May 10, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 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. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.2 to 2.8, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   1620 Noah Bend (Block 95, Plan 33M-733) - (P-9338)

2021-05-10 - SR- 9338 - 1620 Noah Bend

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 95, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)   pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 95, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings;

b)   the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 95, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii)  the applicant shall provide a draft transfer of the easements to be registered on title;

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

xiv)  in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1620 Noah Bend to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict.  (2021-D05)

Motion Passed

2.3   335 Kennington Way and 3959 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 1, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3) - (P-9304)

2021-05-10 - SR- 9304 - 335 Kennington Way

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Prosperity Homes, the  proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to exempt Block 1, Plan 33M-765, RP 33R-20777 Parts 2 & 3 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.  (2021-D05)

Motion Passed

2.4    3964 Mia Avenue (33M-765, Block 2) - (P-9305)

2021-05-10 - SR -9305 - 3964 Mia Ave

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Prosperity Homes, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to exempt Block 2, Plan 33M-765 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.  (2021-D05)

Motion Passed

2.5   146 and 184 Exeter Road – Middleton Subdivision - Phase 3 - Removal of Holding Provisions - (H-9294) 

2021-05-10- SR - 146 184 Exeter Road

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to lands located at 146 and 184 Exeter Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 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 (h-h-100-R1-4(29)) Zone and a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-13(7)) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4(29)) Zone and a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-13(7)) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.6   1639–1685 Brayford Avenue – Removal of Holding Provision - (H-9336)

2021-05-10 - SR - 1639-1685 Brayford Avenue

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Jefferson Homes Ltd., relating to lands located at 1639 to 1685 Brayford Avenue, legally described as Lots 12 to 15 Plan 33M-713 and Lots 13 to 17 Plan 33M-714, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 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 (h-37-R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone to remove the h-37 holding provision.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.7   2258–2334 Wickerson Road – Removal of Holding Provision - (H-9337)

2021-05-10 - SR - 2258-2334 Wickerson Road

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Kape Developments Ltd., relating to lands located at 2258 to 2334 Wickerson Road, legally described as Lots 4 to 11 Plan 33M-713 and Lots 1 to 12 Plan 33M-714, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 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 (h-37-R1-3(7)) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(7)) Zone, and FROM Holding Residential R1 (h-37-R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone to remove the h-37 holding provision.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.8   1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West - Kent Subdivision - Phase 3 - Special Provisions - (39T-04510-3C) 

2021-05-10- SR - 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

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 Foxhollow North Kent Development Inc., for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 23, Concession 5, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the south side of Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Hyde Park Road, and on the north side of the Heard Drain, municipally known as 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Development Inc., for the Foxhollow North Kent Subdivision, Phase 3C (39T-04510-3C) appended to the staff report dated May 10, 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 May 10, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

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

Motion Passed

2.1   London Plan Appeals Update – Results of April 15, 2021 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Decision

2021-05-10 - PEC Info Report - London Plan LPAT Update

2021-05-10 - Appendix A - Results of LPAT Decision April 15 2021

2021-05-10 - Appendix B - Map

2021-05-10 - Appendix C - Map 5

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, the staff report dated May 10, 2021 entitled “London Plan Appeals Update - Results of April 15, 2021 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Decision”, with respect to an update on the status of London Plan Appeals, BE RECEIVED for information.   (2021-L01)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   192-196 Central Avenue, 193-197 Central Avenue, and 200 Albert Street (TZ-9316) 

2021-05-10 - SR - 192-196 193-197 Central Ave and 200 Albert St

2021-05-10 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application of Farhi Holdings Corporation relating to the properties located at 192-196 Central Avenue, 193-197 Central Avenue, and 200 Albert Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), by extending the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years;

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

● a communication dated May 3, 2021 from M. Smith, by e-mail;

● a communication dated May 4, 2021 from K. Langdon, by e-mail;

● a communication dated May 4, 2021 from G. Anastasiadis, by e-mail;

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 extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  • the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to, the Temporary Use By-law policies;

  • the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to, the Temporary Use Provisions;

  • the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone does not compromise the ability to achieve the long-term goals of Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan;

  • the recommended extension to the Temporary Use (T-70) Zone is appropriate to help maintain an adequate supply of parking to service businesses in the Downtown and on Richmond Row pending the gradual transition away from the use of surface commercial parking lots as transit ridership increases and as alternative parking spaces are provided; and,

  • the parking lots have existed for periods ranging from 15-28 years and have achieved a measure of compatibility with the surrounding land uses.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West – (O-9190)

2021-05-10 - SR- 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West

2021-05-10 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO an Urban Reserve Community Growth and Environmental Review designation;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 10, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 25, 2021 to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Future Community Growth place type and Environmental Review place type; it being noted that the amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 1 and Map 7 of The London Plan;

c)  the request to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential designation BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as it does not ensure an appropriate process can be undertaken prior to development which will allow for the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii) the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan policies, Urban Reserve Community Growth policies and Environmental Review policies;

iii) the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Secondary Plan Policies;

iv) the requested amendment is premature. The site needs to be considered through a larger planning review process (a secondary plan) to determine its integration within a larger future neighbourhood, the applicable vision and character for the new neighbourhood, what an appropriate land use pattern is for the area, and other technical requirements;

v) the subject site is at a key location within the broader planning context and its designation and potential future development without consideration of the surrounding lands is not “big-picture” or long term thinking and if designated in isolation of these lands, it could result in future land use, servicing, and road network issues;

vi) the subject site has not been reviewed for urban land uses which would have taken into account servicing demands/road networks and schooling/public service facility requirements for the subject site within the larger context of the Fox Hollow Community Plan;

vii) the proposed amendment in isolation of the surrounding lands could result in an inefficient development and land use pattern and create issues with the future expansion of the settlement area as the current amendment may ultimately conflict with the vision and goals of the future Secondary Plan in the area; and,

viii) the lands were originally designated and zoned for the sole purpose of a cemetery use;

d) the request to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhood place type BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as it does not ensure an appropriate process can be undertaken prior to development which will allow for the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii) the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan policies, Urban Reserve Community Growth policies and Environmental Review policies;

iii) the proposed amendment does not conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Secondary Plan Policies;

iv) the requested amendment is premature. The site needs to be considered through a larger planning review process (a secondary plan) to determine its integration within a larger future neighbourhood, the applicable vision and character for the new neighbourhood, what an appropriate land use pattern is for the area, and other technical requirements;

v) the subject site is at a key location within the broader planning context and its designation and potential future development without consideration of the surrounding lands is not “big-picture” or long term thinking and if designated in isolation of these lands, it could result in future land use, servicing, and road network issues;

vi) the subject site has not been reviewed for urban land uses which would have taken into account servicing demands/road networks and schooling/public service facility requirements for the subject site within the larger context of the Fox Hollow Community Plan;

vii) the proposed amendment in isolation of the surrounding lands could result in an inefficient development and land use pattern and create issues with the future expansion of the settlement area as the current amendment may ultimately conflict with the vision and goals of the future Secondary Plan in the area; and,

viii) the lands were originally designated and zoned for the sole purpose of a cemetery use;

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

  • a communication dated May 6, 2021, from S. Stapleton, Vice-President, Auburn Developments; and,

  • the staff presentation;

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 these application for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2020 as it ensures an appropriate process can be undertaken prior to development which will allow for the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan policies, Urban Reserve Community Growth policies and Environmental Review policies;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Secondary Plan Policies, Future Community Growth and Environmental Review policies;

  • the recommended amendment ensures that the subject site is reviewed through a comprehensive review process along with the surrounding lands to ensure the efficient expansion of the settlement area and comprehensive review of land use and servicing needs for the area; and,

  • the recommended amendment prevents ad-hoc planning and prevents future compatibility issues with the surrounding lands in regards to land use impacts, servicing constraints and sufficient public service facilities being able to support the proposed development.  (2021-D08)

Motion Passed (4 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the application by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to accept an application by Auburn Developments to:

a) amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO an Urban Reserve Community Growth and Environmental Review designation;

b) amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Future Community Growth place type and Environmental Review place type; it being noted that the amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 1 and Map 7 of The London Plan;

c) to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential designation; and,

d) to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhood place type;

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

  • a communication dated May 6, 2021, from S. Stapleton, Vice-President, Auburn Developments; and,

  • the staff presentation;

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. (2021-D08)

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

3.3   3557 Colonel Talbot Road (SPA20-063)

2021-05-10 - SR - 3557 Colonel Talbot Rd

2021-05-10 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2749282 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road:

a) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development:

i)  the lack of consultation with the property owners on the west side of the property;

ii)  potential runoff on the west side of the property;

iii)  the impact of the removal of the three mature evergreen trees; and,

iv)  the potential impact of the retaining wall and any potential impact of that on the cedar hedge; and,

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council does not have any issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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.   (2021-D11)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Councillor M. van Holst - Meadowlilly ESA 

2021-05-10 PS Meadowlily ESA - Councillor M. van Holst

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

That, the communication from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to the preserving environmental heritage near the Meadowlily Environmentally Significant Area BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) 3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-05-10- TFAC Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 28, 2021:

a)  Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee recommends that road narrowing be a priority for the Neighbourhood Street Renewal Program projects, to maximize the space for trees and sidewalks within the right of way;

it being noted that a verbal presentation from D. MacRae, Director, Roads and Transportation, with respect to this matter, was received;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Veteran Tree Incentive Program:

i) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to explore options to target recipients who genuinely need additional financial support in order to maintain their veteran trees;

ii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consider and compare, during its review of the above-noted program, its cost-efficiency relative to the canopy cover that is expected to be gained; and,

iii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to seek to prioritize low canopy neighbourhoods and non-invasive species for the above-noted program, given that funding is limited and not all of the veteran trees can be maintained;

it being noted that the presentation, as appended to the added agenda, from S. Rowland, Urban Forestry Planner, with respect to this matter, was received;

c)  the final 2021 Trees and Forests Advisory Committee Work Plan, BE APPROVED;

d)  the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, as appended to the added agenda, from J. Kogelheide with respect to tree care communications:

i) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to implement the Trees and Forest Advisory Committee’s recommendation with respect to the distribution of promotional materials related to tree care practices including:

A) proper tree mulching;

B) watering newly planted trees; and,

C) not travelling with firewood;

it being noted that the above-noted communication, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

e)  clauses 1.1, 2.3, 3.1 and 3.2, inclusive, 5.1 and 5.2, inclusive and 5.5 BE RECEIVED, for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:43 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 (2 hours, 55 minutes)

I have someone with BCA fitness as the title. Could you please identify your name? Please, and what item you’re here for? Kathy, it’s Bruce, I’m just changing my name.

Thank you. That’s fine. I call the meeting to order, it’s now four o’clock. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings, and information upon request.

To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2480 to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pack@london.ca. First matter is disclosures of pecuniary interest. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest? There being none, we will move on to the consent matters.

I think we were going to have a very brief presentation on the 2.1, don’t just ask that that be pulled. And just ask if there’s any other matters that councilors wish to have pulled. Being none, then I’ll look for a mover and seconder for the balance of the items. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

And before I call the vote, does anyone have any comments on the consent items? Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have a quick question through you to staff on consent item 2.6 and 2.7. These are holding provisions that are being lifted. And I know that we did receive an objection which I found very unusual for a holding provision. And I want to just ask through you to staff about the objection letter and what would be the process for any individual wanting to review the urban growth boundary.

Go ahead, staff. Through you, Chair, it’s first page here. The whole thing provision, the objective is the whole division. It relates to previous situation under the rules with MDS where there’s proximity of a live stock bar and that’s residential development.

