April 19, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM, with Councillor P. Squire in the Chair, Councillor S. Lewis present and all other Members participating by remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   3392 Wonderland Road South - Removal of Holding Provision h-17 (H-9298)

2021-04-19 SR 3392 Wonderland Road South H-9298 REVISED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Wonderland Business Centre Inc. and Old Oak Properties, relating to the property located at 3392 Wonderland Road South, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 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 Light Industrial (h-17LI1LI7) Zone TO a Light Industrial (LI1*LI7) Zone to remove the h-17 holding provision.

Motion Passed

2.3   Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

2021-04-19 SR Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services & Chief Building Official, the staff report dated April 19, 2021 entitled “Annual Report on Building Permit Fees”, with respect to building permit fees collected and costs of administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act and regulations for the year 2020, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.4   Building Division Monthly Report for February 2021

2021-04-19 SR Building Division Monthly Report - February 2021

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

Motion Passed

2.2   Recovery Grant Program

2021-04-19 SR Community Improvement Plans - Recovery Grant Program

2021-04-19 - SR - Community Improvement Plans - Recovery Grant Program-REVISED BY-LAWS ONLY

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the Recovery Grant Program:

a) the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) being “A by-law to amend C.P.-1467-175, as amended, being “A by-law to establish financial incentives for the Downtown Community Improvement Project Areas”, by adding in its entirety Schedule 3 - The Recovery Grant Program Guidelines”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021;

b) the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “B”) being “A by-law to amend C.P.-1468-176, as amended, being “A by-law to establish financial incentives for the Old East Village Community Improvement Project Area”, by adopting in its entirety Schedule 2 - The Recovery Grant Program Guidelines”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021;

c) the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “C”) being “A by-law to amend C.P.-1481-176, as amended, being “A by-law to establish financial incentives for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area”, by adopting in its entirety Schedule 2 - The Recovery Grant Program Guidelines”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021;

d) the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “D”) being “A by-law to amend C.P.-1527-248, as amended, being “A by-law to establish financial incentives for the Hamilton Road Area Community Improvement Project Area”, by adopting in its entirety Schedule B - The Recovery Grant Program Guidelines”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021;

e) the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “E”) being “A by-law to amend C.P.-1539-220, as amended, being “A by-law to establish financial incentives for the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Project Area”, by adopting in its entirety Schedule 2 - The Recovery Grant Program Guidelines”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021;

f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer $6,000 of the $250,000 program funding to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area (BIA) to fund graffiti removal across multiple properties;

g) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer $5,000 of the $250,000 program funding to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area (BIA) to fund graffiti removal across multiple properties;

h)  the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to accept retroactive applications commencing May 4, 2021 if immediate repairs to damage by vandalism are necessary for securing the premises; it being noted that the revised by-laws noted in a) through e) above, provide for retroactive applications to be submitted;

it being further noted that funding for the program is accommodated within the Economic Development Reserve Fund as approved by Municipal Council at its January 12, 2021 meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to add a new part h), which reads as follows:

“the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to accept retroactive applications commencing May 4, 2021 if immediate repairs to damage by vandalism are necessary for securing the premises; it being noted that noted that the revised by-laws noted in a) through e) above, provide for retroactive applications to be submitted;”

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Demolition Request for Dwelling on Heritage Listed Property at 88 Wellington Road

2021-04-19 SR Demolition Request 88 Wellington Road

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the property located at 88 Wellington Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; it being noted that the two stained glass windows pictured in Appendix B of the staff report dated April 19, 2021 should be salvaged prior to the building’s demolition;

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   Demolition Request for Dwelling on Heritage Listed Property at 92 Wellington Road

2021-04-19 SR Demolition Request 92 Wellington Road

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, that the property located at 92 Wellington Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

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)

3.3   Kilally South, East Basin Environmentally Significant Area - 1918 to 2304 and 2005 to 2331 Kilally Road (OZ-9275)

2021-04-19 SR 1918 to 2304 and 2005 to 2331 Kilally Road OZ-9275

2021-04-19 Kilally ESA Revised By-Law Only

Moved by A. Hopkins

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 the City of London relating to the Kilally South, East Basin Environmentally Significant Area (1918 to 2304 and 2005 to 2331 Kilally Road, excluding 2065 Kilally Road):

a)  the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to:

i) change Schedule “A” (Land Use) on the subject lands FROM Urban Reserve Community Growth, Multi Family Medium Density Residential and Environmental Review designations, TO an Open Space designation and FROM Low Density Residential TO an Environmental Review designation;

ii) change Map Schedule B1 (Flood Plain and Environmental Features) TO apply an Environmentally Significant Area delineation to the lands identified as the Kilally South, East Basin Environmentally Significant Area that are designated Open Space as amended above; and,

iii) change Map Schedule B1 (Flood Plain and Environmental Features) TO add Unevaluated Wetlands and Unevaluated Vegetation Patches that are designated Environmental Review as amended above.

b)  the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council after the London Plan maps are in force and effect following the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal Hearings;

i) change the Place Types on Map 1 - Place Types - FROM Neighbourhoods and Environmental Review TO Green Space, and FROM Environmental Review TO Neighbourhood to align with the limits of the Kilally South, East Basin Environmentally Significant Area;

ii) change the Place Types on Map1-Place Types- FROM Neighbourhood TO Environmental Review; and

iii) change Map 5 - Natural Heritage - FROM Potential Environmentally Significant Area, Unevaluated Vegetation Patch TO Environmentally Significant Area; and,

iv) change Map 5- Natural Heritage TO add Unevaluated Wetlands and Unevaluated Vegetation Patches;

c)  the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021 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 an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO an Open Space (OS5) Zone and FROM an Urban Reserve (UR2) Zone and Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone, TO an Environmental Review (ER) Zone; it being noted that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment for the lands located at 2065 Kilally Road will be returned to the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration no later than July 1, 2021;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received communications dated April 15, 2021 and April 16, 2021, from S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments, with respect to these matters;

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 these applications for the following reasons:

● the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features;

● the proposed amendments conform to the policies of the 1989 Official Plan; and

● the proposed amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan.

