is a high rise area of 15 stories maximum or up to 22 stories with financing. This is focused at the intersection of Richmond and Fanshawe, shown in red. And this is due to the proximity of the transit station as well as the separation from the lower density areas. Surrounding the high rise area, there’s a mid rise area of up to about eight stories.

That’s orange. And then there’s a low rise area up to about four stories, which is shown as yellow. The plan also proposes the use of an angular plane near the low rise residential areas. And this is to ensure that there’s adequate setbacks and transition to some of those higher density areas.

Slide six shows the new connections proposed through the area. These are intended to break up the large commercial blocks to provide delineated spaces for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, as well as to introduce new opportunities for things like tree planting and landscaping. In slide seven shows the character streets. So it identifies a commercial priority streets for areas of concentrated activity and ground floor commercial uses, but shown as red.

Then there are also residential priority streets to provide a predominantly residential interface with the existing neighborhoods, that’s shown as yellow. And there’s also locations where a mix of both would be appropriate and those are shown as orange. So as you noted earlier, we are presenting the draft plan policies to hear comments and feedback at this time. We’re also proposing additional participation options coming in April.

And we are targeting an additional public participation meeting like tonight for the end of the second quarter for the eventual plan adoption. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d be looking forward to any questions.

Thank you very much. Technical questions from the committee. They’re being done, we will go to public participation and it looks like Mr. Kirkness, the agent for the applicant is up, Mr.

Kirkness. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and committee members. We are here for Westdale Development Corporation who is the owner of the Richmond Highland Center which basically occupies the Northwest Quadrant of Fanshawe and Richmond and basically consumes that whole quadrant of the transit village place type.

There is construction going on there now. They’ve owned the place for about two years and they’re trying to kind of update and improve it. I think when we came across this, we were introduced to the Masonville Secondary Plan. I think the first thing that they were seeking is flexibility in the framing of the policies.

We also were proposing a tower last mid last year at North Center and Fanshawe Park Road. We did a pre-consultation and we were asked if we would prepare a master plan of our site, which we have been working on and we attached a sketch of it with years on different building pods that this was all distributed to you. The tower that we’re speaking of, we’re hoping to get to next year, 2022. We also are proposing towers in the opposite corner throughout this decade and two more towers as you get towards the intersection.

Below that would be the commercial base. We think that’s what’s going to happen, but we do know that and we researched this and it’s all over the map is to help people who are going to shop, whether it’s big box, little box, online and whether people want to live in high density communities is another question. So we’re asking the team that’s developing the Masonville Secondary Plan to use flexible language and show us how you could accommodate that flexibility within the plan. The second point we wanted to make was that we think the plan is late on how the BRT will serve it or whether the BRT will serve it.

And asked if there could be more on that as well as how it would serve the Masonville community. And this is because there is a goal to try to have this village be mostly, the mobility through it is mostly by walking or pedestrians and public transit. The automobile seems to be very much discouraged and in the concepts there’s really no surface parking. So we’re just not sure whether that can happen in the future realistically.

So the second point is about BRT and how the Masonville community will be served. The master plan that we have prepared has a couple of conflicts in it. One is that we were seeking a high density in our Northeast corner at North Center and Richmond Street so that we could kind of equal what tri-car had approved on their corner which is the Northeast corner of North Center and Richmond Street. We note that the plan shows a medium rise density height there which is I think eight stories.

And we would ask the team to consider high density. I know there’s transition there and we’re prepared to build that into our architecture to some extent but would appreciate consideration of the multi or the high rise designation in that corner. The public park land we, we in our master plan have been proposing a pops or a public square. We also would propose some green with it.

Whether we can achieve 0.5 hectares or not, we don’t really know what this time. And the plan seems to be very specific about that. And wonder if we could at least make the 0.5 hectare in the Northwest quadrant a target as opposed to a stipulation. And we’ll try to work towards it.