There’s been changes within the act that allow proximity to livestock operations if it’s within the urban. And that’s the case in this situation. So we’re suggesting the removal of the holding provision. With regards to the expansion of the UGB, the applicant could make a request through Council through you.

It will be reviewed through the planning permit holistically across the city and not in isolation of just one property. So there will be a review coming up that will look at, again, the urban growth boundary in its entirety as opposed to just one area. Okay, anything further, Councillor? No, that’s fine.

Thank you very much. Anything further on the items except for 2.1? There being none, I will call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

And to circle back to 2.1, I want to read each summary of this matter in terms of the implications of this decision. Yes, thank you. It’s Travis Beth here through the chair. I can provide a short summary.

Before you this evening is an information report regarding an update on London plan appeals and the results of an April 15th decision by the local planning appeal tribunal, the LPAT. As just as a brief reminder, the general appeals were divided into four phases and a hearing was held in September to October of 2020 to address phases one A and one B. Since that time, staff and appellants have worked extensively to seek settlement on appeals of phase two and three issues, which is the general of the natural heritage, the city design, city building and mobility policies. This included four weeks of settlement meetings held with city staff and appellants earlier this year.

And the result of that was a series of recommended resolutions. Then on April 15th, the LPAT held a case management conference, which is a type of hearing. And they heard a motion for partial approval of the plan, including that alternative language mapping and withdrawn matters from the appellants. The motion was on consent, so agreed to by all parties.

The result of the LPAT’s decision on April 15th was that all of phase two natural heritage and phase three, the mobility, city building and design issues were resolved on a city-wide basis. So notwithstanding some site specific appeals. As a result of that, 97% of London plan policies are now in effect. Appendix A to the staff report includes that alternative policy language and identifies which policies were withdrawn.

Just to highlight a few, character policies for neighborhoods, street network policies, parking policies for large developments, building design and materials, sidewalk requirements, right-of-way widths and associated land acquisitions, urban forestry, components of the natural heritage system, evaluation criteria for certain components, mitigation around wetlands and ecological buffers. So what policies remain include certain place types, heights or intensity policies, bonus zoning policies, the high density residential overlay, and then some site specific policies and specific area of policies. Those matters were generally deferred from the phase one B hearing held in October of 2020. And in part, that was because provincial legislation changes around bonus zoning.

So since the London plan includes a framework of heights related to bonus zoning, a London plan and memo would be required. And then in addition to the policies, the April 15th decision brought map four, the active mobility network and map six, the hazards and natural resources map enforce in its entirety, both of those. Map five is natural heritage map that was brought in force except for certain site specific appeals. And map one, the place types.

It was partially approved with significant numbers of place types now enforced on map one. The appendices to the staff report also include copies of map one and five for reference. As next steps, staff are now preparing a consolidated version of the plan, which will be published on the city’s website shortly. Staff will continue to work to scope and explore potential resolution of the remaining appeals.

The next case management conference before the LPAT is scheduled in October of this year, at which time the LPAT can consider any further modifications that are proposed by the parties. Again, as a result of this LPAT decision, 97% of London plan policies are now in force. And this was the result of a positive collaborative settlement process with modifications that were intended to clarify policy intent, align with provincial legislation and regulations and ensure accurate mapping in the plan. Thank you.

I just wanna say that that report was comprehensive, yet it was concise. And best of all, it was in plain English. So thank you very much for that. Do councilors have any questions or comments?

Although giving that report, that kind of commentary, I assume it’s just no questions would be necessary, but let’s go through this anyways. Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, thank you for the report. I quite agree, Mr.

Chair, it was to the point concise and I do appreciate the updates. I just wanna make a comment and thank staff for the several months of extensive settlement meetings and collaboration that had to go on to get 97% of the London plan done. In particular, Inslee Anderson, just I think there’s a lot of work that went into this. I wanna thank staff and look forward to, I guess the published or the update.

A quick question though, when it comes to amendments and the provincial legislation and there’s been a number of changes in particular, the financing. When are these amendments introduced? Do we wait till the end or just a little bit more of, as the legislation changes, when is it introduced into the plan? Staff, go ahead.

Through the Chair, this is Justin Adema. I can take a crack at that. So when the legislation changed through bill 108, affecting the bonus policy regime, it gave a two year transition window, which began in I believe it was September of 2020. So we have until September of 2022 to consider changes to how we approach bonus saying, we’ve started to undertake that review already.

And I expect probably towards the end of this year or into early next year, you’ll see a report with details on what we’re gonna do with bonusing. Look forward to that report and thank you very much to everyone to getting it almost completed. Anything further on this or hold it? Yeah, thanks very much, Chair.

So appreciating that the greatest amount of this process has been done from a quantity standpoint. I sense there are still some fairly big things in front of us that have to be dealt with. So through you, Chair, to staff, what’s your sense of timing in terms of, if we’d said we’ve got a wrap on this, what’s your best guess, please? Go ahead, Scott.

Through the chair, a lot of the timing associated with this process is driven by the LPAT. So it’s very hard for us to predict. I would say that our next case management conference is scheduled for this October. And we have settlement meeting scheduled.

So it’s possible that portions, or remaining appeal portions, if we’re able to reach us out and it could be approved then. And if not, my expectation is that hearing time will be scheduled at that case management conference probably for some time in 2022. Well, I appreciate that. And Chair, through you, staff and all the parties involved in terms of working together to get to the right place.

I think it’s much appreciated, certainly. Anything further from the committee? All right, call the vote on this matter, 2.1. Oh, I need to move a second to move by Councillor Lewis.

Seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Sorry about that. We’ll call the vote now. Mayor Holder?

Yeah, I spoke with my mute button on. I’ll be voting yes, please. Closing the vote, the motion. There’s scheduled item three point patient meeting with regard to 193 to 197 central Avenue 200 Albert Street.

I need a motion to open the public participation meeting. Move by Mayor Holder, seconded by someone. Councillor Hopkins, nothing further. I’ll call the vote on that.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to six. Staff report on this matter, please. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is Catherine Matton. This is an application for an extension to the existing T-70 temporary zone that currently applies to three properties municipally addressed as 192 to 196 central Avenue, 193 to 197 central Avenue and 200 Albert Street. The purpose of the requested extension is to permit the continued use of the existing surface commercial parking lots for a maximum of three years, 192 to 196 central Avenue and 193 to 197 central are in the neighborhood’s place type of the London plan with a high density residential overlay. Well, 200 Albert is in the rapid transit quarter place type.

All three properties are designated multi-family, high density residential in the 1989 official plan and are also subject to specific policies for the Talbot mixed use neighborhood in both official plans. It should be noted that these sites are located outside of the downtown and are not captured in the downtown parking strategy study area. However, 193 to 197 central Avenue and 200 Albert Street are identified as underutilized sites in our move forward London’s downtown plan. Through the circulation of this application, some members of the public were concerned that the continued use of these sites as surface commercial parking lots prevent long-term redevelopment.

While others express support for the parking lots, identifying their need to supply parking to serve businesses on Richmond Row. The 1989 official plan and the London plan both provide specific criteria to inform the review of applications for temporary zones. Staff has satisfied that this criteria has been met for this application and that the extension of three years is appropriate to serve the area residents and businesses along Richmond Row until such time as alternative parking and transit options are available. The recommended amendment would not compromise long-term redevelopment, but rather provide an interim use until redevelopment occurs.

Use of the subject sites as surface commercial parking lots has demonstrated a measure of compatibility over time. And as such, staff has satisfied the recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement and is in conformity with the temporary use policies of the London plan and the 1989 official plan. And it is recommended the three-year extension be approved. Thanks and I’m happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Any technical questions only please, committee? For being none, we will go to presentations. Is the applicant making a presentation?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. It’s Scott Allen from MHBC Planning. Good afternoon.

Yes, and I’ll make a very brief presentation on behalf of the applicant and with me today, I should mention representing the applicant as Wookiee Pandaki and he’s available to answer any questions as well. At this time, we’d like to express our support for the findings and recommendation of the development services report as presented by Ms. Matton. In particular, we agree with the finding that the proposed extension of the temporary commercial parking permissions to these properties would help address local parking demands in the near term and would not undermine long-term redevelopment potential of these lands.

This finding also reflects the commentary provided in our planning justification report, which was submitted in support of this application. So with that in mind, Mr. Chair, I’d like to thank the committee for its consideration and we’ll gladly answer any questions members may have. Thank you very much.

Any other delegations from the public and say delegations, speakers? Are there any? Mr. Chair, we do have some members of the public who wish to speak.

Okay. And the first would be Mr. Rajani? Good afternoon.

You’ll have five minutes to speak, sir, so you can start right now. Thank you very much. First time speak, so I’m a downtown business owner and I live close to downtown and pick it to the area with my family for children. And I understand the need for parking in downtown, I understand the need in this specific area.

And with regard to the official plan and the Talbot area. And I just think how this dialogue extension needs some more consideration. And I think your committee members will have seen the various written representations from members of the public expressing different concerns. I think there were more voices out there, more members of the public who are maybe not writing letters and are communicating concerns in other ways in other forums, and I hear the representations and from staff.

And I see in this report it says that extending the temporary use T70 zone for additional three years will have no impact on the potential for the long-term redevelopment of the site. However, I think at the same time there’s been extensions and extension extensions on these temporary things for three years, three years for some of these sites over 20 years. And I think it’s just not really a fair way of saying it’s really temporary. And when we recognize that there is the need for development downtown, we recognize that these are underutilized sites in the words of the report.

And these measures, while this is the sites outside the downtown, the parking stretch area, the gradual phasing out of surface commercial parking lots is recommended to avoid parking shortages while this actually comes to fruition. And I showed the short-term extension would continue to provide parking in the core to serve every residents and businesses, which was absolutely new we need, but this has to be short-term. And I saw that last year, in last April, because of COVID, this conversations around having a new parking structure develop understandably because of the financial uncertainty, those conversations had to be shelved by the city. And I think if we keep giving these three-year extensions, then that’s not really encouraging those kinds of projects that we absolutely need.

The development of the better alternatives to parking. And that is budgeted for the— I know there’s a budget there in building a sustainable city that London’s infrastructure has built, maintained, and operated to meet the long-term needs of our community. And so we’re replacing surface parking with efficient, convenient, and cost-effective public parking resources to support business person’s social activity in the downtown. And I think we’ve got to think about that.

And so I understand that the committee’s unlikely to go against the recommendations of staff on this matter. I just invite you to consider whether a three-year extension is appropriate, whether it could be a shorter period of time, even if it’s slightly shorter. Just to send a message that this is not just a carp launch to keep getting these extensions and not doing anything to develop these sites while integrating parking into those developments, of course. And the other thing with parking, as well, is as much as there is a need.

And I know that you don’t have to consider this because this is not a new policy or such. But to think about this climate emergency evaluation tool and to think, what is the climate impact of this? And is there a better way of doing this? How can we be encouraging more other form of transportation other than cars?

And I think it has to be considered at the same time as when you’re doing anything with parking. You have one in it remaining. Thank you very much. And so yeah, I think so those are the things that invite this committee to consider.

I think there’s, like I said, I know you’re unlikely to vote against this. But to say, could it be less than three years? How can we re-examine another be more parking masses coming up on this committee in the next weeks, months? But how can we encourage those different forms of parking that are going to be better and different forms of transportation?

So thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to share this with you today. Thank you very much for coming to speak to us very much. Appreciate it.

Next speaker. Mr. Chair, this would be Ms. McKeating.

Yes. Hi there. Can people hear me? I can certainly hear you.

Oh dear, maybe I should talk quieter. No, no, it’s OK. I have— you can start now and it’ll be five minutes. OK, thanks a lot.

