April 26, 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 2.2 to 2.6, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road - W-3 Farms Subdivision - Phase 1 - Special Provisions (39T-17503-1)

2021-04-26 SR 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road - W3 Subdivision - 39T-17503-1

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 W-3 Lambeth Farms Inc,. for the subdivision of lands bounded by Bostwick Road to the east and Colonel Talbot Road to the west; mid-block between Pack Road and the planned Kilbourne Road extension; it being noted that the subject sites, approximately 53.0 ha (130.9 ac) in size, are generally described as Part of Lots 74 and 75, Concession East of the North Branch of Talbot Road (Westminster):

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and W-3 Lambeth Farms Inc., for the W-3 Farms Subdivision, Phase 1 (39T-17503) appended to the staff report dated April 19, 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 April 26, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

d) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.

Motion Passed

2.3   3493 Colonel Talbot Road (H-9284)

2021-04-26 SR - 3493 Colonel Talbot Road

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by York Developments, relating to the property located at 3493 Colonel Talbot Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” 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 Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-8(5)/R1-8(8)) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-8(5)/R1-8(8)) Zone to remove the “h and h-100” holding provisions.

Motion Passed

2.4   1635 Commissioners Road East and 2624 Jackson Road - Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-06507)

2021-04-26 SR 2624 Jackson Road 1635 Commissioners Rd E

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by Drewlo Holdings Inc., relating to the lands located at 1635 Commissioners Road East and 2624 Jackson Road, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision SUBJECT TO the conditions appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” (File No. 39T-06507).

Motion Passed

2.5   2015 Shore Road - Removal of Holding Provisions (H-9251)

2021-04-19 SR 2015 Shore Rd

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to lands located at 2015 Shore Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” 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 Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R7 Special Provision (h-h-206- R6-5(42)/R7(22)-D115-H30) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R7 Special Provision (R6-5(42)/R7(22)-D115-H30) Zone to remove the h and h-206 holding provisions.

Motion Passed

2.6   3924 - 4138 Colonel Talbot Road - Heathwoods Subdivision - Phase 2 - Special Provisions (39T-12503-2)

2021-04-26 SR 3924-4138 Colonel Talbot Road - Heathwood Subdivision 39T-12503-2

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 Auburn Developments Inc., for the subdivision of land over situated on the east side of Colonel Talbot Road, north of Lambeth Walk, municipally known as 3924-4128 Colonel Talbot Road:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Auburn Developments Inc., for the Heathwoods Subdivision, Phase 2 (39T-12503) appended to the staff report dated April 26, 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 April 26, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

d) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.

Motion Passed

2.1   420 Fanshawe Park Road East (H-9320)

2021-04-26 SR - 9320 - 420 Fanshawe Park Road East

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by 2431602 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 420 Fanshawe Park Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” 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 property FROM a holding Residential R1 Bonus (h-5R1-7B42) Zone to remove the “h-5” holding provision;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated April 12, 2021, from F. Sun, by email.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3rd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2021-04-15 EEPAC Report

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 15, 2021:

a) the 3095 Bostwick Road Working Group comments, appended to the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for a consideration

b) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consult with the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) on the location of the proposed pathway from the storm pond to White’s Bridge; it being noted that the EEPAC reviewed and received mapping from S. Levin, with respect to this matter;

c) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting with respect to the feasibility of continuing with the homeowner education package as part of Special Provisions or to replace it with a requirement to post descriptive signage describing the adjacent natural feature; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) was asked to undertake research on best practices of other municipalities to assist in determining the best method(s) of advising new residents as to the importance of and the need to protect, the adjacent feature; and,

d) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 to 4.5, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from S. Levin and reviewed and received aerial maps relating to these matters.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve the following:

“c) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting with respect to the feasibility of continuing with the homeowner education package as part of Special Provisions or to replace it with a requirement to post descriptive signage describing the adjacent natural feature; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) was asked to undertake research on best practices of other municipalities to assist in determining the best method(s) of advising new residents as to the importance of and the need to protect, the adjacent feature; and,“

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   526 Oxford Street East (OZ-9303)

2021-04-26 SR 526 Oxford Street East

2021-04-26 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2773070 Ontario Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 526 Oxford Street East:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 4, 2021 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London (1989) to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to allow the site to develop with a personal service establishment with a maximum floor area of 140m2;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” 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 a Residential R3/Office Conversion (R3-1/OC5) Zone TO a Residential R3/ Office Conversion Special Provision (R3-1/OC5 (*) Zone;