The last point was really about residential character streets which North Center in our area is to be. And as much as we want to try and work with that, we kind of feel that the policies are light on the components that are maybe not the amenity. The loading areas and the servicing areas that would serve the commercial as well as the residential. And the policy seemed to indicate that they’re to be hidden from private streets and to be hidden from public streets.

And we’re just wondering, well, how would you get to these loading areas? You’re just over five minutes, Mr. Kirkness, if you could wrap up. Yes, I know it’s been a long night for you.

And I do intend to wrap up. In any case, our submission is basically there in front of you in terms of the five points, the master plan that we have got so far. And we hope that the Masonville staff and team will take that into consideration in finalizing the report. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Kirkness, and just to repeat, I don’t think we’ll be looking for detailed answers tonight necessarily because it’s just, this is for input, but for everyone involved, you’ll have a chance to raise your concern. So thank you very much. And I just want to welcome the two award counselors who are most involved in this Councilor Cassidy from Ward five and Council, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

I can’t get used to that, Deputy Mayor Morgan. So I’ll make mistakes occasionally. I did it with the other Deputy Mayor, Helmer from Ward seven. So these are the two counselors who are involved.

It’s very good of them to join us and it should comfort the people who are making presentations that the two counselors who are most acquainted with this development are here to listen also. So thanks to you. Next person is Aaron Liu, Mr. Liu.

Yes. Go ahead, sir. Your name’s Aaron Liu. Did you can provide your address if you’d like or not?

Yeah, my address is 70, 70 side drive. It’s just beside the library. I like to attend here to get more detailed information about the new development plan. Looks like we, I heard we have some planning for, you know, a permit or condo, a permit building and just all sizes complex, concourse.

It’s such as on their parking spots or missing remote. I just want to get some clarification about how the planning going to be out. Thank you. Okay, so just for your benefit, the information and the supporting documents for this meeting would be our online.

You can get them online. And also there was a presentation for you presentation from staff, but if there’s something else, maybe you could just follow up with one of your counselors or planning staff, that would be your best avenue, okay? Got it. Thank you.

You’re very welcome. Terry McManus is next. Mr. McManus, is Mr.

McManus there or we don’t know? Mr. McManus is here. He’s just unmuting now.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. McManus. Okay, thank you.

Yes, I’m a 70, sunny side drive as well. And if the committee would look down at the general plan. Mr. McManus, I’m having some trouble hearing you.

I don’t know the volume or. All right, let me crank it up here a little bit. How’s that? That’s much better, thank you.

Okay. So if the committee would take a look at the outline of the plan for this area, down in the lower right-hand corner is Masonville Mead, which are the condos that the previous gentleman was just referring to. And something that’s quite unique in this whole plan and indeed in everything I’ve listened to tonight is that the public is able to make their way from sunny side drive to north center by cutting through the condo through our street. And it happens all the time.

And it’s happening, well, I’ll say that with COVID, it’s been less. But whenever there’s any type of traffic jam which north center and sunny side are really famous for, people come tearing through. And it’s just gonna get worse. So what I’d like to do is I’d like to get the staff out in front of this whole issue and meet with some of the residents and perhaps our representatives and take a look, take a walk through the condo corporation and see what could be done to prevent this from happening.

Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next is Mary and I hope I could pronounce this. Is it still par?

Still par is correct. Okay, go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Masonville secondary plan. We’ve been residents on phone court for 20 years.

We purchased the house because of the court location and the close proximity to schools, shopping and recreational paths. We feel very fortunate to be able to do most of our shopping, banking by foot and enjoy the easy access to the paths and stony broken uplands whenever possible. We would like to retain this quality of life in the character of our street for many years to come. The Masonville secondary plan would certainly improve the use of the land in the existing commercial areas.

And it would be nice to see a mix of buildings, parkland and pure paved parking spots. We are concerned, however, at the high density proposed given the existing road congestion on Fanshawe and Richmond streets. And to see the changes are proposed to our existing street and neighborhood, even though we are technically located outside of the boundary study area. We are not in support of the changes proposed to or adjacent to Foncourt.