So I am Kelly McKeating. And I’m speaking today on behalf of the London Region Branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. And like the prior speaker, I’m also— and we as an organization are opposed to yet another round of renewal of these temporary parking zoning amendments. I don’t know how many parking spots there are in the downtown and adjacent to downtown area as compared to 10 years ago.

I can certainly think that in recent months there was a demolition at York and Talbot Street, if I recall, correctly, which expanded the parking— the surface parking lot availability downtown. There was also a demolition a number of years ago at 199 Queens Avenue. I think that if there is another zoning amendment allowed here, there is absolutely no motivation for a property owner to ever develop the land or sell the land to somebody who does want to do an appropriate development. The denial of these and similar applications would certainly motivate the owner to either develop or sell.

And then the land would no longer be underutilized in the words of the planner. The other thing that a denial of these applications would do is put less pressure on developers to demolish heritage property when they do want to develop. It would be really nice if more vacant land was available to them. I would also question whether these parking spots truly are needed.

I work very close to a large parking lot at Piccadilly in St. George Street and pre-pandemic. My observation when I was walking out during the work day is that that parking lot is not close to being completely full. And it’s only three or four blocks away from these parking lots.

And that’s all I have to say today. Thank you for listening. Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming to speak to us today.

Any other speakers? Mr. Chair, the last person on this item is Charlene Jones. Right.

Thank you. Hi. You have five minutes to speak, starting right now. OK.

Good afternoon. I’m the owner of Artistic Spa. I am a downtown business and property owner. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today.

When I started my business 33 years ago, Richmond Row was a full of beautiful boutique salons and restaurants, all thriving businesses. We didn’t have these parking lots, only a pleasant shopping experience. Today, it’s a very different feel. It doesn’t have the same vibe.

It’s not a good experience anymore. It’s no longer thriving with people shopping. We now rely heavily on eight months when the students living in the area come to shop, eat, and drink. But they’re walking or taking calves.

They’re not usually driving. I wonder what this area would have been like today had we voted for residential development several years ago. I do know pre-COVID, these parking lots were not all fully utilized. And now with people working from home, we certainly won’t need all three lots.

Downtown needs people. We need people living downtown to support the businesses, especially now with the housing shortage in London. Now is the time to encourage and help property owners with new development. I’m not sure what another three years of emptied lots would look like for the future of downtown.

Currently, the lots are attracting the drugs, crime, and homelessness, all which discourages people from wanting to come downtown. We need change. We need to create a wonderful shopping experience again. That’s all I— that’s my input.

Thank you very much. It’s very much appreciated. Thanks for speaking to us today. Any other speakers today?

No. Mr. Chair, we have no more members of the public on the list or on the call. Great.

Thank you very much. Could I get some motion to close the public participation meeting then? Just need a mover and seconder. Moved by council.

Someone, I’m hoping. Councilor Hopkins, thank you very much. That’s the burden of being the all-emotion. Anything further on that?

Then I’ll call the vote. Carol, vote yes. Councilor Hopkins, we’d be here all night. To close in the vote, the motion carries 6-0.

Just for the committee’s benefits, some of the concerns that were expressed by the public, I don’t think it would be a terrible idea to just have either staff or the applicant address those concerns, which regards to when would there be future development and the actual need for parking in the area. Perhaps those two concerns could be addressed first by staff or the applicant if the applicant wishes to. Mr. Chair, I’d be glad to respond briefly on the matters raised.

This is the applicant I take it, I can’t see you. My apologies, I can turn my video on if that helps. It’s up to you. Go ahead.

Sorry, a little close to the screen. Go ahead. That’s anyway, Scott Allen, MHBC. With respect to the issue of need, that’s outlined, Mr.

Chair, in our planning report, we’ve identified, and the client has identified that the parking lots in question, certainly pre-COVID, were used at a fairly substantial capacity on a regular basis, and were very critical for the Richmond Row tenants that are located in close proximity, as well as residents in the area, somewhat as well, utilize those parking lots. They certainly are utilized, but with respect to future opportunities, this is something that certainly our client has reviewed in some detail. They’re exploring options, potential infill opportunities at these locations, particularly given the planning permissions that are available through the London plan, and the attractiveness of this area. So it’s certainly, there’s certainly a movement towards exploring, well, they are exploring opportunities, but movement towards redeveloping these sites, and recognizing where we’re at in terms of COVID, and situations with the downtown parking structures that was discussed, there just needs to be more time available as we were requesting in order to follow up on those studies, and planning reviews, and looking at opportunities, and then moving forward with redevelopment proposals.

Thank you very much, I hope that was helpful to the committee, so I’ll open it up to the committee for any questions and comments at this time, and then if someone wishes to make a motion at some point, we can go ahead and do that. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I just think that it might be better if I just move the staff recommendation now, and then we can have a discussion around that, so we actually have a motion on the floor.

Fair enough, so if someone’s prepared to recommend the staff, or move second to the staff recommendation, Councillor Hill here’s prepared to do that. So it’s moved and seconded, so now we’ll be speaking to the staff recommendation. I’ll start with Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I just want to get this out of the way. While I have a business on Richmond Street, I have not declared a pecuniary interest here, as I have my own private parking lot for customers and staff. Over many businesses along Richmond do know that are not that fortunate. There are some businesses that have a log, Ken Street and Elmert Street and Central.

But what we hear constantly about folks that don’t live in the car, and that want to shop downtown, is that parking is for most of their concerns. Until we have a better parking strategy for all of downtown, and we look at a parking garage on Queen, I think it would not be prudent at this time, especially as we’re coming out of COVID, and a lot of businesses are facing severe times to throw this in the mix. These parking lots not only provide parking for customers and employees, businesses are in the area, but they also provide much needed parking for those outside of the courts come down to events in the park and downtown. So I think that during this time, and until we have a parking strategy, it would not be wise to not allow these parking lots to operate for the next three years.

It was brought up that there’s a concern of impeding development. What impedes development is demand, and that has changed in the last 20 years. We’ve seen demand grow substantially for development in the core, and you can see it by the cranes in the sky. So I think that’s a check on this.

The owner of these properties will definitely see increased value that might not have been there even five years ago on the proposed developments. And that’s where eventually I think we should go in this. I think we should see development, but I think we should see development that provides equal amount of parking for the public as well as those documents of the buildings themselves. So I will be supporting this staff report.

Thank you very much. I have Mayor Holder to speak. Mr. Chair, I appreciate being recognized to discuss the issue.

You know, it’s one of these challenges, and I’ve certainly heard from colleagues in the past around parking lot renewals or various renewals that aren’t consistent with a longer term strategy. And it’s almost, if you will, like a holding provision in that it just, it seems held. And I do not know how long we are going to have perpetual parking in that area. I know it’s a three year extension, and this would have renewed in the previous council.

And as you know, it’s every three years. I asked someone, not this particular applicant, but someone else who was involved in actually a golf range once. And I said, why a three year renewal? And they said, ‘cause we can’t get a five.

And whether that satisfies anyone, I’m not so sure. But I think there’s a reality that you either believe that parking is needed in downtown or not. But downtown isn’t Richmond Road, downtown isn’t the market garden, it isn’t Talbot and York. It’s all around the city, and so as I’ve been trying to understand better the needs for parking downtown, I think if we looked at the total number of overall parking spots, downtown, by the way, being identified as, I think basically if we use London downtown or the BIA from effectively the tracks up to the jogs a bit, but basically towards, but not including Oxford and Richmond certainly goes to the river and over to Wellington and arguably Waterloo.

But nonetheless, what I see, and I thought, Councillor Lehman made some points about it isn’t just for the merchants, but if you’re trying to attract merchants to downtown, to me it’s geographic parking, do you have the right parking in the right place? And this certainly does accommodate some of the Richmond Road, a number of them, Richmond Road merchants. It also supports some of the restaurants and facilities that have later evening events. And again, we’re talking post-COVID.

And it also accommodates events. And so, and we have those when we will have them back and I’m hopeful and mindful that at some point post-COVID we will, but I’m more struck by the notion of geographic parking now, I’m taking with that, that somehow some way we need to ensure that we’ve got the right parking in the right places. I’m not sure we’re quite there yet, but do I think we probably have a lot of parking overall, yes, but are they in the right spots? If someone has a shop on Dundas, are they gonna park up by this facility to go down there?

Likely not, targeted shopping or whatever it might be, not everybody will stroll from one section to another. And I think the other thing is what we’re trying to find is a mixed use, Chair. So what we’re trying to do is to find how you accommodate various forms of transportation, be it busing, be it bicycles, be it motorized vehicles, which are coming up on our agenda as well, not on this agenda today, pedestrians particularly at cars. And how you try to find that balance becomes I think the big challenge.

But I think right now it’s clear to me from what I’ve heard from my individual solicitations of merchants in the area that it’s important and appreciated. What I’ve heard from event planners, it’s important and appreciated. And long-term development on this, I will look forward to receiving longer-term some report from this particular applicant as to what their plans and intent is going to be. Because I don’t see this and I’m trying to be realistic.

I don’t see this as a short-term. This is now going to be developed as something else. I don’t see it. I mean, it’s been anywhere from, and I have some notes on this chair, but anywhere from I think something like 15 to 25 years where we’ve had in those three areas, quote unquote, temporary parking.

I think it’s mis-term. I think it’s long-term parking if I’m being realistic about it with the proviso. And maybe it gives hope to the community, I’m not sure, but that’s some longer-term perspective of development. I don’t see it in the short-term if I’m being quite candid about it.

So there is a need and I will support because I believe there is a need. I don’t want to give a false hope or expectation that somehow three years from now, we are going to be moving this from parking to something else so that’ll be ultimately the decision of the applicant or council who says enough that we think we’ve got sufficient parking around from a geographic standpoint. We’re not there today. And because we’re not there today, be prepared to support this.

Councilor Oppen? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a quick question, but I just want to make a quick comment following the Mayor’s remarks about changing the name of temporary parking to long-term parking.

I think that makes a lot of sense, given that we’re to about 28 years here on this temporary parking. But a quick question through you to staff, following Councillor Layman’s comments about parking strategy and the need. I know we have a downtown parking strategy. I’m wondering if we need a parking strategy for this area as we deal with rapid transit coming into the area, but the changes that are happening downtown.

And just wondering why it was left out of the parking strategy that we already have downtown. So just two quick questions. Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Paul Yeom speaking.

I’m not sure actually if we’ve got anyone on the call, actually that be able to speak to the history of the parking strategy. Mr. Caspis might be able to speak to it if he’s available. Through the Chair, I don’t recall why it was limited to the boundaries that it was, but we could look into that and get back to you prior to Council if that would be helpful.

Thank you, Councillor, go ahead. And I just kind of questions as listening to the comments from committee members, which I really do appreciate hearing from about, do we need a parking strategy as we deal with, like I said, rapid transit coming into the downtown core development, the need for housing, et cetera. So I just want to, I look forward to hearing a little bit more about our parking strategy. And I’ll just listen to everyone else’s comments before I do my follow up.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Vanholz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I’m happy to support the staff recommendation here. Certainly if the owners of the parking lots find a development that’s more valuable than parking, they’ll pursue it because we see that happening in parking lots around the city, particularly some of the shopping centers, there’s more buildings and stores popping up on those parking lots. I’m also happy to keep parking for a little while because we’ve implemented a film industry strategy. And one thing that’s valuable to that industry is of course, wonderful parking near the places where they’re trying to shoot.