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

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to 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 promotes an appropriate range and mix of uses in a settlement area;

  • the recommended use 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 the development of a mix use building in the Urban Corridor Place Type;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to, Chapter 10 – Policies for Specific Areas, which allows Council to apply specific policies where the change in land use is site specific and located in an area where Council wishes to maintain the existing land use designation while allowing for a site-specific use: and,

  • the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment implements an appropriate use and intensity for the site which is compatible with the surrounding area.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   1701-1737 Richmond Street (Z-9291)

2021-04-26 SR - 1701-1737 Richmond

2021-04-26 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by Richmond Hyland Centre Inc. c/o Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 1701-1737 Richmond Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” 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 property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3) Zone and an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3(1)) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3(_)) Zone and an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3(1)) Zone;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached 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 recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Transit Village Place Type and Key Directions; and,

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Enclosed Regional Commercial Node designation.

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. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 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, 0 minutes)

Now four o’clock, I will call the 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? You don’t see any, so I’ll move on to the consent items. I know that Councilor Hopkins had asked the 2.1 be pulled. Are there any other items that Councilors wish to pull?

I also see Councilor Cassidy’s here. She might be interested in 2.1 and it’s been pulled. Any other items to be pulled from the agenda? All right, can I get a mover and seconder for the remaining items?

Moved by Councilor Layman, seconded by Councilor Hillyer. Any comments on any of the items that have not been pulled, Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And as you can see, there’s a number of consent items in my ward on the agenda. It’s a very busy ward. And I just want to make a quick comment on 2.2, which is a special provision for W3 Farm subdivision phase one and 2.6, which is phase two of Heathwick subdivision. And just wanted to say that these are two subdivisions aligning and coming together.

And I just want to— it’s an unusual situation to find these two subdivisions working in conjunction with one another. And they’re both owned by different developers, but they are working together and working with the city to bring for these two subdivisions with a number of special provisions that, as you can see, are noted in the consent item. And just wanted to make those comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilor. Any other comments on any of the consent items being none? And it’s been moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries 4 to 0. I’ll circle back to item 2.1, Councilor Hopkins. You wanted to comment on that, and possibly Councilor Cassidy.

So I’ll let you— you took it into size, who’s going to— you can vote. Oh, Councilor Cassidy likes to go last. I know, so Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I want to thank the Councilor for being here, too. I know this was a contentious, quite a lengthy application process, and the community was very, very much engaged with a number of changes and revisions. And as you can see, Council also directed the approval authority to look at other opportunities with the fencing and landscaping.

And I know at that time as well, and I’m really glad the Councilor is here to speak to them. But at the time, I know construction on Donnie Brook there was a conversation in the community. And just in case community members are listening in, I think I’d like to go through you to staff, just to sort of have an idea of what the construction route is going to look like as this application proceeds. Go ahead, Staff.

One could address that. Thank you through the Chair’s first page speaking. The construction traffic is going to be directed through the site plan on the Fanshawe Park Road. That’s where the main entrance and exit will be.

It’s within the site plan agreement that there’s not to be access onto Donnie Brook. Recognizing that there may be some inverted traffic that would cut through there, we’ve spoken with the developer and asked him to address this situation. So he’s indicated that he’s going to address all his subcontractors and staff not to access out onto Donnie Brook. The question would be if they turn right onto Fanshawe, would they turn right in to get to the lights?

And he’s going to direct them not to. He’s going to do his best efforts not that they would have traffic on the Donnie Brook and that they direct it all onto Fanshawe. There will be a small window where Donnie Brook will be affected because they do have to connect for servicing to the site. And it will be closed for a couple of days for that servicing, but that would be the only impact to Donnie Brook.

Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, thank you for that. I think it’s really important that the community understands that there’s some work being done to come up with the route and to do everything possible to keep it on to Fanshawe. And looking forward to hearing the Councillors’ comments as well.

Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for recognizing me at your committee. We had actually a Zoom meeting last week with City staff and with members of the community because, as you as Councillor Hopkins noted, this was quite a contentious issue when it came up back in 2017. So I just want to ask the staff, what— aside from the traffic, which was a concern of the community, even in the last meeting that we had, what about site plan issues, cleanliness of site, debris, and dirt, that sort of thing? How will City staff work to make sure that there’s bound to be impacts?

Construction always has an impact on surrounding communities. But wonder what the plan is for City staff or for the developer to mitigate as much as possible these impacts. Staff, Mr. Page, again?