We do not want to see direct pedestrian access or road access from Foncourt to Fanshawe Road or from Foncourt to new development at the commercial plaza. We already enjoy easy pedestrian and bike access to the uplands trail by going to Hastings or North Center Road crossing safely at existing traffic lights. Residents of Foncourt already have easy pedestrian and bike access to the Masonville area using the existing walkway off Robinson leading to the library. It’s already so convenient for residents of our street to walk to these areas that we very rarely choose to drive.

Adding these additional connections will not significantly improve the walkability or connectivity of our neighborhood to the Masonville area, but it could have drastic negative impacts on the character of our existing street. Furthermore, other residents of the neighborhood who live beyond Foncourt would have very little reason to utilize these additional connections if constructed. It would still be more convenient for them to continue to use the existing walkway and bike trails off Robinson by the Masonville Library as this is a more direct connection to the commercial area and transit. Residents of the new developments could be provided other routes to upland trails as part of the design process and there’s no need for access through Foncourt directly.

It’s not clear in the proposal if the current fence that divides Foncourt and part of Robinson Lane and the current strip mall would remain. We would like to see the current fence remain so that residents of Foncourt could retain current privacy levels, security and limited traffic. These types of court locations usually come with higher purchase costs and opening up the street would change the dynamic immensely and reduce the value of the homes. It would also completely change the character of our street where all neighbors know each other, where it’s common for neighbors to spend time together on the front yard and where the street is often used by residents and their children grandchildren for outdoor activities like tennis and road hockey, limiting the height of buildings adjacent to the fence to two stories with further reduce the impact to the residents.

The current wooden fence, it’s on a large berm planted with trees. The original developer planted multiple pine trees on the berm adjacent to the road. Over the last eight years, residents of Foncourt have personally planted approximately 16 additional trees along the stretch to increase the tree canopy in the hot storm months in future and further improve the quality and aesthetic of the street. Some of the trees were planted to mark special locations celebrated by residents.

The residents take pride in this area and will mow the lawn, rake and sweep as necessary as a service provided by the city is very limited. Yeah, one minute, right now. Retaining the current fences and trees will reduce the impact of the adjacent future Masonville development on the residents of Foncourt. We appreciate the opportunity to highlight our concerns above to council and staff and request that the secondary plan be revised to ensure that the character of our street is retained.

We would like the policies to be revised to be clear that the additional trail and road connections will not be permitted to the existing residential area, that existing landscaping including trees, berms and fencing be retained and the buildings immediately adjacent to the fence are a maximum of two stories high. We look forward to reviewing a revised draft secondary plan in future. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And there’s also listed Vladimir Stopour. I spoke on our behalf together. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much.

Next speaker is Mike Concan. Oh, go ahead, sir. Thank you for the opportunity of addressing you. I’ve been a resident of Foncourt for the last 28 years.

We originally bought the property due to its dead end street, peacefulness, lack of through traffic and walking distance to shopping in the schools. It is actually quicker for us to walk to the mall and stores than to deal with traffic and at certain times of the year, fight for parking spots. I do not agree with the direction the secondary plan takes with Foncourt. I have reviewed the plan and I agree that there are areas where some infill with additional housing makes sense.

I do not agree with the building height allowances. However, I do have some other areas of concern, namely population density, schools, green space, traffic, bicycle paths and parking. The area under discussion has disclosed in the plan is composed of 219 acres of land, which is the equivalent of 0.9 square kilometers. Simple math puts the proposed ultimate population density at 14,700 people per square kilometer.

This is equivalent to certain regions in Toronto. However, Toronto has the advantage of wider and better road systems, along with the extensive transit system servicing those neighborhoods. This is an increase of 4.5 times current density or 10,000 people. In order to meet this density, it appears that the plan calls for the removal of all existing buildings and a complete rebuild.

With this type of population increase, school desks must be given due consideration. I do not believe the city should proceed until a review has been completed with both boards of education. Given the low income housing is proposed for 25% of the units, I believe that children will be living in this area and school desks must be considered. We do see parks in the plan.