So if we want to see some shooting happening downtown and I think that’s a good idea, those parking space might become valuable for that industry. I can’t say for sure, but certainly it’s very difficult for them to do something similar in Toronto, whereas here it might be really attractive and we could pull in some more productions simply by virtue of having these spaces available in a location close to our commercial centers. Thank you. Councillor Luthe.

Thank you, Chair. Colleagues have already highlighted a number of the points that I would have raised. So I’m gonna not try and repeat them too much. Certainly, I’m gonna emphasize one piece though that the mayor mentioned, which is geography and geography does matter in a parking strategy.

I think it’s really key to mention this in conjunction with the heritage concern we had. To me, you’re not going to fill up heritage buildings on Dundas Place, for example, or on Richmond Row. If you don’t have parking for the businesses who are interested in locating there for their employees and for their customers. So there has to be a parking strategy that recognizes geography does matter.

And respectfully, people are not going to walk from say the Elbert Street parking lot down to Dundas Place. So every day, if they’re an employee going to work in one of those heritage buildings. So if we wanna talk about the value of heritage in the downtown, you know, parking is actually related to that because empty buildings are going to be difficult to fill up if there’s not an opportunity for some level of parking. And while rapid transit is coming to the core, you know, if you’ve ever tried to carry home a large heavy item from a shopping excursion, transit’s not necessarily going to replace the personal automobile for some of those trips.

Yes, there should be a mix and we want that mix. That includes, by the way, cycling as well. But to ensure that that mix is available, we have to have adequate parking. So I just thought it was really important to reference the fact that we do have a number of heritage buildings that don’t have easy geographically convenient access to parking.

You know, I too would like to see something come back in the not too distant future around the municipal property on Queen. I thought that there was an opportunity there. And then COVID did shelve that as we heard referenced earlier. So that’s really important as well.

But ultimately we need some of these other parking opportunities developed. And hopefully we’re talking about parking garages. And certainly I agree that surface parking is not the best use of space. But when we have parking that’s being utilized, we need that to be replaced before there’s an opportunity to take it away and allow development to continue in some cases.

I’m really encouraged to see that a number of the towers that are under development in the downtown do include some parking garage structures as well. And they’re not reliant on surface parking. I think that’s an important direction for us to continue to take as we move forward. Before we go on, I just wanted to ask a question of someone from staff and perhaps I’m mistaken.

But it seems to me that we’ve had reports on the past on a downtown parking strategy being developed. And in fact, I remember challenging staff about putting the request for proposals on the parking garage on Queens app as part of a development on hold pending COVID. So it may be helpful to committee if someone can just tell me if is there a strategy in place? Is there a strategy being developed?

Or is there a strategy that’s been put on hold just so we’re clear as we move ahead? Someone want to take a stab at that? Through the chair, there is a actually a downtown parking strategy. It was adopted by council and it isn’t in place.

The question from Councilor Hoppins was more about the limits of the boundaries with respect to the study area. And it was focused on the downtown primarily, but I’m just trying to ascertain the edges or the limits of the border and why the particular border was established. But with respect to the study itself, yes, it is actually adopted by council. And it does address all of the downtown parking needs.

There was actually six areas, sub areas, and it even broke down the parking demands within those areas throughout the downtown. So that is in place and that’s available to all of council. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoppins.

I just thought that would be good to put that on firm ground as to where we are. Okay, committee, anything further, Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, if I may, I’d like to make some comments and just following up on Mr. Costa’s comments about the downtown parking strategy, this comes to us quite often at a planning committee on these temporary use parking lots.

And that strategy is very helpful in determining if we should allow another three year extension or not. And I find this recommendation coming from staff that strategy is very helpful. So it points out what areas are high demand, what are low demand. And we’ve heard quite a bit from the public.

And I wanna thank the public first of all for coming out because as we deal with these temporary parking applications, I am starting to hear more from the public the need to maybe not approve them. As much as we also received comments saying that we do need to accommodate the businesses in the area that do not have parking. And I appreciate what Councillor Layman said. So not having that strategy really, which way are you gonna go?

And I am supportive of looking at not extending these temporary applications ‘cause they’re not temporary. And given the number of changes that are going on in the downtown area, maybe there is an opportunity where we could say no to these applications. I’m glad the applicant’s consultant is here. It gives me some hope to think that they are exploring opportunities for development.

But maybe we should do things in a different way to support downtown. I was just interviewed in a survey that the downtown group is doing on the strategic plan. And one of the things I passed on to them was I hear from the public that we have too many parking empty lots downtown. And that’s something I wanna be consistent.

Like I said, applications have come forward throughout the years on these extensions. I haven’t supported them in the past. And I think I’ll continue not to support the recommendation going further, even though I am saying where this committee is gonna go with it. So thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you very much. Any further comments from the committee? All right, we have the staff recommendation on the floor.

So I’ll call the vote. Chair, I’ll vote yes, it’s the mayor. Closing the vote, the motion passes five to one. Item 3.2, which is a public participation meeting with regard to four, two, six, three, one Hyde Park Road and 1521, Sunnydale Road West.

I will need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hillyer. Unless there’s anything further, I’ll call the vote on that. Chair, I’ll vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion passes. Report. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. My core be here. I’ll give you a presentation which has been added to the agenda as well to follow along with. So the subject site is located on the Northeast corner of Sunnydale Road West and Hyde Park Road right along the edge of the urban road.

Just to clarify, Mr. Corby, that’s just for, we’re trying to be a little more precise about this stuff. It’s a page 304 of the added agenda, am I right? I don’t have the added agenda up, sorry, I just have my.

I think that’s correct. So committee members, don’t expect to see it on your screen. It will be, it’s in paper form, am I right? Only that is appearing under death.

So Councillor Hillyer, do you have this? Yes, I do. It’s in the email, sorry, if you’re on eScribe, it’s in the attachment. It’s the last one down, added presentation.

If you click on it, it’s a very nice presentation you can look at. All right, I just wanted to make sure that, ‘cause I’ve been a little lax on this, I’m making sure that all committee members actually have the presentation and are looking at it as we move ahead. So sorry, Mr. Corby, go ahead.

Now that we’re on that. So currently the, or I guess we’re on the subject site for those, second slide for those who are following along. So the site’s currently used for agricultural purposes, as well as a budding agricultural lands to the north and to the east. On the site, there’s an unevaluated wetland, a small one in the northwest corner, as well as six rural residential lots of budding the subject site.

The nature of the application, the proposed application is for an official plan amendment to permit future residential uses on the subject site. The proposed amendment would change the existing open space designation to low density residential. That’s within the 1989 official plan and the green space place type to the neighborhood place type in the London plan. There’s no development proposal as part of this official plan amendment process.

In regards to some background on the property, the subject site was originally not included within the urban growth boundary and the Fox Hollow community plan in this area of the city. Mount Pleasant Cemetery, the owners of the subject site at the time killed official plan amendment 88, which was undertaken by the city. The purpose of this amendment was to establish the urban growth boundary along with the land use designations as a result of lands annexed by the city in 1993. Essentially, the lands that were to be within the urban growth boundary would be designated urban reserve community growth and outside would be agricultural lands.

Mount Pleasant Cemetery was seeking inclusion within the urban growth boundary in order to permit a cemetery as a primitive use. On December 11th, 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board provided a verbal decision on the Mount Pleasant’s appeal and included the site within the urban growth boundary. At that point in time, the Fox Hollow community plan, which was ongoing, was nearing the completion of its process and the subject lands were not considered or studied as part of this comprehensive review process. As a result, the subject lands were identified within the open space land use designation to beat the owners’ needs through the Fox Hollow community plan process.

This community plan was presented to planning committee on February 8th of 1999 and subsequently approved in March of 1999. In regards to the provincial policy statement, its staff’s opinion that the proposed amendment does not conform to the policies of the PPS, the requested designation of the subject site for residential land uses in isolation from the surrounding lands to the north and east is considered a short-term solution, which may lead to an inefficient development pattern. Propose development does not contemplate the overall needs of the surrounding lands and does not integrate key components outlined in the PPS in regards to the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-affected development patterns, optimization of transit investments and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available. So in regards to a need for a comprehensive review, the subject lands have never been identified or reviewed through a comprehensive process or lands need study for development purposes or future growth, the development of the site relies on the coordination and integration of infrastructure and ultimate servicing solutions that must be provided from adjacent lands.

These matters along with determining appropriate land uses, road networks, public service facility requirements, locations, require this comprehensive review. In regard to the secondary plan process, the London Plan describes the purpose, intent and components of a secondary plan for lands that have not been previously considered for urban development. Through a review of the site’s history, it is clear that lands have not been considered for urban development. Secondary plans are prepared to ensure that future neighborhoods are considered holistically, including the features of the neighborhood and the required municipal infrastructure.

Generally, secondary plans are prepared for multiple properties and oftentimes on lands which require a coordinated approach to subdivision development. This helps with development coordination and the implementation of a neighborhood vision, character, community structure and housing and employment areas. Secondary plans will also provide an opportunity to provide a more detailed policy guidance for the area that goes beyond the general policies of the London Plan. Once a review of the urban growth boundaries undertaken and it is determined that an expansion is warranted and the surrounding lands are approved to be within the urban growth boundary, staff will have the ability to undertake a secondary plan for the subject site and the surrounding areas.

Staff is currently targeting 2020 to start a review of the urban growth boundary. Until such time providing development potential on an isolated site is considered premature in our opinion. Also through this process and the circulation of the official plan amendments, some public concern was raised, concerns about increased traffic, noise, construction, pollution and air quality, potential impacts on well water, loss of privacy and then some concerns over the location of the most easterly access point to identify through a conceptual plan along Sunnydale Road as well as concerns in regard to the location of street G that are on lands to the south of this property. Additional concerns about the scale and density of the potential development as it transitions to the rural areas well.

Items such as roads, site specific land uses, noise, setbacks and buffering are often dealt with through more detailed planning application processes like a zoning bylaw amendment or planning subdivision. Those processes provide additional options and tools to help us address these concerns. Staff’s recommendation also helps ensure that these community concerns can be addressed through a more appropriate and comprehensive review process. A secondary plan would require public engagement prior to getting into detailed zoning or future plans of subdivision.

The plan would identify our higher order road networks and access points to the neighborhood and when established a vision and policy basis for future developments in the area. In terms of our recommendation, staff is recommending refusal of the proposed official plan amendment to low density residential and the 1989 official plan and the neighborhood place types in the London plan. And we are recommending an alternative designations. We are recommending a community growth designation and place type within both official plans.

We feel they are consistent with the provincial policy statement, the 1998, 1989 official plan and the enforced policies of the London plan. The recommendation identifies the lands for future growth while ensuring a secondary plan can be undertaken prior to its development. A secondary plan will identify and plan for the integration of land use planning, road management, transit, supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning. The recommended designation will prevent future compatibility issues with the surrounding lands in regard to land use impacts, service and constraints and sufficient public facilities being available to support the proposed development.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Technical questions only please, Councilor Villier. Technical questions please.

Yes, thank you. I’m just looking at the isolation of this lot and I’m wondering, can the adjacent land, or sorry, the adjacent storm sewers and waste sewers support this? Thank you and through the chair. So there is through the OPA review, we have looked at it, but our engineering staff are looking for holding provisions to be placed over top of the property as the ultimate capacity for the area has not been addressed through this particular application.

Again, technical questions only, Councilor Morgan. By the way, you’re here because this property is within your award. So I just thought I’d give you that introduction. Thanks for the introduction chair.

So my technical question is about the presentation. In a section of the presentation, Mr. Corby mentions the possibility of the urban growth boundary review. And he said that that was scheduled in, I heard 2020.

So I’m wondering if you can clarify the date that he intended on when that would happen. And then I have a couple of questions about that process, if that’s appropriate at this time, Mr. Chair. Through you Mr.