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. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   2nd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-03-24 TFAC Report - APRIL 19 PEC AGENDA

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on March 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 applications for the properties located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West:

i) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) with the Tree Preservation Plans for the following properties:

  • 1478 Westdel Bourne; and,

  • 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Avenue;

ii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide TFAC with the Tree Preservation Plans for any Notice of Planning Application that is sent to the Committee;

iii) that Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to clarify with the applicant for the above-noted Notice the status of the woodlot located to the east of the turning circle, as illustrated on the Notice;

iv) the above-noted notice, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the Neighbourhood Street Renewal Program:

i) the item BE DEFERRED to the next Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) meeting; and,

ii) D. MacRae, Director, Roads and Transportation, BE INVITED to attend the next TFAC meeting, to provide information regarding the program; and,

c) clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   3rd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-04-07 ACE Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment from its meeting held on April 7, 2021:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the National Earth Day Event and the 2040 Film:

i) Asha Hodura, London Chapter of the International Circular Economy Club, BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment to speak to the above-noted film and the activities of the International Circular Economy Club; and,

ii) the communication, movie poster and discussion questions, as appended to the agenda, BE RECEIVED

b)  a representative of the London Environmental Network BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) to speak to the Green Homes London program; it being noted the ACE held a general discussion with respect to the ACE work plan;

c)  a Working Group BE CREATED to review the Notice of Planning Application, dated March 31, 2021, from C. Parker, Senior Planner, with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to Encouraging the Growing of Food in Urban Areas city wide and report back to the Advisory Committee on the Environment; and,

d)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.3   (ADDED) 4th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-04-14 LACH Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage from its meeting held on April 14, 2021:

a)  a Working Group BE CREATED to review the Notice of Planning Application, dated March 10, 2021, from M. Corby, Senior Planner, with respect to a Notice of Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North, as appended to the Agenda, and the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated January 2021, from Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North, as appended to the Added Agenda, and report back to the May meeting of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage;

b)  on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the property located at 88 Wellington Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; it being noted that the two stained glass windows pictured in Appendix B of the staff report, dated April 14, 2021, should be salvaged prior to the building’s demolition;

c)  on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the property located at 92 Wellington Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

d)  on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval and approval for alterations to the heritage designated property located at 16 Cummings Avenue, within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

  • the existing faux wood shakes on the gables be painted;

  • the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit application to verify consistency with the alterations proposed to the porch; and,

  • front yard parking be prohibited and the front yard restored to landscape;

e)  on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for alterations to the heritage designated property located at 574 Maitland Street, in the East Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

  • exterior grilles be added to the double-hung windows to create a simulated divided lite pattern on the exterior of the windows; and,

  • the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed; and,

f)  clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.3, inclusive, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1 and 4.6, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:12 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 (1 hour, 20 minutes)

Okay, I’m gonna call the Planning and Environment Committee meeting to order. 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 519-661-249 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pack@london.ca.

Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest from the committee? There being none, I will proceed on to the consent matters. I am going to be pulling item 2.2. Are there any other matters that need to be pulled?

If not, then I will put the, do you wanna pull something, Councilor? I need someone to move and second the, the rest of the consent matters moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillyer. Anything comments or questions on any of the other matters? Councilor Hopkins, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanna thank staff for the two reports, the annual report on the building permit fees. It is good to see a reserve fund going up.

I know we’re not where we’re supposed to be yet, but it is important that we build that reserve fund. And I do wanna make a quick comment regarding 2.4 as well with the monthly building division report. I can, as you can see, there’s a lot of applications that are being processed. And I know it’s busy times over at the building division given that they are turning out, I guess 21 applications a day, which is just unbelievable.

So having that reserve fund for opportunities to get more supports in the building vision is very important. So those are my comments. Thank you very much. Any other comments on the consent matters?

There being none, I will call the question. Are we okay or waiting? Councillor Square, I just need you to vote please. So, sorry.

So you have. - Sorry about that. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed five to zero. And I’ll now turn to item 2.2 which has to be pulled, Councillor Layman.

Thank you, Chair. In the recovery grant program structure, it says the program is available to fix or prevent damage related to vandalism. It also says that before work has to be started, the application has to be received and approved. My concern is that if there’s some forms of vandalism that need to be fixed sooner rather than later, through you to staff, how long does it take to get approval on an application?

Someone from staff could address that question, please. Through the chair, based on our current timelines for our loan programs that this recovery grant program is kind of following the structure. We can turn it around pretty quickly. It could be even left a day if the application that comes in is complete and has all the required information and I can make it a priority of mine to review it immediately.

The grant itself once approved can take two to three weeks for the actual check to show up. That would be where the longer delay might be is actually waiting for the physical check to arrive. Through you, Chair. What’s the purpose of requiring an application to be made and approved before getting the repair done?

Like if I was to have like a door smashed in and I went ahead and repaired it immediately to prevent for concern for security and then applied. And it was turned down because of for whatever reason, then I’m on a lock. What is logic behind not granting funding for projects that are already completed? Yeah, through the chair, yep.

So the logic behind that again is this recovery grant program is based on our loan programs, which require staff to review an application. That is really to ensure that what is approved is actually gets done as it’s approved. And I guess it’s one way to put it. This is generally for the larger facade improvements and things like that.

So if somebody’s going to make changes that they actually make those changes as they were approved and we hadn’t provided them money and they then did something else that wasn’t what was approved. If Ms. O’Hag and or anyone would like to offer or elaborate on that, please do so. Is there any other staff, I get the point.