However, I presume that these are people parks and not dog parks. In a London downtown apartment building, the ratio of dogs to apartment units is one dog for every 10 units. Will there be a consideration for a dog park? Worsing dog owners to drive to the closest dog park on Adelaide Street North, where the existing parking lot is at times overflowing is not logical given our biggest issue, traffic.

For 25 years, it dropped my wife off in downtown London while on my way to work every day and picked her up for the return ride home. In those years, traffic, whether it was Adelaide Street, Richmond Street has gotten worse. As new home construction north of Fanshawe Park Road has increased, construction is ongoing, and the additional traffic from this area will only aggravate the current situation further. Pre-COVID, the traffic flying south on Richmond from sunny delts to the university gates in the morning was bumper to bumper.

During the peak times in the evenings, it would take a half hour to travel north on Richmond from Windermere to home, a distance of three kilometers. Traveling north, the intersection of Western Road and Richmond is the current pinch point. Our current traffic situations are also aggravated as you know by two large destinations in the area, namely University Hospital and the University of Western Ontario. I believe this plan needs to include a comprehensive discussion on how all traffic present and in the future will be dealt with.

Gridlock is not an option and it will be much harder to fix the problem once the buildings have been constructed. As a comparison, the current mall owners are already proceeding with similar infill proposals at Sherway Gardens on the Western edge of Toronto. Sherway Gardens is supported by a road system on three sides where each road is made up of six or eight lanes of traffic. These roads are the Queensway, QEW and 427.

The fourth road, the West mall is four lanes of traffic. Consequently, Sherway Gardens is surrounded on all four sides with super roads or highways to support its residents. Our single four lane Richmond street and Fanshawe Park roads are no match. There is a current proposal for Fanshawe Park.

You have about, excuse me, you have one minute remaining. Thank you. From Louise, widened to six lanes from Louise to North Centre Road. I struggle to understand how this will resolve our current North-South East-West traffic problems, let alone allow us to add more traffic in the near and distant future.

Further expansion of both Richmond and Fanshawe above these proposals are a must. However, the challenge now is to fit additional lanes of traffic plus bus lanes and bicycle lanes into the existing road allowances. For example, the building housing Starbucks on Fanshawe West of Adelaide appears to be too close to the road allowance. Sunningdale and Adelaide, may also need consideration for expansion.

I do have other points on bicycle plan. There are no bicycle paths south of the library and a question on parking. We have 5,200 public parking spots available in the plan area. During the peak periods, the majority of these spots are taken.

And many a driver is frustrated at not finding a spot. Given the plans calls for an increase in commercial, office, and civic spaces by 52%, this will only result in a further increase in parking requirements. If you could just wrap up your head, you’re at five minutes and 20 seconds. Okay, in conclusion, I do not believe that Council should accept the plan as drafted until such time as all of these issues are addressed, two council satisfaction.

I would be happy to help answer any questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your thoughts. Next is Tony Nicoletti.

Mr. Chair, the next individual is Paul Orick. I’m sorry. Paul Orick.

Okay, Mr. Orick. Yeah, can you hear me? I can hear you, yes, go ahead.

Okay, some of my points you’re gonna mirror what the last speaker just said. I have two comments on traffic and density. At the corner of Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street, it could be best described as a parking lot. Currently with lower traffic flow from the pandemic, we see less traffic, but as soon as all businesses open back up and shopping resumes at Masonville Mall, it will probably worse than before due to pent up demand.

In the evening, three lanes of traffic going north from Windermere Road to Fanshawe Park is basically dead stopped over two kilometers of bumper to bumper to cars, all stopped from 4 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. every night. On weekends, it shifts to an East West parking lot along Fanshawe Park Road as traffic goes shopping along Fanshawe.