Chair, I’ll clarify that. That is 2022, my apologies. When I was typing it out, I knew I was gonna say 2020, but I thought I said 2022. So sorry, it is then.

Mr. Chair, I’ll ask your advice on this. I have a couple of questions about that part of the process, which you prefer I wait until after the public participation or do you see that as technical? I think that’s probably technical if you’d like to do it now.

Thanks for asking. The members of this committee never asked my permission to do anything. So it’s a really nice change. Well, you’re welcome for that.

So I know the basis of this staff recommendation is grounded in the idea that you could do a secondary plan on a larger block of land. My understanding is that the lands adjacent to this are considered tier one lands. I’d like to confirm that with our staff. And I guess I’d also like to understand, you said when the review would happen in 2022, but how long does it actually take if you were to go through this process to get to an application like this with a secondary plan?

What’s the estimated timeframe that we’d be looking at on that? Thank you, Mr. Chair, it’s Paul Yeoman. So happy to answer those questions.

The first is that the city actually doesn’t have defined tiering of lands for lands outside the urban growth boundary. We did have a review that was done, I believe it was in 2013, which actually did look at some candidate sites outside the urban growth boundary if council was interested at the time of taking lands out of the urban growth boundary and bringing others in lands to the immediate east of these lands were identified as a candidate opportunity at that time and we know there’s a significant demand interest in the Northwest part of the city. In terms of the broader perspective, the urban growth boundary discussion is likely to take a year or a little bit longer than that, more than likely from their secondary planning processes about a year as well too, if not a little bit more too. So again, I would be looking at the lands holistically as the piece within the greater hole.

I think that’s it for my questions at this part. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Councilor Hopkins. Yes, Mr. Chair, I understand we’re still on technical questions up on Councillor Morgan’s question about the review of the urban growth boundary. So that’s gonna take place in 2022.

Just wanna understand the process. Is there a terms of reference that would come to us to open up that review and when would that happen? Through you, Mr. Chair, I’m happy to answer that one as well.

Yes, there definitely will be a terms of reference coming to council for consideration about whether or not a boundary review is something council would like us to pursue. We actually do not have direction on that yet. I should also clarify with my previous comments, the results of an urban growth boundary review would not necessarily indicate that lands in this immediate area would be included or not. I just was saying that there was a previous review that was indicating that the lands to the immediate east were good candidates for the future, but that’s not necessarily the outcomes that would be resulting from a urban growth under review.

Any other technical questions? I have a technical question because I’m confused. My understanding is that this property is currently within the urban growth boundary and the property, what’s your— You’re on mute, Chair. I am?

I don’t think so. Am I on mute? I don’t think I am, Mr. Mayor.

Can you hear me now? Not answering, so I don’t. Can other councilors hear me? Is that better?

You hear me now? Thank you, thanks for pointing out, Mr. Mayor. So what I, just from a technical point of view, this property is within the urban growth boundary and you’re talking about a boundary review to determine if other properties would come within the urban growth boundary.

And in fact, possibly whether this property might get thrown out of the urban growth boundary, is that what we’re looking at? Because that wasn’t the impression that I had initially. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we’re recommending is urban reserve growth designation for the lands or future growth place type and part of the London plan. The urban growth boundary review is a separate matter. What we’re seeing with our recommendation is that there’s not a sufficient amount of land here associated with a broader neighborhood. So for example, this isn’t a straightforward matter where there is a clear geographically defined pod for lack of a better term where a neighborhood would exist.

It does continue into broader lands beyond this and needs to be considered comprehensively through that. I’m not sure that I understand that. So are the other lands we’re talking about possibly being part of this secondary plan? Are they currently within the urban growth boundary or outside of the urban growth boundary?

Mr. Chair, Mr. Morgan was asking questions about lands that are outside the urban growth boundary and that was the nature of his question, his line of questions. But I was talking about my question, which was, okay, I’m gonna leave it there.

I’m gonna leave it there. I might ask questions later. Any other technical questions? Let’s move to public participation then.

Do we have the applicant here? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. It’s Matt Campbell from Zalen Capriamo here.

Can you hear me? I can hear you if you just give me a second. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. With me today is also Steve Stapleton. I’m just gonna have some brief comments and turn it over to Mr. Stapleton.

We’re here essentially asking committee a relatively simple question of whether these lands should be used for neighborhood land uses, which is predominantly residential in the short term or not. I think the discussion just previous to this was getting to the root of the matter. If we adopt the staff recommendation, these lands are essentially sterilized for development for the foreseeable future. We don’t know when they would develop.

I think the really important things for council’s consideration here is that the lands are within the urban growth and they’re available for use. All the technical matters and concerns that staff were discussing, those can all be dealt with. And we’re in the process of doing that right now. These lands can be serviced.

There is a cost associated with that, which Auburn is well acquainted with and they’re prepared to do. And this is an application that is very much in the public interest and we can confirm that there’s been school board interest in putting a new public school on this site. And those comments were provided in the IPR process that we undertook with the city. So I’ll leave my high level comments there and we’ll invite Mr.

Stapleton to speak as well. Go ahead, Mr. Stapleton. Sorry, I had mute there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity. First of all, I’d like to apologize for our divergent position from staff. It’s not our preference to have so many dissenting positions on a file and that’s why we require this committee and council’s guidance to bring this application forward.

As staff have identified, this is a small piece of land, approximately 47 acres, well over 40% of the lands are unconstrained from a natural heritage point of view. And the lands are serviced through infrastructure that’s already built south of Sunnydale Road. The OPA to change the land use to neighborhood does not prejudice the city’s decisions in the future or the adjacent development of lands outside the growth boundary, nor is it premature. The OPA signals to neighborhood signals a desire to implement the policies for growth.

That’s what the applications for. At the beginning of this, we agreed with staff that we would bring forward the OPA in advance of the Plan of Subdivision to get the principle of development established. The opportunities associated with this obviously outweigh any perceived negatives that can be addressed through subsequent processes. We’ve provided the justification and we believe that the subsequent Plan of Subdivision process can deal with any of those additional issues that the city highlights on connectivity, additional park plan linkages and things of that nature.

And we’ve already initiated that process and have the pre-consultation comments and believe strongly that we can deal with all these issues. There’s no need to delay this OPA or in my words, down designate the lands to a community growth position. The Board decision in 1999 identified the area for community growth and then the subsequent Fox Hollow Community Plan because of the landowner being a cemetery user identified it for cemetery purposes. We’ve provided the justification for the change.

The Hydro G report highlights a high water table that makes it not conducive for burial plots and hence the sale of the property to Auburn. We do believe the issues on connectivity and we have provided that to the staff. However, it’s not in the report ahead of you. We just don’t believe that this land should be sterilized for a number of years.

I take issue with the two year estimate from Mr. Yeoman quite frankly. If that was the case, I don’t think we’d be here with a negative report because it’ll take two years to get a subdivision approved. We therefore request that this Committee and Council weigh the public benefit that is in front of you with regard to public schools and parks and the ability to add supply to the housing market that is obviously constrained.

It is significant the increases in prices and the process itself limits the availability in a timely way. So we put this in front of you. We asked for your support of our OPA to neighborhood because it is the beginning of the process. It’s not the end of the process.

There’s a number of issues that we can address through subsequent processes. Subdivision that will deal with most of, if not all, the issues that were raised by staff in their presentation on road patterns. I must highlight that the road patterns to the south and the collector roads have been built to Sunningdale Road. So those connections to the north will be initiated through that.

There really is no unknowns with regard to the development of this property. And we would look forward your support in advancing to the next stage. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other presentations, public presentations? Mr. Chair, we have Richard Kraknell joining us. Mr.

Kraknell. Good afternoon and thank you. I have a prepared statement I’d like to make. You have five minutes and you can start now.

I should be about three. To start, I’d like to acknowledge the assistance and guidance that’s been provided to be by your senior planner, Mike Corby. He’s done an outstanding job. After viewing the report from the deputy city manager planning and economic development, I agree with all the recommendations that are contained within it.

Although I’m not an engineer, it’s apparent to me that submitted documents that allowing this planning application would not be the most effective and efficient use of taxpayer resources as stated in the report. I have noted that even in the applicant’s documents, there are costs that have been identified. Unfortunately, the party responsible for the payment is not. As I have stated previously before in communications, the land was not included in urban growth plan, as it was, I should say it was included in the urban growth plan as a green space cemetery.

It was never considered a potential source of residential lots when the Foxwood development was being considered. As a result, no infrastructure planning was considered for the land. I would like to add further comment, though about my concerns with respect to providing safe access to public education for elementary students if the proposed development is allowed. Thames Valley School Board has a policy of not providing transportation to elementary students who live within 1.6 kilometers of their geographical home school.

Is my understanding, and I checked today on the web, that the assigned school for students would be Arthur Curry Public School, the geographically closest public school. I would also like to point out that most residential units proposed would fall within the 1.6 kilometers or conference of the school. A school that has nine portables, and as I understand, is at capacity now. My main concern, though, is with those elementary students that would live within the 1.6 kilometers of the school, and would have to walk across Sunnydale Road West, a major city artery.

I think that for safety reasons, busing would be required for those students, which would be an added cost to the property taxpayers of London, to conclude, if this proposal is allowed, there is a choice to be made either we have an increase in property taxes to provide safe access to public education via busing, or students are put at risk by having to cross a major artery, which at the present time is 80 kilometers per hour, and there’s no crossing point. I’d also like to say that I feel some of the development costs associated are being transferred to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, those costs are unknown, and they’re not disclosed. To move forward with unknown costs, in my mind, is irresponsible of counsel, and I’d like to thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, sir, for coming and speaking to us today. Other speakers? Mr. Chair, Stephen Romano.

Mr. Romano. All right, sorry, I’m just attending this meeting to hear the other participants. I don’t have anything to say at this time.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr.

Chair, Laura Renier. Ms. Renier. Ms.

Renier. Hi, sorry about that. That’s okay. Yeah, no, we have nothing further to say at this time, like everything that’s been submitted.

I think we’ve made all our comments, and we support the Planning and Environment Committee recommendation. All right, it’s not the committee recommendation yet. It’s staff’s recommendation. So you’re saying you support the staff recommendation?

Thank you. The staff recommendation. Thank you. Anybody else?

Mr. Chair, that we have no other members of the public and attendance. All right, thank you very much. I’ll just need a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Moved by Mayor Holder, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. There’s nothing further, I’ll call the vote on that. Chair, I vote yes. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries. Very much. So I think we’ll open it up now for questions only at this point in time if there may be an opportunity or need to ask additional questions I anticipate. So I may be wrong, but let’s just do questions for now.

It’s not. All right, so I’ll turn it over to the committee. I’ll let Councillor Morgan go ahead since he’s a year to go ahead and he’s been polite to me so far and he’s the Councillor for the award. So for all those three reasons, Councillor, you’re up.

Yes, and I actually was trying to catch you on the questions for staff part. So I’m gonna do that and I will say, the reason why I was asking about the urban growth boundary wasn’t because particularly I wanted to have a big discussion about the urban growth boundary, but you can’t do a wider comprehensive secondary plan without having the lands in. And so that’s why I was asking for the timeframe and I thought it was interesting that Mr. Stapleton said if we knew this was gonna be the timeframe, we probably wouldn’t be here with an adverse report.

So I guess my question for Mr. Yeoman or Mr. Corbier, whoever’s appropriate is, if you do the boundary review and the adjacent lands do not come in to the boundary, would staff be open to looking at a development plan for this piece that is in the urban growth boundary or is the intent to keep it out and leave it in this reserve status until such time that the lands would come in to the North and East. Through you, Mr.