This one is Heather McNally. Sorry. Take this inquiry and thank you, Councillor CASSIDY, for the comment. And as you indicated, we did discuss this with the area residents last week.

In terms of the dirt and debris, we did provide them with an actual email portal that they can call us as well. The expectation is that the site and the dirt leaving the site be cleaned. And that is a requirement in a clause in the development agreement. However, sometimes it’s impossible to keep it clean, and especially in wet weather, it makes it very challenging.

So we did provide the email portal for the compliance team to then would follow up with the developer. And again, the developer has indicated that they would be doing their best efforts to keep the site clean and to address any of the construction traffic and how those mitigation measures would be addressed as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Thanks. So I just want to say thank you to City staff. Thanks to Ms. McNealy and Mr.

Page and Mr. Pease, who participated in the virtual meeting last week. And also, they conducted a site meeting with area residents who are most directly affected, because there will be some fencing plans, some landscaping plans, all sorts of things that will go forward to mitigate the impact on the adjacent homes. This was, as we all know, this was a contentious development plan application.

The community were really upset from the very beginning. But I want to say thanks to the community for continuing to stay involved and to continue to work constructively to do what worked for their community, to lessen the impact as much as possible on the neighborhood, and continuing to work with City staff, again, very constructively as sort of what can we all do to make this the best possible thing for the neighborhood. So City staff, as I said, have been very diligent in working with the community and trying to address all of their concerns. You know, in-fill developments are always troublesome for the neighboring community.

It’s always a big change. And I think the community has really come together in taking the next steps and continuing to make sure that this is as good as it can possibly be for the neighborhood. And I know that City staff will stay on top of this. I know there are plans to make sure that everything goes according to plan.

And that said, I can’t say thanks enough to everybody that’s been involved and looking forward to getting this underway and done. Thank you, Councillor. Anything else from anyone? All right, I just need this to be moved and seconded.

Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Anything further? There being nothing I will call the vote. Care if you don’t mind.

I’m going to vote verbally tonight, and I will vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Closing the vote, the motion carries 6 to 0.

Moving on, 3.1 is a delegation, 11 chair of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, and also with their third report. So Mr. Levin online, perfect. Mr.

Levin, I believe you are on. Mr. Levin now on his— can you hear me, Mr. Levin?

Yes, I can, Mr. Chair. Right. We’re just introduced here so you can go ahead with your delegation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to call to attention to the committee three items tonight, one on page 113 of your agenda, part of the EPAC report, item 4.1, the Byron Gravel print bank swallows. We had a very good discussion and update from city staff regarding this threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of Ontario.

Good news was that the owner of the property will not be doing work on the site while the birds are nesting. We’re still hopeful that the city will take some action ahead of the development to take that area into city ownership, because it is designated in the area plan for Parkland. Also wanted to draw your attention to page 114, 4.6, which is the one specific action we’re asking back to request of civic administration is this development, which is taking place at Hamilton Road and Commissioners Road East. What we were concerned about, and we had a very good discussion.

Mr. Barrett was part of that discussion. I’ve given Mr. Yeoman’s a heads up, that there was subsequent to the EIS, and you’ll see it on page 118 of your agenda, a bridge and a pathway that were added through the ESA and in the ESA buffer, which surprised us because in general, that kind of thing occurs in the EIS, not in the subdivision process.

So I was hoping staff would clarify if this was kind of a one-off situation that just happened to happen here, but was irregular and won’t be happening again. Further, the particular pathway stops right now, the storm pond, that you can sort of see on the maps. And we’re hoping that EPAC will be involved in the discussion of where that extension of the pathway goes because we’re hoping it’s not in the environmentally significant area that’s there, and also not in the buffer. I can pause now, Mr.

Chair. I could raise the third matter with you right now. Why don’t I get staff to comment on what you’ve raised so far and see what they have to say. Some of the staff could respond?

Through you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Page can provide you with information on that. Thank you.

Through you, the Chair, we did have a very good discussion at EPAC, thank you, Sandy. That was very helpful. The bridge that’s being proposed was sort of anticipated right from the outset of this plan of subdivision which goes back quite a bit of time. The bridge itself is a unique situation.

As Mr. Levin spoke to it as a one off, that truly is what it is. It was put in place there to clear span the natural heritage feature so that it didn’t go southerly to the bottom tip. It would leave area south of that for compensation and could be naturalized more.