I think what you’ve said is there’s someone who could actually enlarge on that answer. Yes, through the chair, this is Ms. O’Hag. So another reason for receiving an application and approving it beforehand is to ensure that we’re getting two quotes.

So we want these to be competitive bids to ensure that work that’s being proposed is not charged at a rate and to ensure that we have multiple bids to ensure the city’s kind of granting or funding the lower of those bids. So that’s another portion of or another reason why we do have the application and to just elaborate a little bit more in terms of the timeline. So our team is really good at getting things approved very quickly and even in this process, we do have the existing loan structure and that we could also have that sign off more immediately and just amend those agreements to allow for the grant once counsel, if and when counsel approves this in the future. Counselor?

Yeah, again, if I have a window smashed or door smashed, I need to get fixed right away. I don’t know if I have time to go around and getting quotes, a big window could be $1,000, substantial amount of money and there’s not a lot of firms in London that actually do that work. I just don’t want to impede the spirit of this recovery grant program with undue delay. I’ll go to other counselors right now.

I’m just wondering if there is some warning of an amendment that could be done to address this. Counselor Hillier? Thank you, yes. I’m going to go down the same road.

He’s going a little bit. So this is not for emergencies or urgent work. So I’m looking at this and it says, street facing beside windows and beside door replacements. So I’m assuming that’s not damaged by vandalism or other.

But I’m looking farther down the list and it says on page 21, the following fees are not eligible. Non-property related improvements such as hiring of security guards, security guards would have stopped a lot of the damage to begin with. So I think we’re in a circle here. Is it correct that security guards cannot be used?

I’ll pass it on to staff. You mean that you can’t use this money to hire security guards? That’s the question. I, if staff would like to just say yes or explain it.

Through the chair, you would not be able to hire things like security guards. Community Improvement Plans, through the Planning Act wouldn’t allow that. These community improvement plans are designed for more permanent and physical changes to buildings such as replacing a door or fixing a window, but it would not be for hiring staff. Councillor.

Thank you. It just seems like we’re gonna go in a circle ‘cause we’re not gonna stop the damage and we’re gonna keep going back to the program. Anyone else have any comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a question about these bylaws that we are going to be recommending tonight regarding supports for financial incentives to the five areas in our city that have CIPs. I do have one in my area in Lambeth.

And we do not have, as far as I know, a BIA or an active business group at the moment. And part of the challenge, I think, when we bring forward these incentive programs, there’s a lack of information in the community is my concern, especially if you do not have a BIA. And I do have a question through you to staff about how the city will be sharing this information with the community. I think we do need to do some advocacy.

I know I’m doing it as the Councillor of my ward, but wanted to know what the plans are for the city to get this information out to the businesses. Yeah, through the chair. So staff considered how to advertise and provide notification about the grants today. So we intend to work with communication staff and we will be reaching out to them soon to help provide targeted communication to not just the two areas that don’t have a BIA, but all five CIP areas where the recovery grant might apply or will apply, and that is two and four owners and tenants of the recovery grant program after Council considers PEC’s decision on this report.

So this notification will likely include probably at a minimum of mail-out to property owners and tenants to share information on the new grant. But I hope working with the communication staff, we’ll also be able to see what other options are available, maybe social media, or if there’s a community association that business owners are also involved in, that maybe through their newsletter. We do recognize that uptake of the program in the areas without a BIA may be slower. So that is one of the reasons why we did set aside a certain amount of funding to all CIP areas, just to ensure equal access to that grant.

So if it takes a little longer for Lambethan, so who don’t have the BIA to, you know, to learn about the program, they’re not gonna lose it on the funding just because the other three areas do have that BIA. Thank you. Thank you. Give a follow-up, Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, I thought I may, Mr. Chair, and I am having problems with my internet too. So please forgive me here if I tend to disappear. I do think it’s really important that we at the city try to do our uttermost in supporting all CIPs.

Obviously, I’m glad to hear, landlords and tenants will be getting notices, but it further mailouts or supports too so whole, for instance, and to Lambeth to get that word out. I think it’s extremely important. I have found with my experience a lot of businesses that have no idea what’s going on. I like the idea of getting in touch with community groups, Facebook pages as well is also important, but there has to be that emphasis in getting the word out to all businesses in the city of London, especially those that do not have the BIA.

So just wanna make those comments and thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And through you, I just wanna share some comments with colleagues and I am gonna support this. That said, you know, and I say this respectfully through you, Mr. Chair, to Councillor Hill, you’re just like our own budgets operating costs can’t be covered by capital and it’s the same sort of situation here. This is much more of a capital grants program, but I also wanted to say that as much as it’s important to be supporting business recovery, I also wanna note that not every area that has a BIA currently has a CIP.

There are other groups who are doing this kind of work as well and they’re having to do it on their own dime. The ARGA LBIA has a graffiti removal, which is one of the recommended expenditures in this report is doing graffiti removal out of their members own levy. Likewise, they have actually contracted a security service to help provide some security measures to BIA business members in the ARGAIL area. There needs to be a community partnership here.

I’m glad to hear Councillor Hopkins saying, you know, she’s doing her part to get the word out. I think all of us on council have a responsibility to get the word out in our areas and to other community partners that we may know. While none of the businesses in ward two will be able to access this, I do have connections in other parts of the city and I will be sharing this information with them as well to make sure that where they’re eligible, they’re able to do so. So I’m gonna support this, but I just wanted to make those comments and remind colleagues that this is not a magic wand that’s going to fix everything.

And we do need those private sector businesses involved with some skin in the game themselves. Thank you, Mayor Holden. Thanks, thanks very much, Chair. I’m going to support this fully.

You know, it’s when this was first brought to council, one of the things that it was intended to be was for the downtown area. And there was some concern and was extended beyond that. And so it was my feeling that this needed to be increased somewhat, that was turned down and that’s fine. But you know what?