Chair. So if we did receive a following your chain of logic there, if further lands weren’t to come in and we’ve received another application on the site of Council wherever we designate for future growth, we would still remain with the recommendation that it’s premature until the balance of lands came in to actually create the neighborhood. From our perspective, this is the beginning of a brand new neighborhood. It’s an area that’s separated by arterial roads.

It’s the only proposed growth location north of Sunningdale between Hyde Park and Wonderland. There aren’t any physical boundaries that would define a neighborhood associated with it as part of a broader whole and as part of a broader community that’s going to be forming in this area as a result. So that’s why the recommendation would remain until we actually did have the lands command that could actually support that. Okay, that’s helpful.

Thanks through the Chair to Mr. yeoman. I’m going to weigh in on the debate, but I’m going to let committee members go first on this one. Thank you, Councillor.

Committee members like to speak on this matter? Move a motion, anything that we’re looking at. Perhaps we have any type of discussion at first. Mayor Holder, you can start us off.

Well, I would have, but I saw the Councilor Benholz slightly got ahead of me, so why don’t we start with him and then I’ll be happy to join in after Chair. Okay, I missed that. I’m not good at picking up the hands sometimes. So thanks for that.

Councillor Benholz, go ahead. Thank you, I actually had just a question. These two came up of crossing Sunnydale and I see in other communities primarily south of the border that there’s over roadways like this. There might be a pedestrian bridge that goes up and then comes down again.

And I wondered if staff could just comment on that kind of thing as an approach to making the crossings safer. Councillor, would you like to comment? I suppose you could only comment in a general way about pedestrian bridges. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And through you to the Councilor, it’s Math over speaking. So just to give some perspective, we’re actually putting a pedestrian bridge over Richmond Street, just north of Sunnydale. And in that case, quite a lot of planning was put into that.

We actually went through an EA process in order to do that. But we also identified that bridge in the DC study. So it’s been planned for a number of years and the financing has been established. So it wouldn’t be a short-term solution if that was something we were going to do.

Thank you, that’s helpful. All right, go back to the map. Thanks, Chair. I was looking at some of the history of this particular property.

And it came in as a result of the 1993 annexation. Is it more through Vision 96 and the London’s official plan? It was established as part of the urban growth boundary. And I read the staff report and it’s not typical of me to challenge the staff report, usually because I am grateful and I appreciate the kind of thought process that goes into this kind of consideration.

I think the staff are typically clear and I’ll say forceful in a thoughtful way. But as I read the report, one of the things that stuck out item four of the front page page 215 for colleagues where it says the requested amendment is premature. I’m not sure that’s totally consistent with Mr. Oman’s comments based on Council Morgan’s question about if the broader holistic view is not considered for that residential consideration that they would then look at this particular application and that gives me some cause for concern.

And I do appreciate the staff, Chair. I wanna do this in a holistic manner in many respects. I look at this though and a few comments. Firstly, it’s within the urban growth boundary.

And I think that is important. Secondly, that it’s a low density application, which I think is respectful of, we’ve got what some six rural tenants that we are, or pardon me, properties that came in as a result of the annexation as well. So there is some residential currently on the site, albeit limited and I recognize that it is limited. When I look at the recommendations of staff beyond them saying that the requested amendment is premature, I read that to me before I heard the comments responding to Council Morgan, Deputy Mayor Morgan, that it’s not a question of if but when.

Now I feel from that comment, it’s not a question of when but if, and that gives me, I will tell you some challenge there with it. I look at further recommendations where it says that it’s without consideration of the surrounding lands is not a big picture or long-term thinking, well, I might respectfully challenge that. And yes, it would involve future land use, servicing and road network issues, but any development must do that. Under item seven, it said that the subject says not been reviewed for urban land uses, which would have taken into account servicing demands and school public service facility requirements.

But I can tell you, Chair, that the Executive Director of Terzetali School Board called me some weeks ago in support of this particular project because of the desperate need in Northwest London for additional schooling. And you heard one of the folks who called in talk about the portables at Sir Arthur Curry, nine portables. That’s challenging at the best of times for students in a learning environment. So I’m mindful of that.

So I do believe that the issue around schooling is I think the need is there and the need is clear and the financial ability to support that according to Mr. Fisher is there as well and support from the province in that regard. And also that the proposed amendment and isolation could result in an efficient development and land use pattern. I’ve got tremendous confidence in staff and their ability to work through a significant major arterial road to make this possible.

And if part of this broader holistic view, share is to make sure that we line up streets and the like with that broader bigger piece of property, assuming that it gets that nod as it were and support from council. I’m confident that that can be done as well. So to me, premature is an interesting word and I wanna come back to the point that this is within our official plan and we like to argue the official plan, it’s within the urban growth boundary. I think it’s a legitimate proposal put forward by the applicant and I’m less comfortable with delays associated with this ‘cause anybody in business knows that if it’s a question of if not when or when not if, then it’s really if it’s if it’s if not when then this is a moot point.

But if it’s when not if significant delays means the significant costs and I’m not sure that that would be fair to any applicant through this process. And my final comments around this are in the tentative nature of some of the recommend, a lot of quads in there that it could do this or could do that and I just not trying to tell staff what to do but if that was a stronger positioning it would probably have more credence with me. So I’m not sure, Chair, what would be necessary and I’ll take some guidance from you on this that I would move a motion to accept. The recommendation, or pardon me, the application from the applicant to proceed and I have tremendous confidence in our staff and their ability to do this.

I’d mention as well that the Fox Hollow Community Improvement Plan that that piece there provides the servicing capability so it’s not impossible to have services connect to this. So I’m not sure and I’d go to the clerk for this chair if you would. Well, why don’t we do that in a moment while you’re sort of out of time. So we’ll let you, you can bring a motion on some other Councillors that have maybe made some comments.

We can look at what motions we need to bring and what the wording would be. And in the meantime, the clerks could look at the wording to do what the mayor is saying. We’ll come back to you. Councillor Layton.

Okay. Yeah, you’re sort of out of time but you know. I just wanted to thank, I wanted to thank staff though because they were very thoughtful of this. That’s all true, thank you.

Councillor Layton. Thank you, Chair. You know, when I came into this I had, you know, next thoughts, I understand, you know, planning staff wanting to have a more realistic view of a bigger area for proper planning. What’s foremost in my mind is our lack of housing in London and you have demand outstripping supply prices skyrocket.

And that’s what we’re seeing. Second concern I have is we know that we’re running out of land in London and urban growth revision is going to be coming down at some point. So those are the things that we’re in my head coming to this meeting. What I’ve heard here is that, you know, what really concerns me is the timeframe on this.

It looks like we’re going to have to have an urban growth, a renewal strategy put in place and minimum that’s going to be two to four years. But then after further questioning of staff and comments, I’m concerned that might even be longer. The other concern I’ve learned tonight is that the concern of the school board, we’ve all well known a tremendous growth in the Northwest. I think the parents and the children going to school are in those portables, that concerns me as well and that this is a potential site for some action on that front.

You know, as we run out of land, we’re going to be coming up against this situation more and more. Are we going to be putting land that is in within, you know, the urban growth boundary on hold if the surrounding land is not part of the urban growth boundary? And what does that mean for future development? Being that we haven’t really addressed our boundary and looking at a review of that, my concern is that this is going to be a long process and I’m not comfortable delaying housing for a very long time or unforeseeable future.

So those are my thoughts right now. Councilor Hoffman? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and just following Councillor Layman’s thoughts to I appreciate his comments and I just have a couple of questions through you to staff about how much land do we have to develop within the urban growth boundary?

It’s my first question. Or how many years do we have of development within the urban growth boundary? And my second question is, I need to have a better understanding about the timelines here with the urban growth boundary review. I’m still not clear on when the terms of reference are going to come forward and when and if a review.

I heard that we may need to bring forward emotion. I just would like further clarification on the process of an urban growth boundary review. That was, that’s my second question. And the timelines also?

Yeah, if they’re available, I would think there would be a terms of reference coming forward and I would like to know how many years of development do we have within a current. Okay, so you want to know how much develop, how much time we have with the land we have now and then how long an urban growth boundary application would take in the process of that? Not so much the application, but it’s the process of— Yeah, the application and process. Go ahead, staff, if you can.

Thank you to the Chair, it’s Greg Bart speaking. I’ll take the first cut on this. With respect to land supply, right now we still have a 20 year land supply. I think a couple of the Councillors have already mentioned, it’s an issue of geography, not supply.

So there are areas in the city where there are constraints on the land supply, there areas in the city where there aren’t constraints on the land supply. The current urban growth boundary city wide has sufficient lands to accommodate growth. The notion or the question on the urban growth boundary discussions, urban growth boundary discussions, come as a result of a comprehensive review. Comprehensive review is something that Council is required to take, at least, sorry, 10 years after the adoption, within 10 years of the adoption of a new plan and at least every five years thereafter.

And it’s Council first asks themselves the question, do we need to have that review? We’ve not brought that report yet forward to Council. You’ve been told that we’re looking towards the end of 2022, we would be bringing forward in terms of reference and that sets out the whole process. That process starts with an examination of what the land needs are.

And those land needs are driven by a full review of the city’s population and employment growth projections. The reason why we’re waiting until later in 2022 to start that process is because that’s when we would expect results from the census that’s ongoing now. So the census is just being done in 2021. We would expect the results of that census in 2022 and that information informs the land need study and the whole examination of what our demographic needs would be and examining what the future growth would be.

That then sets out what is your demand side. We then look at what the supply side is and it’s when we then have that discussion on what’s, this is what we’re gonna need in the future, this is what we have in the bank, then that’s when we determine, okay, do we need more lands? And then from that, we look at where would the most appropriate place for those lands be? And that process goes on, it is a full public process and it’s a process that’s described and laid out in the terms of reference that would come before you as we said in 2022.

So that’s a long convoluted answer. It’s a one to two year process. It’s a process that would start after 2022 when we would have the right information to begin to put the inputs in that process. And it’s a process that begins with council saying, “Yes, you need to look at that.” And that these are, again, there would be some parameters that we would probably ask council to do.

Do you want us to look at, for example, the 360 degree view, which is the way we are in London now, which is we say we provide opportunities for growth in all areas of the city. And by having that policy in that perspective, that’s where we run into the problems of, oh my gosh, we’re in this area running out, where in other areas we have sufficient supply. The next time we look at it, do we want to say, well, let’s be targeted. Where should we be directing growth for this first period?

And then everybody knows, and that’s where we direct the resources. But that’s something that we will have that discussion with council before we start that process later in 2022. Thank you, Councilor. Yeah, thank you.

I really do appreciate your answer. I think we, I know as a committee member, I need to understand the process. And so just following up on Mr. Barrett’s answers, will these lands be part of that comprehensive lands and the lands around this application as well?

Thank you, Chair. I guess the short answer would be yes. We would be looking at all the lands adjacent to the existing urban growth boundary as we would, as we go forward through an exercise in the future. If it’s determined that we need additional lands, then we would look at all of the lands adjacent to the urban growth boundary, or subject to council’s direction, we’d say, well, given where we’re growing now, maybe we’re going to focus this.

And maybe it’s not in the Northwestern, maybe it’s somewhere else. But I would imagine the direction would be, let’s look at all the lands around the urban growth boundary. You know what, you went on mute. Sorry about that.

Yeah, and I guess, Mr. Barrett, you’ve reminded me to make sure I fill in my consensus as well. So thank you for clarification. Thank you.

Further comments or questions on, in general, and then I’ll go back to the mayor ‘cause he wanted to bring a motion. And every now and again, I do what the mayor says. Not very often, but every now and again. Councilor Van Holst, you had some comments?