Cars have backed up all the way up the hill to Louise Boulevard on the East side of Richmond and all the way past the Shell gas station on the West side of Richmond. It can only be described as daily chaos. In 2016, I went to a meeting that was hosted by the city, a public information meeting at the retirement home discussing the changes to the intersection up to six lanes and supposedly better turning ability. I repeat, 2016, so how much planning was in before 2016 and since then nothing has been done.

I am told the changes to the BRT shelved the plans because of the LRT that was planned for Richmond Street and it was moved. So here’s a traffic plan discussed on 2016 density numbers, probably planned long before that. So far we have an included a 600 apartment building on Richmond Street. Masonville School is doubled in size with no bus parking or school parking.

Traffic at the corner of Hillside in Richmond is a bottleneck with everybody trying to get out. Canada Trust and Masonville Mall all flow onto Hillside. My comment is the city has not planned on the traffic flow and here we are talking about probably doubling the density of this whole area. My comments on density.

There are at least four properties in this area on Richmond Street that have plans for redevelopment from single family homes to medium density. They’re currently bonusing provisions for higher density. This is known as the developer flip. The guys that currently own it promise to do improvements to get the higher density and then sell it to the new guy that has no intention of honoring the bonusing provisions.

I commend the city that they stop one that went downtown because of that. But this is a known thing, the bonusing flip. If the mall, and there was a developer, I think he said he was from West Dell saying they’re gonna put three apartment buildings by the Best Buy Plaza and then Masonville Mall wants to put three more apartment buildings. We’re talking about 1500 apartments to 7,500 apartments.

There is no plan on moving these people around. We can’t even move what we have now. I think this plan is ill-conceived and should be put on a moratorium to be stopped immediately until the traffic flow has been, the intersection has been built. Traffic flow then monitors on what we have now, let alone doubling the density of the Masonville plan area.

I think this is an ill-conceived plan without the traffic flow being addressed. Nobody from city has talked about traffic flow at all. Thank you for my time. Thank you very much, Mr.

Rourke. So where am I on the list now? ‘Cause I skipped a whole bunch of people, so. Mr.

Chair, we’re on the last member of the public in attendance and it’s Demi Vermeer. I’m sorry, you’re talking about online? Yes, there’s no members of the public in the committee rooms. Okay, so I’m sorry, go ahead.

If I could just get your name because I’m not sure I have it. Hello? Just waiting. Oh, okay, it is the lay run.

Unmute, unmute, they appear to have problems and muting, Chair. Okay, I understand, wait a moment and I don’t wanna close the public participation meeting if there’s someone else trying to speak. They’re not unmuting. There’s Patricia Forrester there.

Chair, we have no other members of the public joining us. Oh, yeah, sorry, Patricia is there. Okay, Ms. Forrester, are you there?

Yes, good evening. I have really nothing to add. I think several previous speakers have spoken to my husband and my concerns. We’ve been in the Masonville area for over 30 years.

Traffic is definitely our main concern. And Mr. Forrec, I believe proposed that a moratorium be put on building the residences until the traffic congestion problem has been fully addressed and solved. That’s all I have to say.

Thank you for your attention, Councillors. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us tonight. Is there anyone else or is that here? Who is that?

Oh, my name is John LaSalle. I work with the Old Masonville Raypears Association. Thank you very much, Mr. LaSalle.

So I’m meeting new people on the telephone all night. It’s great. So I’m gonna ask you to go ahead then and you have five minutes. I’ve been here all night too since 6.15.

Really? That’s funny. I’m sorry for that. I resided 71 Shavian Boulevard and Jane and I have lived here since 1984.

I spent my career in real estate finance with London Life, first in Montreal and then in London. And when Great West acquired London Life, we shook hands and I joined Scotia Bank in Toronto. I’ve been involved with the Old Masonville Raypears Association for too many years, I guess. But principally, my involvement stemmed from an application for a 27, five to six bedroom townhouse development, attached townhouse development on the west side of Richmond, almost across just north of Shavian.