I recall a time, I’ll say this to Councillor Lewis, when I was in a different level of politics and we spent some time cleaning graffiti in his ward of some underpass type, I’ll say, pedestrian town. And that was us coming together as a community. And I thought that was us at our best. Not that the job I did was particularly good, but it’s the spirit of it.

And you know, I think your point that while it’s not quite capital, it’s not intended to be for people. It’s and staffing, it’s intended to be for a project work. And so I want to applaud our staff as they put this together, because again, what is this all about? It’s all part of what we call recovery.

And part of that recovery is confidence. And part of that confidence is making various areas in our city, well, not the whole city, but in various areas in our city more livable. And I think that’s, I think it makes a great statement and we need to support our businesses. So the fact it was extended beyond the original downtown, I applaud that and supported that, had wished it had been more, but nonetheless, I think this is a great start.

I think this will be as the senior levels of government say subscribe to fairly quickly and over subscribe. So for those that want to get, encourage their businesses, especially those in most need to get in first, I think that would be useful that I am prepared to endorse it. Councillor Layman, go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. I’m just gonna circle back. I’ve had a chance to whip up a quick amendment here to address my concern of immediate repairs for vandalism due to concern, security concerns. I sent it to the clerk and hopefully she can, forward to everyone.

I’ll just read it, it’s a quick sentence. Retroactive applications will be permitted if immediate repairs to damage by vandalism are necessary for security of premises. All right, that’s pretty clear. So I’m gonna prepare to second that.

I think Councillor Lewis is prepared to second that. So this is an amendment and I’ll open the floor for, let’s say comments, not speeches on the amendment. Councillor Hopkins. Sorry, Mr.

Chair, the mayor’s hand was up before mine. Oh, it’s fine, you go ahead. Okay, so I recognize you, Councillor. Thank you.

I just didn’t want to step in the way there. I do want to speak to the amendment then and not having seen it. I’m just kind of going by what I’ve heard. And that is immediate or retroactive.

I just need to know a little bit more specifics about this motion. And I would like, through you Mr. Chair, to go to staff with any concerns that they may have. If we can do this, this is going through a community improvement plan.

And from what I understand, this recommendation is dealing with the programs that are already existing in these CIPs and they may be different in each CIP, but it’s extending the programs that are already existing. So I just need clarification if indeed we can do that. Maybe I can help you first on clarifying and Councillor Layton will correct me if I’m wrong. I think what he’s saying is if there’s something, some damage to the vandalism that needs immediate repair, in those situations people could apply retroactive to the repair and it would still be approved.

And just those situations where people cannot wait to do a repair, obviously, because of weather and security and other issues. If Councillor Layton, if that’s wrong, you can let me know. Otherwise that’s what I think it is, it says. You’re correct, Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor. I’d like to understand.

On the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor. Okay, Councillor. Thank you, thank you for that clarification.

But I just want to get through the chair to staff on their comments. Yeah, sorry about that. I just forgot that as Councillor Layton spoke. Go ahead, Scott.

Through the chair, Mr. Barrett speaking. One of the issues with the retroactivity is that the repairs have to be eligible repairs. I’ll give you a quick example.

If it’s a designated heritage structure within a heritage conservation district, usually a heritage alteration permit is required. And this would not allow it to be able to go for that purpose. I understand what it is that the Councillor is trying to achieve, but as Councillor Hopkins noted, this is built on our existing programs. The notion of retroactivity is in fact one that has been in place since any of the city’s financial incentive programs have come forward because it’s always been, want to ensure that what is being applied for meets the purpose of what the program is for.

And then secondly, to ensure as Ms. Ohegan noted, we get two quotes so that we’ve always provided the grant or the loan based on the lower of the two quotes. The last thing that I just wanted to add is then a lot of these situations, and I understand again what the Councillor is coming from, it would be emergency repairs that would be done. So in most instances, you’re not going to get the new window or the new glass immediately.

They would likely hoard until they were able to get that. So I don’t know that there’s in fact going to be that big a gap between actually making the application for the repairs and actually being able to let them know that the application has been approved. But we’re in the committee’s hands, but there are some significant concerns around retroactivity and what where staff may be, if in fact a repair has been made that wouldn’t be an eligible repair. It might have been, seem to have been related to some vandalism or it might have been something on vandalism that in fact is not an eligible repair.

So that’s the one concern that we do have on the retroactivity. Yes, go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, if I can do a follow up. I appreciate staff’s comments ‘cause I find community improvement plans are unique to every area.

They’re not all sort of blanket across an interest. I appreciate Councillor Lehman’s concerns about how to get the supports there for vandalism. Is there an opportunity? Or what would the process be for a business owner if he has found that he has had a broken window?

Are there any, is there any opportunity within this program for supports there? Yeah, through the chair that again, because these are tried to community improvement plans, they’re very specific. These are long-term capital improvements. It is a repair or in this instance, it would be a replacement or the fixing up of damage that would be a permanent repair.

So it’s not intended for sort of the quick fix. That’s what I’m saying. Like the hoarding or the temporary plywood would not be something that is intended to be covered under this. The final impermanent replacement and repair is what would be intended to be covered under this program.

And thank you for that. And I can think of one situation in my ward that there are repairs through vandalism and nothing’s being done at the moment. And obviously that business owner wouldn’t be able to apply for it through the CIP, the LAMPATH program incentives that exist in the CIP. So thank you for that clarification.

And I appreciate the conversation here. Mayor Holder. Thanks very much. First to Councillor Lehman who’s put the, I don’t see the, because I’m on Zoom and I don’t have access to the amendment.

Can you clarify what you meant when you added the word security into your amendment? What was that intended to be, please? Well, if like this is not a, sorry chair, I kind of went off, my okay to speak chair. Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, I guess if a door gets kicked in or a window smashed, it opens your premises for security. And so I guess I was trying to narrow it down as much as possible to reflect staff’s concern and concerns about the program in general that this is, it’s a really limit the scope of where people could retroactively apply for compensation or for help. If it’s a security issue, which in case a door or a window is, you have to move fast and sometimes plywood doesn’t do it, plywood will do it for maybe overnight, but you got to put us in there immediately or get the door fixed immediately. To secure your premises than your business for the next day.