So it was identified at the narrowest point of the feature. And again, it was to be a clear span bridge over top of that natural heritage feature which would link the pathway in. And as we spoke at the meeting, at the EPAC meeting, we haven’t been able to secure lands to connect from the storm pond to what’s known as White Bridge, which connects a path that’s on the, we’ll call it the south side of Hamilton Road, the existing path stops at White Bridge. We haven’t been able to secure the land yet so the actual alignment’s not known.

But as we discussed, EPAC could be involved with the alignment of that pathway when we’re able to acquire the lands. There’s probably about five or six different options that could be contour that are being contemplated and there may be additional ones but definitely we could include EPAC with those discussions. All right, I heard them say one off and then they said you could be involved. So I’m not sure if that addresses the issues that you’ve raised.

I’m hoping it does. Yes, Mr. Chair. Great.

  • Thank you. Perhaps we can move on to your next councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just since we’re just dealing with these two items, I’d just like to go back to the first item that Mr. Levin talked about, which was the Byron Pitt, that’s the Byron Pitt secondary plan. I know it’s an important plan in the community that I represent and I know also the bank swallows are important and I would like to ask maybe through you to staff can the community anticipate an open house in the near future with the conversation around the secondary plan and as we move forward, just wondering what the plans are. Staff, someone can answer that.

Through you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Barrett would probably do best to answer that. Thank you to the Chair and actually I was going to follow up with Mr.

Page, but the short answer is we’re actually looking to get something before this summer to bring something forward. We’ve been holding off just because there has been a lot of public involvement in this area and we’re trying to figure out how to best get back to the public before we actually have the final recommending meeting in front of planning committee. So we’ve been sort of brainstorming as to what the best way is to try to touch base with the community ‘cause they have been so involved with this process and not just have them come back at the Pine Environment Committee, but we were hoping to do that before the end of this summer. I don’t know if Mr.

Page has got anything else to add to that. Mr. Page? That’s a great summary of that.

And through Chair to Councillor Hopkins, Mr. Levin indicated we had a discussion about the bank swallows and the protection of them. We have spoken with the property owner who had done some filling in last year in compliance with the rehabilitation plan for the Byron gravel pits and his portion of it. And he’s not actively seeking out fill for that area or for his portion of the site.

So it shouldn’t impact the breeding season for the bank swallows. And we’ll move on to Mr. Levin’s final matter, I think you said, other than obviously the report itself. Yeah, that’s correct, Mr.

Chair. I was directing staff the committee’s attention to a couple of items that are on page 30 and page 406 of your agenda, dealing with the special provisions. And in the special provisions that has been for at least 20 or 25 years, a requirement of proponent to provide adjacent homeowners adjacent to open space or natural areas with an education pack. And frankly, we’re just not sure if an education package is effective in getting the kind of subsequent behaviors in new subdivisions.

So EPAC over time has made some suggestions to staff. I know Mr. Yeoman’s has been working on special provisions and changes to development agreements. Think that permanent signage is going to be much more effective.

We’re happy as EPAC to do some research of staff would like us to do some work on best management practices and so forth. But I think it’s time that this is reviewed. If it’s not effective, the proponent shouldn’t be paying for it. And we should be moving to something that is effective.

So that’s the ask today, Mr. Chair. And I think I’m gonna just turn things over to Councillor Hopkins, ‘cause I think she had a motion related to that and that can be discussed. Councillor they can get that on the floor.

Yeah, maybe I’ll just put the motion on the floor. I have passed it on to the chair and to the clerks, but I will read it for members of the committee. And the motion is that staff be requested to report back on whether to continue with the education package as part of special provisions or to replace it with a requirement to post descriptive signage about the adjacent natural features. EPAC be asked to research best practices in other cities for ideas for best informing new residents why it is important to appreciate and protect the adjacent feature.

I’d like to put that on the floor and I guess I’m looking for a seconder as well. All right, thank you very much. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Hill here is seconding that.

So it’s on the floor. I think that’s the idea was that that would be responsive to what Mr. Levin had requested and he’s indicated that EPAC would be happy to do some research. So it’s not requiring anything at this point, it’s just for a report back.

So I’ll open up to the committee or any kind of discussion. Doesn’t appear to be any, so I’ll go ahead, Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, if I could just add my comments. I think this is important.

We’ve had a number of applications at this committee backing onto natural features. And it is something that, you know, as award councilor, we’re all responsible and have concerns about. And I’m from the city of Toronto. Believe it or not, there’s environmentally sensitive area in a park, high park, which is where I used to live.

And they’re able to put some signage up for people even using the park. And I found it very effective. And this was pre-pandemic. And given the use of our parks and our ESAs, it’s going to become even more important.