The city approved that application. We went to the OMB, spent a considerable amount of money and lost at the OMB, but all is well, that ends well, in that the applicant was not a real estate developer, but rather a land speculator. An ill-conceived plan that fortunately no London developers opted to acquire from him. And so what we have today now on the site is a new seven-story quality student residence known as Masonville Yards, underground parking, the buildings nicely positioned away from the neighbors on Cherokee, and no balconies to negate noise levels from those balconies and prevent incidents of things like furniture being tossed from balconies similar to what has happened in Toronto.

So this was a win-win for both the neighborhood, being a quality project and for the city in terms of incremental property tax revenue, relative to a 27 unit, five to six bedroom townhouse. We now have almost 300 units and a much more conforming to the existing neighborhood. I think quickly Paul has summarized it best, but there are two fundamental flaws to the plan. One is the height of the proposed development and towers, which make no sense against the existing landscape.

So you’re talking now about a seven-story building, but your offering would allow up to 22 stories across the road, therefore completely disregarding the current conforming environment. And the second, and also a signal issue, is the traffic congestion, particularly at or near the Richmond, Fanshawe intersection with vehicles backed up for a kilometer or more on Richmond, engines idling incessantly, and as well as this negative feature, people get resourceful, motorists get resourceful, and decide how to figure out cut-through patterns in our neighborhood, often at speeds that put pedestrians and children at the risk of injury. We met with the city approximately five years ago, traffic volume measuring was undertaken by Dillon Consulting in 2015. A plan for the Richmond, Fanshawe area was constructed, but sadly, nothing tangibly has ever materialized.

And on an immediate note, our neighborhood has been further aggravated by the significant expansion of the Masonville Public School. Excuse me, you have one minute remaining? That school has almost doubled in size, yet there has been no increase or discernible increase in the number of parking spaces on the site. There’s been no improvement in the access and egress for the incremental school buses that deliver our children.

And there has been no enhancement of the sidewalk or bike path infrastructure in the school area. So that’s our concern. They are, I think, solid and strong objections. And we urge you to revisit the plan and perhaps look at just the impact of the density and the attendant traffic and public transportation infrastructure.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And sorry you had to wait so long to speak to us. Is there anyone else waiting to speak either online or in any of the rooms?

So chair, not that I’m aware of. All right. So I will call once for any more public input, vice. There being none, I will ask for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Moved by Councilor Layman, seconded by Councilor Hillyer. There’s nothing further. I will call the vote. To zero.

All right. So before I send it to committee just approving or disapproving of the plan tonight, where staff has heard all of the feedback from the residents. And so it’s just gonna be to receive and file what they’ve given us and receive and the public input and then there will be not more procedures. So I’ll go first to Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to take this opportunity for thanking the public for hanging in there. I know it’s a late evening but really appreciated hearing all the comments.

As a Councilor that does not represent this ward, I really appreciate the comments hearing about what’s going on in this area as we deal with the draft Masonville secondary plan. I know tonight we are just receiving feedback. In the olden days when we had public participation meetings, we would view the public in the gallery and a lot of them would have written submissions. And I’m just wondering through you, Mr.

Chair, maybe to the clerks, what is the process now if for the community, if they do have written submissions to make sure that they are submitted, I just would like to encourage them to do so. Go ahead, Madam Clerk. Thank you through the chair, I’ll start. And then if Audrey has something to add, I’ll turn the microphone over to her.

For anybody who spoke this evening, those comments are included as part of the report and those are transcribed and are included as part of the report. If there’s something that’s been submitted already, it’s already been passed on to the committee or we’ll be forwarded with the council agenda. Good councilor Oppmann. Yeah, if I may, so if some residents may not have submitted their written submissions, what would be the process that they would take now?

If they wish to submit written comments, they can email it to pec@london.ca or if they want it included to the council agenda. They can also email council agenda@london.ca. I thank you for that. And then I would encourage anyone participating tonight to pass on their comments to be included in the agenda.

Thank you. Thank you very much, councilor. I’m gonna go to councilor Morgan. He’s one of the award councilors involved.