So that’s the intention by adding security. So chair, go ahead. Yeah, so thank you, Councillor. So chair, through you to Mr.

Barrett. Is this designed to accommodate responses to criminal activity or is this intended to be proactive response to facades and improving the look of old buildings putting in certain attractions to the features of a property to make it more attractive? Could you help me with that a little bit? Go ahead, stop.

Thank you, through the chair. And actually I would refer you to page 15 and this is to increase the funding for the existing programs. But page 15 provides a little bit of the rationale. So it’s to reduce the financial burden when making modifications to private property because of increased health and safety requirements.

It’s available to assist with exterior property modifications to improve facades, to increase the visual attractiveness and to fix or prevent damage related to vandalism. So it’s a little bit of both. It’s a proactive to undertake some facade improvements and increase the curb appeal. Make some proactive changes that might prevent damage related to vandalism.

And then lastly, to fix damage that might arise as a result of vandalism. So can I be able to jump in with anything else if I’ve missed anything? That’s okay, again, did you have anything else? No chair, nothing to add there.

Thank you. Mayor, are you finished or do you have something else? No, I’ve never finished chair. So there’s a lot of work that we tried to put into this for a $250,000 piece.

And so maybe through you to Mr. Barrett one final time, what can you be more explicit if this amendment was to go through? What is the concern about it? Is it because of the, what I’m sensing is the counterintuitive intention of other programs that are currently in place?

Just help me with that. And just respond as well to me for my benefit please. The issue around retroactivity because that seems to be a sticking point on this as well. Mr.

Barrett. Thank you. Through the chair, I’ll go to the first part first. I guess the example I gave is that it’s to ensure that it fully met all the program requirements.

And as I indicated in some of these areas, it could be within Heritage Conservation District. And depending on the nature of the works, a heritage alteration permit may be required. That may not always be the case, but very often where there’s a facade improvement, a heritage alteration permit may be required. So that we like to make sure that that process is being done and we can run those processes concurrently.

As Mr. Bailey said, we recognize the importance of this. This is a recovery program. So this is something we need to do immediately.

The whole notion of the retroactivity is that, again, we like to, well, we like to, the program’s always been set up such that it’s, we know what the works are going to be when you make the application. And we know what the basis is when that application’s done, it’s not to improve something that pre-existed before the condition. If I may one suggestion, if the committee feels that it’s important to allow for these retroactive would be to set a back date so that it would in fact be not retroactive beyond when it is that this committee or council makes their decision so that we know it’s sort of a go forward. So we’re not dealing with conditions that might have already occurred or some other date like that that might deal with the retroactivity.

So Chair, finally, I mean, if Councillor Lehman was comfortable with that, that as of council, I mean, I don’t know how we can approve anything that exists prior to council’s approval regardless, but if that were the case and you could get to the point where it would be effective as from the approval date of council, I could support it. If not, I’m struggling with it, I must tell you. That’s it for me, thanks. Okay, I’m gonna ask Councillor Lehman, you’re already all right with that limitation on retroactivity being added.

Definitely. All right, anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I won’t be supporting the amendment and I appreciate Councillor Lehman’s amendment though.

I think it’s something that is important, but as we can see in the recovery grant program structure, there’s already opportunities to fix and prevent damage related to vandalism and I’m not really sure what this amendment will do. And my concerns around proactive are, is it proactive or retroactive? Sorry, is very concerning regardless if you’ve got a timeline on it or not. We’re not talking about a lot of money here and I know CIP programs, the reason they exist is that a lot of work went into them and loan programs were developed through that process.

There’s a reason why we have CIPs and I don’t think we really should start to, I guess, pick away at the process that was already undertaken. We do have programs that exist and we’re just expanding on them and there is room for what Councillor Lehman is proposing as well, so I won’t be supporting the amendment even though I appreciate where it’s coming from. All right, Mayor, did you want to speak again? You’re on mute.

Makes it harder to speak, thank you, Chair. Do you know in insurance, we used to do something called coordination of benefits. You can listen, Councillor Squire, you don’t have to get it, but here’s the thing. If there’s a program already in place, then that might preclude the need, obviously preclude the need for this and if it’s the first payer or the payer, then does that not solve part of this challenge?

Is that a question, Mr. Chair? I don’t have a question to Mr. Bear.

Or for staff? Mr. Bear. Please.

Oh, Mr. Bear. Go ahead, Mr. Bear.

I’m sorry, I’m not familiar enough. I apologize with sort of the insurance terminology as to— Councillor Squire is, he can respond to that, I’m sure. You all it means, Chair, I’m not sure. I’m not sure why you would want me to respond to your question.

I’m not a member of staff and I’m not going to respond to your question, I’m sorry. Yeah, I’m sure you won’t. So if I might please. All it means in this kind of a system, Mr.

Bear, if there’s another program that pays, it takes precedence over this program here. So if as Councillor Hopkins indicated, there was already a program currently in place, then ours does not want respond and therefore you don’t have an issue. So you coordinate the program. So it’s basically an exclusion, if you will.

I don’t know if that solves your problem or not, Mr. Bear. In terms of overlap or confusion about other programs. If they exist, this doesn’t pay.

Go ahead, Mr. Bear. Thank you, through the chair. Those other loan programs, the existing loan programs are already in place and they sort of cover much the same thing.

So this was above and on top of those. So I’m not too sure how that would work. I think the only way the exclusion would work given that the mayor noted insurance is that the insurance would pay first and then we would pay. I’m not too sure that that’s the ladder that we’re trying to get into on these programs.