And I really hope that the committee members hope to support this motion going forward. And thank you to EPAC for doing a lot of the heavy lifting here. Thank you very much. Anything further before we vote on this motion?

All right, call the vote. Chair, I’ll support. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Councillor Hill here. Yes, I have nothing on the screen. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Mr.

Loving, you have three matters and you’ve got to push your lock and try for anything more. Are we just— No, I’m not, Mr. Chair, I said three and that’s it. Three is good.

That’s a good day’s work. So I think we need a motion to receive and file the committee report. So if we could just do that. Moved by Mayor Holzer, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

Unless there’s something further, I’ll call the vote. Yes, Chair. Thank you. Six to zero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemon. Again, we do offer your committee we’re well aware of the time and energy that you put into your work and the expertise that’s on that committee. So you can give them all our thanks from the planning committee.

Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. Thank you. Next matter is item 3.2, which is a public participation meeting with regard to 526 Oxford Street East.

So I just need a motion to open public participation meeting. Mayor Holzer, seconded by Councillor Layman. Unless there’s something further, I will call the vote. Yes, Chair.

Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Hill here, please. Something’s going on with my internet vote, yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And I see if you have a report. Is there a staff report? Sorry, Ms.

Nichols, I see you on the screen. I don’t know what, you’re on mute now. You’re on mute. I can’t hear you because you’re on mute.

Hello. Are you with the applicant? I am the applicant. Okay, that’s fine.

Okay. I was just trying to determine who you were. I saw you on the screen. I wasn’t trying to put you on the spot.

Mr. Campbell. Okay, yeah, no problem. We’ll come to you in a second.

I wanna see if there’s a staff presentation. Yes, yeah. Matt should be on soon. Hi, Councillor.

It’s Craig Smith, City London Planning, City Planner. Thank you. Who provided the staff report. Thank you.

And you also have a very quick presentation on the application that’s before you as part of the added agenda. You can proceed. When we start with a second slide with the location map, property is located at the corner of Oxford Street and William Street, which is just west of Adelaide Street. The property, next slide, property is existing.

It was a former financial office, I believe. It is now vacant. The applicant has now proposing to put a hair salon, I believe a personal service establishment. A hair salon on the first floor of the building and to do that, they require an amendment to the zoning by-law.

The requested amendment is to, well, there’s twofold. This is one of those situations where the London Plan, the urban corridor permits the use, permits a wide range of mixed uses on the corridor that supports various transit uses, including walking, biking, and of course our transit facilities are LTC. But the official plan needs to have a special policy added to bring it up to speed with the London Plan. So that’s the first amendment is to the official plan to allow for the personal service establishment to be located at this location.

And then the second amendment is to the zoning by-law. And the zoning by-law is to amend the existing official, the existing zone to add a special provision which also incorporates and permits for the personal service establishment of 140 square meters. One of the conditions is to allow for the existing parking which is in the next slide, which shows four parking spaces in the rear yard to remain. Those are the ones that would have a special policy.

Someone can only apply on the land so we can only allow for four parking spaces that exist on the lands. The balance of the parking is in the boulevard. There is existing two existing parking spaces that are permitted to be through a boulevard parking agreement. The balance of the parking spaces are non-conforming spots and we’re suggesting that the applicant can pursue or look into a further boulevard parking agreement maybe to allow those to be incorporated.

So the special provisions would allow for four parking spaces and a zero meter setback from the parking to the lot line. Just to let you know that William Street is a 40 meter road allowance. So it’s unusual to have this much room in the boulevard. That isn’t actually part of the property.

So that’s why the boulevard parking agreement was allowed in the first place for the two additional spaces. Having said all that, the inclusion of the personal service use at this location is appropriate. It does meet the intent of the provincial policy statements. It meets the intent of the official planning.

The London plan as it allows for a mix of uses that will serve the community. The amendment of the zoning by-law that the service established with the conforming parking and the proposed amendment represents good planning and is appropriate use of the lands. Those are the by comments, thank you. Thank you very much.

Any technical questions only from the committee? Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, thank you. I do have a technical question for Mr.

Smith and I appreciate the update here in the presentation. The boulevard parking, I’m not exactly sure how that works. If you can sort of further explain that. When I look at the map, I see there’s additional parking ‘cause of that wide boulevard, but when we, if this is approved and moved forward, would it be up to the applicant to proceed with the boulevard parking?

And is this how it’s gonna look like? I just would like further understanding of the extra parking that may be required. Thank you, Councilor. - Go ahead.