Thank you, more questions, Mr. Chair. So I think confirming this particular properly is not outside the urban growth boundaries inside. And are the lands adjacent to the north outside?

I think you’re being asked about the adjacent properties that you’re talking, you’ve been talking about, are they inside or outside the urban growth boundaries? Through you, Mr. Chair, Mike Corbe here. The lands to the north and the east of this site are all outside of the urban growth boundary.

Okay, so thank you. So this is the last, this is the last site to develop within the urban growth boundary around that area. But we think that because it’s on the other side of Ontario Road, it’s really more the start of a new subdivision that would include those things. Now, that’s correct?

Well, I think that you’re asking, right? I’ll let them answer, but I just would ask them, you don’t have to get into expressing your opinion and what any thoughts you had on your plan, if that makes any sense. Thanks for recording. Through you, Mr.

Chair. Essentially, our council van holst is somewhat correct. We believe this property should develop comprehensively with the lands to the north and the east because it was not part of the full comprehensive review process of the Fox Hollow community plan to the south. It was really separated and added on at the tail end of that review process.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. And just a question about those other lands, the likelihood of those adjacent properties being included into the urban growth boundary. Are those farm lands?

Are they being farmed right now? Are they something different? How likely are we to want to keep those as urban? As a rural, I should say.

Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Paul Yeun. So we’ll be looking at all lands and their appropriateness for development based on a series of criteria that’ll be coming with the urban growth boundary review. I will say that we will be looking at lands that are abutting the boundary that are close to lands that are designated for future growth, such as the recommendation that’s coming forward.

I can also say that the previous lands when they’re evaluated to the east, we’re recommended as good candidates for development. And I anticipate that a review would come to a similar conclusion in the future. Go ahead, Councilor Vangel. Okay, thank you.

And I appreciate it now, Mr. Chair, just hoping to understand the situation because I’m left to vote. Do you have more questions? One, so one more question.

How, you know, I think that the mayor’s made a point that’s good, it seems that the plans for this might go forward since it is going to be developed at some point, they could go forward concurrently with some of these other studies that we’re looking at. If we don’t allow it, then how much will this, how long would this development be set back? And I ask that because we are in a housing crisis. We want more housing and now it seems like we’re slowing that down in this particular instance.

Sorry, is that a question? How long would it, what’s the difference in time for this development to happen if we do or don’t follow the mayor’s proposal? Okay, can you answer that, Scott? Through you, Mr.

Chair, yes, I can do my best. Should the application and the applicant’s request to be approved, you’re looking at at least a timeline for a subdivision review if our billing permits could be issued in the area. With a secondary plan associated with the future potential urban growth boundary discussion, it’s likely longer than that because that process would take time. I will though reiterate some of the points that Mr.

Corby made in his presentation, though that a secondary plan isn’t just about land use and transportation and road connections and servicing. It really is about defining the character for the community, the community structure and all those other associated policies that are really important to the formation of a neighborhood, especially when you’re looking at things like Council’s recent declaration related to climate change and how we might wanna do growth different in the future. Do you have anything further, Councilor Van Hall? No, thank you, Mr.

Chair. Okay, I think I’ll let Councilor Morgan go and then I promise the mayor would go back to him to bring a motion. So I wanna do that unless Councilor Morgan wants the motion on the floor first and I’ll lead that up to him. I think I’ll share some comments first and maybe that will, I don’t know if that’ll help or hurt with the motion making process, but I think probably important for me to share my thoughts now that I’ve asked some questions.

So the first piece is the reason this is in the urban growth boundary is because the OMB decided that it should be and it wasn’t intended to be because we probably would have approached this as a holistic block at some point in the future, which staff is now trying to try to suggest that we would do. So we’re stuck in the situation where we have a piece that is legitimately within the urban growth boundary for historical reasons that probably shouldn’t have been and wasn’t the intention of the city at the time. I do think that there are certainly housing issues. There’s a housing portability issue, but as it was mentioned by Mr.

Barrett, there is a 20 year supply in the city and it is a question of where people want to build. And I think that this block of Hyde Park to Wonderland is an ideal block given the character of the neighborhood of the south to develop, but it should probably be done in a comprehensive way as staff is suggesting. The school issue, the reason why there are so many portables at Sir Arthur Curry is not because we didn’t think we knew how the area was going to build out. It’s because the school board and the province do not build schools that are big enough.

And they’re unlikely to do that this time too, especially if we’re going to potentially develop this whole area. And so looking at it in a comprehensive way, I think helps us solve that issue. And so my preference on this, to be honest, is not one that I’m able to achieve. And that is, you know, through some process of a review of the urban growth boundary that we swapped this land in and another land out, which of course, the landowner on the other side is not going to want to do.

And then we developed this in a comprehensive way. So I get and fully understand why our staff are saying, until we can do that, we want to plan this holistically. And I think that that can make a lot of sense, given that we have some neighborhoods in the city that are not planned very well and are creating significant issues for us. And I think planning out this whole neighborhood makes some sense.

Where are we going to have commercial? Where’s our walkability? Where is their medium low high density? Where are the schools?

Where are the community facilities going to go? Fire protection, police protection, that sort of thing. So like, if council is going to proceed or if the committee is going to proceed with trying to figure out how to allow this development early, there’s got to be, and I don’t know if staff can answer this, but there’s got to be some process of us being able to look at this block of land, even if it isn’t within the urban growth boundary, so that we have at least a comprehensive idea of what we would do across the board on this block. Because I have very little interest in planning this as one small piece of a puzzle.

And this block is actually a very small piece of what could be the larger planned area and bringing that in and developing that is what is going to really help with housing prices and the development of the area, not this tiny block of which a significant portion of it would be taken up by a school. So I’m challenged on this, like my colleagues are. I think that’s why you’re seeing a lot of questions. I’m interested in the committee discussion, but I think staff have some merit in the approach that they’ve taken given.

There is a very large block here that could be developed in a comprehensive way, but I certainly understand those members of the committee who feel the pressure to want to move forward and allow this piece that is within the urban growth boundary to be developed, like I certainly understand that. And I know it is very difficult to try to go in other direction on that because of the pressure that we’re facing, but we’re in an awkward situation because of some path dependency on this one. And there isn’t really a good way out. So I’m gonna listen to the committee recommendation and I certainly respect all of my colleagues’ views on this regardless of where you land on it.

Hey, I’m gonna go back to Mayor Holder. Did you wanna bring a motion? And then we can see if we can get it seconded and then we’ll have comments directed directly to that motion. Absolutely, Chair.

And none of this is pre-planned because I think it was important to have that discussion as Councillor Hopkins and most recently, Councillor Morgan had pointed out, I do wanna say to Councillor Morgan, I don’t feel any pressure with regard to bringing a motion forward. What I do feel pressure about is only this. Look, it’s easy to say no to this development. And I respect the work that staff have done as they have looked to consider doing this holistically.

I think for us, it’s a different issue as well. And that is to act with compassion to support education. And I see that as a major fundamental piece of this. And I’m tremendously confident that staff can put the pieces around this to make it work.

Mr. human’s talked about a character of the community for the neighborhood and I 100% agree. But I think, can we get your motion on the floor? Let’s do that.

Yeah, I thought you wanted to bring a motion so we can do that and everyone can speak to that. Chair, you’re very good at keeping the focus and I appreciate that. And so apologies for the pre-limb. I would like to move that the Official Plan be amended to change the designation of the subject lands from an open space designation to low density residential designation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. The clerk have wording for that. I gave time for that.

Mr. Chair, we’re just working on that if you could give us just a few minutes. A minute, no way, no joking. We can proceed on with the debate and then we’ll get the wording out.

All right, so the first of all, we’re gonna need a seconder for that motion. Is there a seconder for the mayor’s motion? And that is Councillor Hillyer. So understanding it’s a pretty straightforward motion, but we will get the wording up.

So I will allow speakers to motion now. Mr. Mayor, if you’d like to go first, that’s fine with me. It’s committee so you can speak again if you want.

Well, hopefully I don’t need to do, I’ve spoken a couple of times to the issue and the sentiments associated with this. I’ve talked about the respect I have for staff and the work that they’ve done to do this. And to me, I would rather take the approach that it’s when, not if and frankly, I think sooner makes more sense than later. And I look at the schooling issue as I’ve indicated, Chair.

And I think that’s as much as I need to say at this point. Thank you. So other speakers to the mayor’s motion. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I won’t give you too hard a time for missing me twice there. But through you to our policies, Councillor, I did an issue twice and it’s my fault.

Sorry, through you to our staff. And I’m gonna relate this to the motion that’s now on the floor, just to try and stay procedurally consistent. But I was concerned when I heard a lot of ifs, not whens. But what other designation, aside from residential designation, would you opinion, I guess, I’m asking you to make, but in your expert opinion, what other sort of place types would we be giving this piece of land, if not a residential low or medium density, residential designation?

Through you, Mr. Chair, that’s something that we would determine through the secondary planning process. It’s likely that there would be a neighborhood place type that’s put on here, but it would be a neighborhood place type potentially that’s not, that’s refined from the London Plan policies and different from what you’re seeing there. It’s hard for us to give you a full answer to that, ‘cause it pre-judges a further planning process that hasn’t commenced.

So my apologies for not being able to give you further clarity on that. No, that’s okay. That actually is still helpful to me in hearing that. I will just share that initially on reviewing this over the weekend and giving this some thought, I was supportive of staff’s original recommendation.

I thought that a community growth and environmental review would be something that, might cause a delay of a few months, maybe even put it into next year’s construction season, but as I start hearing discussions about bringing pieces of land in and out of the urban growth boundary, and then if adjacent pieces aren’t brought in, then we still wouldn’t entertain this application. We would essentially leave it sitting in limbo indefinitely until adjacent pieces of land were brought in. I become less comfortable with the staff recommendation and more inclined towards the applicant’s position. I’m gonna listen to what colleagues have to say on this, but when I start hearing if, not when, it does become a concern, and I think the mayor articulated that pretty well, but I am also not entirely comfortable with approaching this in a piecemeal way that doesn’t look at the wider neighbourhoods.

So I’m undecided and I’m looking to hear what colleagues have to say about the motion that’s on the floor now. Councilor Hopkins, again, this is all to the mayor’s motion. Just so we’re clear. And a lot of us have spoken already, so I’m hoping we’ll all follow the mayor’s lead and keep our comments to new information.

So this is the first time, Mr. Chair, that I’m speaking to the motion. I haven’t seen the motion, but I understand we— I certainly wasn’t referring to you. It was a general comment, Councilor Hopkins.

I wasn’t suggesting you had spoken or anything like that. I hope you didn’t think I was speaking to you when I said to focus on the issue. No, but I just wanted to reiterate that I am speaking to this motion. This is— - Excellent.

I have not seen the motion, but I understand what we are doing is we are designating. Can I just stop you right there? It is up apparently now. So I didn’t want to, apparently it is available now.

I keep interrupting your Council and I don’t mean to do that, but I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Mr. Chair, it’s Kathy Funder. Thank you.

I’m wondering if we could read it out because we’re trying to— That would be great. That’s what the motion is, to be honest. So I think what— My plan here is to eat up Councilor Hopkins full five minutes on my time. So it’s a stall tactic, but we’ll go ahead.

Okay, and I just want to acknowledge Mr. Yeoman’s previous comment about our referral back because this is quite a substantial amount of work to be done before the Council meeting. But my understanding of the mayor’s motion is that notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the applications submitted by Auburn Development Inc. relating to the property located at 2631 High Park Road and 1521 Sunnydale Road West per A, the Official Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject lands from open space designation to a low density residential designation B approved, B the Official Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject lands from green space type to a neighborhood place type, the approved, and then C part would be that the civic administration be directed to bring forward the appropriate files to implement parts A and B above, then we would note the public comments that were given.