Through the chair, I’m trying to, this is not a solemn in response, just trying to find an accommodation that if there’s already a current program that’s in place, it becomes the payer. If it’s the payer, obviously we aren’t, you don’t double pay. In which case, any of those that would apply for vandalism, damage, whatever, and there’s a program in place already, then one of the exclusions under this contract or under this program would be that if they initiate the process, we don’t play or pay. I’m trying to make it simpler, but I thought that was simple.

That does need a response to. Okay, anybody else wants to speak on the amendment? Councilor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I’m sorry, I just need to get some clarification through you from our staff with regard to the mayor’s suggested amendment to the amendment in terms of the coming into force after the approval of council and the retroactivity. Through you, were staff suggesting that nothing retroactive pre-council approval, or was there a suggestion? And if I misheard, Mr.

Barrett, I apologize, but the way I was hearing him, it was a suggestion that the retroactive eligibility should be limited to a certain timeframe, i.e. retroactive within 30 days of the repair or something like that for the application to come in. So I’m just looking through you for some clarity on that. Mr.

Barrett? Through the chair, my response was more tied to the first, which was that council would essentially set a date by which they would accept applications and anything that had occurred before that date would be considered to not be eligible. But as Councilor Lewis, I believe has noted, that’s not gonna still deal with the issue of retroactivity because if, to the point that Councillor Layman was making, somebody, a property has incurred some damage and they want to get it fixed right away and they go ahead and fix it and then make the application. Even if they did that after council approved this, that would still be considered a retroactive application.

And under the guidelines would not be eligible. I mean, I could also, I guess, remind council that under all of your programs, there is a process whereby we bring forward. So we essentially take it out of the administrative approval and four projects that we would suggest would be eligible but we’re retroactive. We have brought those before the committee and council.

So in other words, we’ve said, these don’t meet the administrative guidelines for our approval, but it’s a retroactive application that there may be merit in the application and at that point, committee and council can deal with it. So again, that’s not going to completely address Councillor Layman’s concern on the immediacy of it that the person’s gonna know, I can get this fixed and I’m still gonna get my money. It’s going to say, well, I get this fixed. I then would have to bring forward a retroactive application and it would come before committee.

That’s another option that exists already in our programs. It becomes a little cumbersome, but it is there. Council. Okay, thank you for that, Mr.

Barrett. It was very helpful to hear that and understanding that you were talking to the first option is helpful. I would not want to put a business owner through a situation where they have to wait one or potentially more cycles of committee and council before knowing whether or not they were going to get a grant for a repair that they had to undertake, which is why with the amendment that the mayor has suggested to the councilor’s original proposal, I’m gonna continue to support this. I understand Councilor Hopkins’ concern about their programs in place and being reluctant to take her with them.

But I would say, you know, again, we are in a pandemic situation and this is a recovery grant program. It’s not exclusively a CIP grant program. It was built on those, but I think that there does need to be some room for flexibility. And as Mr.

Barrett noted, there can be some complications in terms of moving forward with regard to things like heritage alteration permits. I don’t think that this would change the eligibility if you didn’t meet the heritage alteration permit. You’re not going to be approved anyway. So I think, you know, there are some other checks and balances in here, but I can see in the recovery period, there being a need for urgency.

And as much as it’s great to hear that staff say, in some cases, they might be able to turn it around as quick as a day. You know, might is a great intention, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be able to happen that way. I don’t presume to or assume to say that staff wouldn’t do their very best, but sometimes there are barriers to that being the reality. So I think a little bit of flexibility here is valuable.

I’m going to support it with the clause that retroactivity applications are only eligible after the period at which council has approved this. So I hope others will as well. And it’s been an interesting discussion. Thanks.

Anybody want else wish to speak just to the amendment at this point in time? You’ll have a chance again to speak to the motion itself. Okay. Is it possible to get the wording in front of counselors with the change that the mayor suggested?

So it should be on the screen that retroactive applications be permitted if immediate repairs to damage by vandalism are necessary for security of premises as of May 4th, 2021. Okay, thank you. Anything further, counselor? All right, call the vote on the amendment.

Carol, vote yes. I’ve been informed that this passes. We’re going to need amended by-law. So I’m supposed to ask staff how long that’s going to take.

Is this in the concern of whether it’ll be available for council or all right, can staff help with that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can work with clerks to amend the by-law.

Thank you very much. And that carries five to one. We’ll go to the main motion as amended. Anybody else wish to speak?

And I turn the chair over to the vice chair for one second. I have the chair. Go ahead, counselor, squire. Thank you very much.

I know people are extolling what a great program this is and how it will help people. I just want to say I didn’t support it initially because it provides no benefit to the ward that I represent, which is ward six. And it was, we were not included in this and I spoke strongly about it. So that being said, I’ll accept that this is the method of being it being done, but certainly I want, I want to repeat that because it’s extremely important to me.

Thank you. I have no one else on the list and I’ll return the chair back to the chair. Thank you very much. And is there anything further?

Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, I just want to follow up with what the mayor spoke about the importance of this being a city wide recovery initiative throughout CIP programs. I think that is very, very important to note here. And I, you know, as much as I didn’t support the amendment, I don’t think there was any reason to do it or I don’t think we should complicate this recovery process.

I will be supporting it moving forward because I cannot not support it. It’s that simple, it is an important program. I appreciate what Councillor Squire said, but for areas in the city of London that have these community improvement plans and a lot of work went into developing them and making them happen, they are important to the community. And for that, I will always be supportive as CIP.

So those are just my thoughts and I know this will be going to council as well. Thank you. Anything further? All right, I’ll call the vote.

Chair, I will vote yes. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I need a mover and seconder of the main motion. That’s my vote.

Move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. I’ll call the vote. Chair, I’ll still vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Moving on to the schedule items. The first item is a public participation meeting related to a demolition request for dwelling at 88 Wellington Road. I will need a motion to open the public participation meeting open by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman. Anything further on that?