So he has his yellow hand up. So I’m gonna let him go ahead, councilor. Do I call you councilor again, deputy mayor? That’s okay.

We usually sit beside each other. So I call you a lot worse when I’m sitting next to you. But the rest of council can’t hear that. That’s right.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me speak. And I know that this is a meeting where we’re listening to the public because we’re seeking feedback on the plan. But I think, you know, Ms.

Wise and her team have heard some great comments from the public tonight. One of the things that strikes me with this process is probably the need to incorporate at least to, if we’re already doing it in another way, some of the existing plans that are being executed, the traffic issue and the improvements to the Fanshawe and Richmond intersection have come up a couple of times. And as colleagues know, council just initiated the expropriation process to get going on those site improvements to that intersection. And so we are very close to that coming to fruition now.

I know it’s taken longer than most people would have liked, but certainly that’s something still in the queue. And I think important for the public to know is they’re considering their comments on the draft secondary plan. The second thing I’ll say is there’ve been a few comments to say this is a bad plan. We need to throw it out.

And I listened carefully to what John from the Old Mesaville Raypairs Association said about the work. And I was obviously a part of that as the local word counselor for part of the time that that association did with improving the development that you see there today. And what they did was they recognized what was already allowed on the site and they worked towards improvements, including buffering at the back, the balcony issue, the positioning of the building. What is already allowed in this transit village is heights of three to 15 stories everywhere, like everywhere.

And so having a secondary plan that controls where the height and density happens, how high it goes and where it is appropriate, I think is something that the public needs to be very engaged on because controlling the way that it steps down at the neighborhood is important. And having a secondary plan is very important to ensuring that we do not run into the issues that the neighbors are saying they’re concerned about and that we respect the London Plan provisions of stepping down into the neighborhood in a way where it is very clear to the public where height and density will be and where it will not be. So I would suggest to members of the public to not just say throw out the plan, but engage in it and make sure that where the height and density is, you give your feedback on that because right now it’s allowed in a lot more spots. And I think most people realize and certainly not in a way that they would be very comfortable with.

So moving towards getting the secondary plan done sooner rather than later, I think is a good thing to resolve many of the concerns that some have with how this integrates with existing neighborhoods. And there is some stepping down. I think you’ve received some good feedback to our staff tonight on some feedback on the heights both when they’re right and near existing neighborhoods as well as even at the highest density and in the core of the plan. And so I think that that’s been some good feedback and will continue to be.

So those are my comments. I mainly came to listen, but I wanted to share a little bit of that based on the comments from the public tonight. And certainly as one of the two ward counselors, I know Councilor Cassidy will probably speak too. Very happy to continue to hear thoughts on this and try to roll your thoughts into the decision-making process.

But tonight was really about hearing directly from you and there will continue to be opportunities to do so. So thanks to all those who participated tonight. Thank you very much, Councilor Cassidy, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you for recognizing me at your committee. And I share, I believe it was Mr. Ork that spoke about waiting for this item to come up.

I’ve been sitting here as well with my camera off for most of the time. That let me eat at least so that I wasn’t eating on camera. I’m glad that Councilor or Deputy Mayor Morgan made the comments that he did. Those are comments that I often make when I’m speaking about the Masonville secondary plan.

I do share the concerns about were brought up by the residents on phone court. So I will speak further to staff about that on the rationale for including that. And this is a draft that doesn’t mean that that will make it into the final. But I do have those concerns as well as why we would include or add that pedestrian walkway into phone court.

I just want to give staff a little bit of history. And I don’t have the in-depth knowledge that former Councilor and former Mayor Joni Beckler had but she has given me over the years a lot of different briefings on the ward and areas within the ward. And I do know that when the commercial plaza was built on the west side of phone court, there was as went on with the old Masonville repairs association, that sort of work with the developer. There was a lot of work that went on with the residents of phone court and the developer of that commercial plaza to add increased buffering, to add increased distance from the phone court residence.