Thank you, Councilor, you chair. I’ve shown on the map that I had put in with the presentation. Yes, as noted, there’s the two blue spaces are the actual two spaces that are permitted right now with the boulevard parking agreement with the City of London. The balance of the lands are what are non-conforming spaces.

So the requests and we’re satisfied that the existing parking condition, excluding the non-conforming conditions that are there can accommodate the use as parking could be provided on William Street and also alternative forms of transportation can be taken to the site. But what we’re suggesting is that the applicant would go in and apply for a boulevard parking to see if they could create more spaces in the boulevard if that’s appropriate. But if not, like I said, as indicated, the existing situation is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use. Thank you, Mayor Volden.

Thanks very much, Chair. I’m so much familiar with that area with boulevard parking and so far as our family businesses at Waterloo and Oxford, just down the street. But I thought that was if I recall for the boulevard parking that we applied for as well, which by the way is a bit misleading. It just means the right from the center of the road to the property line that’s controlled and known by the City and you can rent that, which we did.

But ours was a 30 foot. So I’m just trying to understand how one gets to go from 30 to 40. Is that a function just of, is that a geographic designation or is it just depending on how the space is configured? Mr.

Smith? Mr. Chair, the reference to the 40 meter road allowance is the actual distance from one side of the property line across the street to the other side of the property line. In the old neighborhood, the old North neighborhood, it was laid out with these incredibly large properties.

At the time, I believe it was as the military liked, it was these wide boulevards. And the boulevard is actually 40 meters wide from one property line across the street to the other property line. I wasn’t referring to the size of the actual parking spaces in the boulevard themselves. And I understood that last point to be the case.

Thank you very much for that clarity though. So it’s a function of the size of the property itself, not necessarily that in one spot, it’s 31, it’s 40 just by geography. Yes, that’s correct. Thank you.

Okay, that’s helpful. Thanks very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Any other technical questions? They’re being done and we’re gonna go to the public and I’ll let the applicant speak first to Mr. Campbell. I wonder, you’ve heard a little bit of talk about parking.

So it would be wise probably to address the issue of what your client’s plans are with regards to that boulevard parking that has to be applied for. That would be helpful, I think. Sure, thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Matt Campbell. I’m with the link at pream. I’ll hear on behalf of the applicant, Tara Nichols. Oh, I’m in agreement with everything that Mr.

Smith has said. We’ve reviewed the draft by-law and is certainly in agreement with that and certainly would encourage planning committee to endorse the proposal. I think we can all agree that this is a valuable and desired use along this portion of Oxford Street. And I can tell you we’re gonna be coming in with more applications for similar type uses in the immediate area very soon.

It’s consistent with the direction that Council has set forward in London plan. And we’re very excited for these types of uses to be coming on board on this section of Oxford Street. In regards to the boulevard parking, what I can say is that this is an existing situation that has existed for quite some time. When my client, Tara Nichols, purchased the property, the boulevard parking was already existing.

At this time, there’s no plans to change that. The parking situation functions well for the site. And as Mr. Smith pointed out, completely sufficient for the operation and both the existing building and the building as it’s proposed to be used.

So we don’t have any concerns about the boulevard parking right now. And if my client wants to take further steps and look at a different parking configuration, perhaps she may do that in the future. I don’t believe that there’s any proposal to do that at this time. I don’t believe I have anything more to add to the discussion other than the questions that have already been asked and the information provided by Mr.

Smith. I will ask if my client, Tara, has anything else to add for the committee’s consideration. Now is your opportunity, Tara, to address the committee and provide any other information that the meeting was to learn about the use. Okay, can you hear me?

I can hear you, but we can’t see you anymore. We could see you before now. We’re just hearing you, which is sufficient, that’s fine. Okay, I’m not sure what happened there.

Don’t worry. We purchased this building six to eight months ago. My husband does bill talks and filler. So under medical is kind of what our real estate agent, I guess, did.

We had a commercial agent. He knew we had a hair salon as well. We’re a small business. We’ve been open three years with COVID.

This has been a tough year in general, but we did go through the right measures. When we bought the building, we just trusted our agent. I guess you’d have called the city and it’s our first commercial line. We’ve learned our lesson, but it’s a small business.

It’s our family business. We’re just excited to get up and going again. We’re renting a temporary location just in the best neighborhood. So we’re excited to move because this was a very stressful time of year with COVID and everything else.

But we’re going to take great care of that building. We’ve already, you know, repainted the parking lot, working on the gardens. We painted the building. We’re going to be great tenants.