Then I’ll call the question. Sorry, Chair, as we do, are we considering schedule items 3.1 and 3.2 together through this? Or are you doing them separately? Separately, thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, staff report, please. Good afternoon. This is Kyle Ganyu heritage planner.

The demolition request for 88 Wellington Road is for a heritage listed property. This listed in 2017 as a recommendation of the latch arising from the cultural heritage screening report prepared for rapid transit. The building at 88 Wellington Road was built in 1907 and it’s a one and a half story residential structure demonstrating influences of the queen and revival architectural style. A cultural heritage evaluation report was prepared as part of the Wellington 35 group share using the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906.

The property, the evaluation found that the property did not meet the criteria for designation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. The stewardship subcommittee was previously consulted and the latch consulted at its meeting last week with their report as item 4.3 on the added agenda. Notice was also sent out to property owners within 120 meters and one inquiry was received. The recommendation before you tonight is to remove the property at 88 Wellington Road from the register of cultural heritage resources allowing the demolition to proceed but with a recommendation to salvage the stained glass windows prior to the building’s demolition.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any technical questions at this point in time? There being none, I will look for any public participation.

I’m not sure if there is any, just checking. Public waiting to speak. All right, thank you very much. So I will look for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. There’s nothing further, I’ll call the vote on that. Sure, I’ll vote yes. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, we can, unless there’s some discussion or questions, we’ve been seconded this and then we can have any additional discussion. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any comments or questions?

Councillor Hopkins? Yeah, I’m happy to move it. I know we are receiving a latch report at the end of this meeting. There is reference to the two properties and latch supporting the demolition.

So I appreciate that in the report. I think it’s important to note that. The other thing, I just had a quick question about the stained glass windows. What happens to them?

Where are they kept or what’s the process? Mr. Gania. Thank you and through the chair.

It’s a recommendation really to try to save those elements that are of value and can be used elsewhere. The city, however, is not involved in storing or finding future uses for those. It’s really not an identification in the demolition to ensure that those futures don’t end up in a landfill. As I’m sure many would recognize, there’s a market and appetite for those futures to find better homes than a landfill.

Thank you, anything further, Councillor? Anything further, questions, comments? I will call the question. Sure, I will, yes.

Will closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. We’ll move on to, which is a public participation meeting with relation to 92 Wellington Road. Need a motion to open the public participation meeting, moved again by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman. Anything further on that?

There being none, I will call the question. I’ll vote yes, chair. Councillor Lewis, please. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Mr. Gania, I assume you’re going. Yes, thank you, chair. The property at 92 Wellington Road was also added to the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources in 2017, rising from a recommendation of a latch during the Rapid Transit Project.

The building at 92 Wellington Road is a one-story residential structure built in 1949. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report was completed for the property following the TPAP, Transit Project Assessment Process, where the property was evaluated using the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906. The evaluation found that the property did not meet the criteria for designation. The stewardship subcommittee was previously consulted, and the latch consulted at its meeting on April 14th, with the latch’s comments in their report as item 4.3 of the agenda.

Notice was sent out to property owners within 120 meters, and one inquiry was received. The recommendation before you is to remove the property at 92 Wellington Road, from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources to allow the demolition to proceed. Thank you. Thank you, if there’s not any questions or comments initially, perhaps someone can move and second this, moved by Councillor Layton, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Questions, comments, please? There being none, I will call the question. Trouble, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Thank you very much. We’ll now go to item three participation meeting with regards to Kalia. Sorry, Mr. Chair.

That was to close the public participation. Oh, well then I’m way ahead of everyone. Is someone prepared to move the recommendation? Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded, by Councillor Lehman, and then we’ll have discussion.

This is on the main motion. Someone wish to speak on that? Call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Thank you very much. Item three, public participation meeting with regards to Kalei South East Base and environmentally significant area. And there are some changes, I think, to what was originally proposed. So I just thought Mr.

Barrett explained those before we go to the public participation meeting. Thank you, through the Chair. What we’ve put in front of you on the added agenda for the purpose of the committee and the public is a revised recommendation and then the revised by-law. Quite simply, the only difference in the recommendation is that it makes explicit reference to the property located at 2065 Kalei Road.

And it excludes that property from these by-laws. And then the three by-laws that were attached were just clarified to indicate that that property is not included within this. We brought that forward because that should address any issues or concerns that the committee might have with respect to referring the matter back to address the concerns of the property owner at 2065 Kalei Road. I can advise the committee that that property is part of a group of appeals from Auburn related to the London Plan.

And we are prepared to speak with the property owners to address the concerns that they’ve noted in their communications to you. So for that reason, we’ve brought forward the amended recommendation and by-laws that would exclude that property. And with that, if the committee requires any further information, Mr. Smith is available to provide a presentation at the committee’s call.

Thank you very much. We’ll deal with that in public participation then. So I need a motion to open the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Mayor Holder.

Anything on that? Then we’ll call the vote. Sure, well, yes. Thank you.

Close in the vote. The motion carries six to zero. All right. Craig Smith, Senior Planner, this is a report on Kalei South East based environmental significant area.

I did provide a set of slides with the added added agenda that you can follow along with. The next slide shows the area of the proposed or of the study area for the EIS and the EA that occurred on the site. It’s a area that’s located on the east and west side of Clark Road, south of the river, and essentially halfway up the concession line off of Kalei Road in the area that hasn’t been yet developed. Environmental impact or department assessment has occurred on the site to deal with the storm water management for the area.

Through that EA process, Council had recommended that staff initiate the Official Plan and Visiting By-law amendment to implement any of the recommendations in the required EIS for the municipal class environmental assessment, which this amendment is. And the next slide is the location of the ESA boundaries and other features. In this slide, it shows the extent of the ESA, which is primarily, which is essentially south of the river north of Kalei. It’s shown on the map here as a pink line.