So I would be concerned when all of that work took place when that development occurred to then sort of take away some of those protections that were put in place for phone court. So yeah, I’m hopeful that the planners have heard those concerns coming from phone court. There are not a lot of homes on that court but those are very real concerns and I would, I’m glad that they were brought up today. It’s important what Deputy Mayor Morgan said and it bears repeating what is allowed within the transit village area that whole dotted line are those tall pipes, those tall buildings.

And I really encourage residents to look at the plan as it shows on the city website. If you need a link to get to that, if you have a hard time finding it on the city website, just send an email to me or to Councilor Deputy Mayor Morgan at our London.ca email addresses and we can send you a link because it’s important to see the colors on the plan and the colors show exactly where the high densities are, where staff are looking to concentrate those higher densities and it’s away from the residential neighborhood areas. And if you see where the approval was given in early 2019 for the tri-car building at the corner of North Center Road and Richmond Street on the northeast corner of North Center Road and Richmond Street, this plan shows that as a medium height area, that area would see medium height buildings and yet what was approved back in 2019 before the existence of a secondary plan was a 15-story building. So it doesn’t match with what staff are hoping to accomplish with this 15-story building.

So what this plan is, and I really wanna make sure people understand, this plan is not the city looking to develop this land. This is not the city building buildings. This is the city concentrating the development as we anticipate development applications coming forward. This is a popular area.

We know people wanna live here, people wanna build here, people wanna shop here. And we heard from an agent for a developer tonight who’s looking to build a taller building than what might be anticipated in this plan. So a secondary plan gives protection to those lower density areas and concentrates that higher density development towards those major arteries. And I’m glad Deputy Mayor Morgan also brought up the improvements that are scheduled for Fanshawe and Richmond.

It has been a long time coming. I think our entire last term of council and part of this term has been slowly going through the process. There had to be an environmental assessment. Those things take time.

We’re getting ready to actually make those improvements now. I recognize that traffic is a serious concern here. And I repeatedly make sure that staff are aware we need some kind of long-term plan for the traffic situation in the area. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you. Mr. Hagen did, I think I missed you.

You wanted to make a comment or offer a place to send input to, I apologize for that. Is there something you wanted to let us know? Yes, through you, Mr. Chair.

I did just want to mention again to the public that this is an open application and Ms. Wise is very happy to take any direct comments. We can organize meetings with your neighborhood associations or individually. And we’re very happy to work through any public comments and public concerns as we move into this next phase of the process.

Thank you very much. Again, sorry, I missed you. I’m not very good yet at picking up the people who want to speak through the hands on the screen, so I apologize. I think the ward counselors, not to cut anybody off, but the ward counselors have done a very good job in stating where we go from here and where they are.

And I certainly appreciate you attending tonight as Chair. You’ve been very helpful as ward counselors, so thank you very much. And if I could just ask, that’s not to say any other committee members can’t speak, but are there any other comments before we move the recommendation, which is just to move the process forward? No, someone prepared to move that recommendation then Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Anything further? We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you very much.

Thank you Councillors for who aren’t on the committee for attending, very much appreciated. We’ll now move on to the next item, which is on the agenda, which is the third report on the London Advisory Committee for Heritage. We did remove item 4.3, and one part of that was moved, but was ultimately defeated in that report. So I think we would move, receive and file the balance of that report, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman.

Any comments? Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. The next matter is the second report of the environmental and ecological planning advisory committee other than we can move to receive and file.

I don’t know if there’s any other things we need to do with that. So I’m gonna prepare to do that. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Once you’re in any further, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. As far as I know, there are no deferred matters or additional business, so I’ll be just be looking for a motion to adjourn. I just wanna thank the committee. I know it’s a late night, but we went through a lot of material in under six hours.

I know that’s a long time, but we did very well tonight, and I appreciate the support I got from the committee. So thank you, and thank you for prompting me when I forget things. Councillor Lewis is gonna move adjournment. Councillor Hopkins is gonna second it.

I’ll go just to hand vote all yay. Again, thank you very much. Have a good evening.