We’re just hoping that we can move forward with both of our businesses, not just my husbands. And that’s what we had bought the business for. So hopefully you guys can allow this to go through and we will be great commercial property owners. Thank you very much.

You’re very lucky you’re proposing a development in Ward 6, which is most of my colleagues know is the best ward in the city of London bar none. So that’s a really good start. Now they’re all rolling around. Certainly one of 14, Chair.

All right, all right. So with that, we’ll see if there’s anybody else from the public that wants to wants to address the committee. Is there anyone? There doesn’t appear to be anyone.

So I’ll ask for public participation once, twice, three times motion to close the public participation meeting by Councillor Hopkins, second by the mayor. Hello, yes, Chair. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, I’ll turn it over the committee of someone prepared to move the staff record moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Mayor Holder.

Anything further? The only comment I would make all joking aside is you are and be moving into the ward that I represent. And I have not heard a single objection to moving ahead with your small business. So that’s the luck to you and getting it up and running and growing your business.

With that, we’ll call the vote. Chair, happy vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion— I’ll move on to item 3.3, which is a public participation meeting with regard to 1737 Richmond Street. And I just need a motion to open the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman.

There’s nothing further, I will call the vote. The vote, yes, Chair. Councillor Hopkins, please. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

The application? Good evening, Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

This is an application for a zoning by-law amendment for the property meaningfully addressed as 1701 to 1730. I wonder if you could— sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt. Could you speak up a little bit? You’re very faint right now.

Apologies, is that better? It is better, yes. OK, very good. OK, so this is an application for a zoning by-law amendment for the property meaningfully addressed as 1701 to 1737 Richmond Street, located on the northwest corner of Richmond Street and Fanshawe Park Road West.

The site is currently developed as a commercial shopping center, containing a number of existing buildings, including one newly constructed building, and two additional buildings currently under construction. The applicant has requested to amend the existing associated shopping area commercial special provision zone to add food store as a permitted use, as well as recognize the existing gross floor area of 17,950 square meters and permit 550 parking spaces for all permitted uses. The existing special provisions prohibiting grocery stores and supermarkets and regulating office uses would continue to apply to the site. The proposed food store would be located within the existing buildings on site.

No new additional gross floor area beyond what currently exists is proposed. It should be noted that as part of the original request, the applicant also requested to permit a minimum setback of 1.5 meters between existing parking spaces and the ultimate road allowance. Through the review of the application, it was determined that the special provision was not required as the general provisions of the zoning by-law deemed setbacks reduced by road widening dedications to comply. And so as such, the existing parking spaces are permitted as is, and any new parking spaces would be required to comply with a minimum 3-meter setback.

Approximately 72 of the existing parking spaces on site encroached into the city road allowance due to previous road widening dedications. These spaces are functional and are recognized in the short term by an executed Boulevard parking agreement. However, they are not counted towards the required parking as their long-term existence is not guaranteed. The applicant has as such requested to permit 550 parking spaces for all permitted uses.

The site is designated and closed regional commercial node in the 1989 official plan and is subject to a specific area policy which prohibits grocery stores and supermarkets and regulates office uses. The enclosed regional commercial node designation permits all types of large and small scale retail outlets, including food stores. The site is also in the transit village place type of the London plan permitting a broad range of uses, including retail. Staff has satisfied that the recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement.

The proposed food store is contemplated in both the 1989 official plan and the London plan and the requested parking reduction assists in achieving the goals of the provincial policy statement and the transit village place type, including reducing the number of vehicle trips to and from the site. As such, the recommended amendment is in conformity with the 1989 official plan and the London plan and it is recommended the amendment be approved. Thanks and I’m happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you very much.

Any technical questions from the committee? Mayor Holder. Thanks very much, Chair, from you three to staff. I’m looking at the report that’s been provided and I acknowledge the building that is currently going up on that corner now.

And I just want to confirm just because there’s been a reference to Michael’s retail and this food store as to, and so I just want to clarify in my mind exactly what is going where, for example, where that food store will precisely be located. Is it in that new development structure or will it be in the current and there’s going to be some mix and move? Could you just help me with that please a little bit? Go ahead, Scott.

Through you, Mr. Chair. Staff is unaware at this time where the proposed food store is going to be located. Perhaps the applicant will be able to address this question and provide a little more detail on where on site the food store will be situated.

That’s great. I saw the applicant online a second ago, the applicant’s agent. Perhaps we could get that question answered now. I think knowing where something’s going to be located is technical.