It is the original ESA is the hatched yellow line. So there are areas that are being included that were excluded from the ESA boundary prior to that. Also on the map, they show features that have not been evaluated fully, but should have evaluation further through the development process. Those features include wetlands north of Kalei and an unevaluated vegetation areas on the south side of Kalei Road as well as a couple of wetland features.

The amendments themselves, the amendments still to schedule A, which is the next slide, is from the low density residential and multifamily media residential to environmental review and from open space to environmental review as well. So there is some locations. The attempts to have the environmental review to identify the features in the EIS so that they will have further study as such time comes forward. Schedule B itself has been amended and the amendment is to include the unevaluated wetlands that were located through the EIS and to amend for the ESA boundary to match the EIS boundary as is delineated through the environmental impact study as well.

And also the vegetation patch is identified as unevaluated and requiring further study. The next map, one of the London plan reiterates the official plan, but it just is for the London plans, the designations, and they also go from neighborhood to environmental review and neighborhood and green space also to environmental review, noting the features as they were attached or as they were brought forward through the environmental impact study. Map five to the London plan has also been amended, once again, to ensure that the ESA boundary that has been delineated and demonstrated through the EIS is shown and is protected to the features within the ESA and also to place the unevaluated wetlands as were identified and the unevaluated vegetation patch as was identified onto the maps for further review. The zoning map itself shows the extent of the zones, shows the locations of the ER, a designation and the ER designation is for those unevaluated patches and unevaluated wetlands to ensure that once again, that prior to development on the site, that there will be further environmental impact studies done to determine the actual significance of these features.

Also, the OS five zone has been applied to the whole of the ESA. The OS five is the most prescriptive zone that requires that has the only conservation uses allowed within that zone zoning and will protect the features as identified in the environmental and significant area through the environmental impact study. So finally, the amendments beat the intent of section 2.1 of the provincial policy. It meets the intent of the official plan and the London plan.

The amendments to the zoning lands will protect that open, will protect the ESA for conservation uses only and the proposed amendments represent good planning and are an appropriate use of the lands. That’s my report. Thank you very much. Any technical questions only?

There are being none then. We will go to see if there’s any submissions from the public. Mr. Chair, there’s no members of the public waiting to speak to this matter.

All right, thank you very much. I’ll just bring a half to bring a motion in the close of public participation meeting. I need a mover, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by someone I’m hoping, Mayor Holder, anything further than I’ll call the question. Sure, I’ll vote yes.

Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Questions or comments from some correspondence from Auburn Developments. I assume that’s been addressed by the amendment but perhaps I’m wrong.

But any questions, comments from the committee? Someone prepared to move the recommendation? Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any further questions or comments?

Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanna thank staff for bringing this forward as quickly as they did.

I think it’s an important feature and acknowledging the importance of this feature is something that I’m very supportive. I’m glad to hear that staff and the applicant at the area that we removed from the ESA is gonna continue the conversations with one another. I think it’s really important that we put the highest zoning in this area in the land use and as it was seen through the EIS and really understanding the high quality and natural area that exists in the Kalei area and the significant habitat and the biodiversity and the importance of protecting this important feature is something that I’m very supportive of doing. So I’m also wanna just acknowledge the fact that it does support the amendments that we’re making goes in line with the provincial policy statement and the 1989 official plan as well as the London plan.

So happy to move it. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair. We had recently a lively debate on metal lily and I was wondering if staff could educate me on their thinking of why metal lily was deemed appropriate to have townhouses built in that area where this piece of property in their view needs to be protected and not have development on.

It would just help me in kind of understanding the planning process. Thank you, someone from staff address that, please. Through the chair, maybe I can take a quick stab at that. That’s not the nature of the application that’s before us this evening.

This application is one that’s which is very similar to something that we brought forward a metal lily last year, which is as a result of environmental work that’s done. It’s a confirmation of the limits of the environmentally significant area. So that’s what’s in front of the committee today is to confirm the limits of the ESA. This isn’t a development application where there would be application policies to see whether or not the application of those policies that would provide for the development adjacent to an ESA would apply.

That’s not what was considered in bringing this forward to this evening. This was merely to bring forward the recommendations that arose from the EIS work that was done for the environmental assessment that confirmed both the limits of the environmentally significant area and then identified other features for further evaluation. Thank you. Anything further from committee?

This matter has been moved and seconded, I will call the vote. John Wood, yes. Thank you. Closing the vote.

The motion carries six to zero. Moving to items for direct. That was the second report of the trees and forest advisory committee. I don’t know if there’s any questions or comments, otherwise we can move to receive the report.

Move, are you moving it, Councillor? Yeah, move to receive and file. I need a seconder. Councillor Layman, anything further?

I’ll call the vote. Truly. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed six to zero. Next matter, 4.2 is the committee on the environment.

It’s another report. Is there a subject to any comments or questions about the committee report? Just need a motion to receive and file. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

Anything further? I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And the last report is the Committee on Heritage, which contained the recommendations with regards to the two properties we discussed earlier.

So subject to any questions or comments. I just need a motion to receive and file. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any comments or questions?

And I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And I’m not aware of any deferred matters or additional, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for recognizing me. I just want to make a quick comment about the Urban Design Awards that I understand are the, they’re opening up the requests. I think April the 18th. And I was part of the awards a couple of years ago and I’m just so pleased that the City of London does these awards and it was quite interesting to be part of that process where we at planning here see the applications and see that process but never really see that final result.

And it’s really quite an exciting awards opportunity for us to acknowledge the great, the buildings from small buildings to large buildings to last time there was a People’s Choice Award and it really is a great opportunity to see the buildings as they come about and celebrate them. So I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Not aware of any other matters unless anyone has something then I’ll just need someone to move and second adjournment moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillyer and we can just do a hand vote please. Thank you very much everyone and have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Thanks, good night.