Highly technical. Highly. If he’s not on right now, Mr. Mayor, would you be prepared to just revisit that with him when you go online?

  • Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Any other technical questions?

Mr. Chair, I’m sorry, I can’t, I guess my camera, I can’t turn my camera on, but I am here. Okay, Mr. Mayor, it’s hard to say.

I can say to the Mayor that we don’t have a precise location for the food store at this point. It’s not going in the new buildings that are under construction. They’re already leased out. This was more of a longer term endeavor.

And if we were going to look at any specific site, it could be kind of the national sports because that’s not, that’s kind of a tenant. It’s not, maybe that’s going to be replaced. But we don’t really have it nailed down at this point. It’s kind of a longer term investment for us.

So to be clear from a technical standpoint, Chair, we’re not talking about adding buildings beyond what are existing on the current site. That’s correct, sir. There we go. Thank you very much, that’s helpful.

Thank you. Any further technical questions? There being none, we will go to the public. We’ll start with the applicant.

If you have anything you wish to say, Mr. Kirkness? Yeah, yes, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, I’m members of the public. Catherine done a bang-off job on the report. It’s certainly in line with what we applied for and we agree with it. And we hope the planning committee does too.

So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Kirkness. Anybody further from the public that it doesn’t appear so.

So I’ll just ask for public input once, twice. No input, so we’ll make a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Mayor Holder. Unless there’s something further, I’ll call the vote. I vote yes, Chair.

Councillor Hill here, please. I vote yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries. I shall turn the matter over to the committee.

I don’t know, maybe we should get a motion. I’ll move the staff recommendation, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Mayor Holder. Any questions or comments from the committee? Councillor Layman.

Thank you, I’m not sure if this is a technical question or not through you to staff, Chair. Educate me and why a food store would not already be included in that specific zoning. What are the concerns of zoning that would specifically exclude a food store? And would those concerns be alleviated in this particular instance?

Go ahead and see if someone from staff would like to answer that. Mr. Chair, it’s Michael Thomas-Inseck here. We did some research on as to why supermarkets were explicitly prohibited or at least not included on this site.

And it goes back to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in the ’90s. And the only thing that we could surmise, ‘cause that’s already over 20 years old, is that it was a settlement with the lands across the street through the Ontario Municipal Board that that use wouldn’t be permitted on the site. And it allowed the zoning to go ahead. But we were satisfied that the use on this site is in conformity with the official plan and it makes sense at this location.

And we hadn’t heard any opposition from any neighboring property owners, including the grocery store on the other side of the street. Thank you. Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair.

That’s fun. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thanks to staff and the applicants consultant for being here and I was just reviewing the planning history and trying to get a better understanding why it is a planning today and just looking at the process that we’ve sort of undertaken with this application, increasing the commercial space and sort of starting off with 17,000 square meters approximately. And now we’re looking at almost 18. And I’m just kind of wondering why we are planning and why it didn’t originally come to planning. Just want to have a better understanding of the process that the applicant has gone through.

Go ahead, staff. Forgive me, members of PAC, if I misunderstood the question. But the reason it’s at PAC and not the Committee of Adjustment, was that the question regarding that small adjustment in the gross floor area? Go ahead, Councillor.

Yeah, so that would be part of the question, but the other part of the question was around the process that it’s already gone to Committee two times, increasing the square footage for the commercial space. Just wondering why didn’t originally come here and just trying to understand the application process here. I see, through you, Mr. Chair, thanks for the clarification.

So the reason it went through the Committee of Adjustment initially is because it was an expansion of floor area only. And those types of applications, since it’s a regulation, could be processed through the Committee of Adjustment. The reason it’s here before you today though, is because we’re adding a use. And we don’t add uses through minor variances, we add those through zoning.

Councillor? - Yeah, thank you for that. And I think we’re also doing an increase as well to the square footage, or am I reading the report wrong? Sorry.

Mr. Chair, that’s absolutely correct. We’re also doing an increase in floor area, but it’s just a modest increase in floor area to recognize patios that exist with the restaurants, not in addition to building floor area. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further from the Committee? Okay, this is moved and seconded then, I’ll call the vote. Seconded.

  • Yes. Thank you. Councillor Hough, sorry. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

There are no items for no deferred matters of additional business, so I just need a mover and seconder to adjourn, moved by Councillor Lewis, happy to do that. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins, we’ll just do a hand vote unless someone objects. That’s it. We are adjourned and we will see you all tomorrow at SBPC.

Thank you. - Thank you.