So procedurally, from a clerk’s perspective, we’re a little concerned that the public wouldn’t have seen these bylaws because the bylaws attached to the report would not reflect this. So I am speaking in support of Mr. Yeoman’s suggestion of a referral back. Sorry, referral back to draft the appropriate bylaw?

Yes, and bring them forward. Mr. Yeoman could speak better as to how much work has to be done to make the changes in time for them. Right, so just so I’m clear, does that mean that you want this entire motion referred back, or can we vote on the motion and refer certain parts back, I’m not clear?

Through Mr. Chair, you could approve parts A, B, and C, and we would amend part C to say that the civic administration would bring those bylaws forward to a future meeting of planning and environment committee for consideration, or otherwise we would have to have them ready for the May 25th council meeting. Which is a challenge. So Mr.

Mayor, are you prepared to do that where we would be voting on the recommendation? It’s just the bylaws would come back for a vote at a future meeting of planning, which to me would mean a re-debating of the issue. It would be a putting it off for that procedural step to be properly completed, am I right, Clerk? Yes, we do have a second wording that may be of some assistance with the referral if you wish me to read that out.

Be helpful. You can read that out. I just want to, I think the committee needs to be really clear as to what will be going to council next week that it wouldn’t be coming back at the next planning meeting for a re-debate on the entire issue. So I think that’s important for a committee to know.

So if you want to read out the second version and then I can find out if the mover and seconder are in time with that. The second version would be that not withstanding the recommendation of the Director Development Services the Civic Administration be requested to accept an application by Auburn Development relating to the property located at 263.1 High Park Road and 152.1 Sunnydale Road. Westbury referred back to the Civic Administration to undertake the following. A, amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands from an open space designation to an urban reserve community growth and environmental review designation.

B, amend the London Plan to change the place type of the subject lands from a green space place type to a future community growth place type and environmental review place type being noted that the amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with map one and map seven of the London Plan Part C to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands from an open space to a low density residential designation Part D to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands from a green space type to a neighborhood place type. So that motion is from Mr. Yeoman’s perspective more doable from getting the work done. All right, I would ask the mover and seconder their intent to proceed with that second version of the motion.

Question I have for you Chair, through to the clerk, you indicated you said at a future meeting, what does that mean recognizing that staff are terribly overburdened, but at the same time, I’m mindful of time. So could I have a sense of that, please? Go ahead. Mr.

Chair, respectfully, I think that’s Mr. Yeoman, better questions for Mr. Yeoman too. I agree.

Go ahead, Mr. Yeoman. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair.

So should the motion go forward and we’re provided that direction by council, we could return to it with it at the next planning cycle. My concern is that having a change being made by committee and council like this, it’s not a minor deviation to the recommendation, it is a significant change from the recommendations before you. So I want to make sure that you have everything full some in front of you for making that decision. Okay, I’ll go back to the mover.

Are you prepared to do that understanding that it will come back in the next cycle of planning me? To the next cycle of planning me, I’m prepared to do that, Chair, prepared to revise my motion accordingly. All right. That’s it.

Councilor Homer’s giving me a thumbs up, so that’s good. So we’re now proceeding on the second version of the motion, which I hope everyone will be able to see. And unfortunately, Councilor Hopkins, your five minutes are gone and you’re— You’ve got an extension. You’ve got an extension.

I’m going to take a Chair’s prerogative here and grant you a five minute extension. But before you do that, hold that extension. I would like to hear from the Council of the Board before I make my comments. Is that okay, Councilor Morgan?

Do you mind leading in front of Councilor Hopkins? Sure, I’m happy to do that. So I understand the way the committee’s going to go. It sounds like there’s a majority who are supportive in this direction.

I would like to try to help make this as good as possible for the local community. And so I have a couple of questions and a suggestion. First question, I guess, is for Mr. Yeoman and his team.

And through a plan of subdivision process, is it possible to a plan a wider area that may not be in the urban growth boundary so that you can plan for the wider perspective, even if you do not know when that might come in? Like, how does this actually work? Or do we have streets that may connect to parcels of land that who knows when it will come into the urban growth boundary? I’m just curious on how this would be handled from a design standpoint.

And two, I think it’s important for the members of the public who are directly impacted by the development on the site to have an opportunity to see what would be happening. So is it possible to add like a public site plan meeting to see what this would look like before a final decision is made on the site plan? So those are my two questions. Thank you very much, staff.

Sure, and thank you through the chair. It’s Matt Felberg speaking to Councillor Morgan. So the first piece would be draft plan would be how we would come back and have public input. It would be a site plan if we were doing a plan of subdivision.

So that would be the opportunity where we’d have a PPM and folks could comment on what’s happening on the property. With respect to how we would plan this for the subdivision. So I mentioned at the top that our engineering partners were looking for holding provisions on for a number of the services. So the first one I’ll speak to stormwater.

So for this, the outlet is actually to the south on the other side of Sunningdale Road. I believe it’s Fox Hill will swim one is the pond. So the challenge that the applicant will have is actually getting stormwater to cross Sunningdale Road. We do have some constraints in the right of way right now.

I believe there’s a rather large water main at a depth that might be a spot where you might also want to have a storm sewer. With respect to water servicing, so drinking water, the water, the capacity for the water system in this area has not been considered in the Hyde Park pumping station. So this area would be part of the Hyde Park pressure zone. And that zone actually goes all the way to the east to Medway Valley.

So the point of having the secondary plan would be for us to identify what the populations are for the whole area and then be able to consider the water servicing holistically and allow us to consider these lands as well. The third piece from the sanitary perspective. So there’s currently no municipal sanitary sewer fronting these lands. The outlet for this property is actually further to the east.

It’s about a kilometer away. And the applicants proposing a temporary portion in to bring the sanitary flows out to the street is Tokola near Bridge Haven. So it’s in the Creek view or Fox Hollow plan right now. The challenge with some of those temporary facilities is that through the London plan and through our DC bylaw, what we’re looking to do is have the ultimate outlet established so that we know, so there’s an end date to some of those temporary facilities.

And at this point again, that hasn’t been considered. So what we’d end up having to do if council directed us to take that approach, we’d end up developing an operations and maintenance agreement that would be the responsibility of the landowner, the developer for until that ultimate outlet is available. With respect to the transportation. Again, like we’re looking at bringing sidewalks to a point and we have sidewalks that end.

So they have no outlets. So you’re not creating that connectivity across multiple properties. And I mean, while that could be an option here, the more appropriate way is to look at it holistically. I know I’m talking about the same thing over and over again, but I just wanna reiterate that it is a bit of a challenge for the developer and there is a cost to them in order to come up with a servicing solution.

Yes, if I’d go through the chair. My question is, can you actually do a secondary plan with parts of it, not in the urban growth boundary? Like, is that something that is possible to design so that you know how this piece would fit holistically into a future puzzle? With the caveat that we don’t actually know when that would be completed because we don’t know what the results of an urban growth boundary would be.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, it’s an excellent question. Our opinion right now is that no, we could not do that given that that prejudges considerable lens or outside the boundary and potential timing of when they were. My opinion is that if 50% or more of the lands were to be in that’s when we could actually trigger the secondary plan to be completed.

That’s when we’d have a good handle on the scope of the community, the community structure and enough information to complete the servicing plans associated with the development. Okay, so I’m not sure how much time I have left. Sure, but you can cut me off. I still have the same challenge with this and that is I think we’re moving towards planning a subdivision that is isolated from the rest of the block because I can’t see how we can possibly plan for the entire block.

And I’m not convinced that’s ideal. I think what we’re gonna end up with is potentially a small piece that operates in isolation from the rest of a future contemplated block here, which is something that you gotta be okay with and if you are, that’s fine. I’m not convinced yet, but I certainly understand why committees considering going the direction they are. I understand what colleagues are attempting to do.

I’m not there yet on how this would integrate with the rest of the piece, but I’ll listen to the rest of the debate. I appreciate colleagues listening to my thoughts on this. Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Hopkins, now you are certainly going ahead now.

Thank you and thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan for your comments too. So I will not be supporting this referral. This is significant. I am feeling very uncomfortable here as a committee.

We are making an OPA. I just feel very uncomfortable about that. We do have a process in place. We know that there is a review with the urban growth boundary and the extra lands.

This area will be looked at. I am not at all going to consider supporting any referral back. Anything further? I’m going to turn the chair over to the vice chair and I’ll provide my comments.

I have the chair, Councillor Squire. Thank you very much. I think this is a very, very difficult situation. I think you can vote on both sides of this and be fully supported by the information that we’ve been provided with.

I do want to make a comment briefly about this entire school issue. Having been a school board trustee, I understand completely the process of getting a new school for a school board. And I am concerned that a director of education is saying, well, this is what we’re looking at is putting a school up there. I guess I would remind that director of education that that’s a matter that has to go to the province for approval.

In other words, when I was a school board trustee building a new school and the location of the new school, all aspects of that were within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, meaning they had to approve it. Didn’t hear anything about that. Secondly, with all due respect, I would say that much like a city manager, a director of a school board answers to a board of trustees, and I haven’t heard anything from them. Thirdly, if the director of education with all due respect wanted to weigh in on this application, they should have provided a letter information or made a delegation.

And I appreciate the director of education spoke to the mayor, but the director of education should have spoken to the planning committee. And so I can’t put a lot of weight on this idea. There’s an impending school there, or it’s going to happen overnight. I just, given my experience with schools, I remember waiting years to get a new school.

So that’s where I want to leave those comments. I think the challenge here is that the lands are within the urban growth boundary, and that the municipal board, when they made their decisions expressly said, this land is going to be included in the urban growth boundary, regardless of whether it’s a cemetery. And it doesn’t rely on that decision as to whether it’s a cemetery, which has led the applicant to want to develop rightly so this land. On the other side, I think staff’s completely correct that this is not a good way to proceed.

And I don’t think anybody should be indignant about the idea that the city of London would rather plan an entire area properly than just have one small part of the area developed first. So having reviewed everything, I just think this is a vote that could go both ways. But I think when I start hearing about the infrastructure, meaning the water and the wastewater, not being properly in place for developing this subdivision, that’s really a big concern to me. So that last bit I heard from Deputy Mayor Morgan that he raised with staff about all the work that needs to be done, it’s concerning, it really is.

So we’ve been put in a tough position committee. I think we know that and so however we vote, it’ll go to council and council will vote on it. But I think any vote is supported very much by the evidence on either side. So I don’t think we’re going against anything either way, going in either way.

So those are my comments. I’ll return the chair back to you, Mr. Chair. I do have Councillor Van Holst and then Councillor Hillier.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair. I’ll go first to the committee, Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much. Yes, I seconded this motion on the basis that it is doable, but my concerns are back to the storm sewers and the wastewater as before.

And I am wavering on the side of not supporting this right now. I’m sorry, I did second the motion, but if we don’t have the wastewater and the sewers in place, I can’t do it, I’m sorry. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I just have a question through you. This is a 20 hectare site. And we were told we have 20 years of land already prepared for development.

How many hectares would that be? So I can compare those two numbers. Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Mr.

Chairman. I don’t know if we can do that calculation quit on the fly, but I’ll do my best. Would you like the jeopardy music to go while you’re doing that? Through you, Mr.

Chair. So I don’t have actually enough information in front of me. That’s fine. That’s fine, Mr.

yeoman. Anything else, Councillor? I don’t have another question. I can see this is a difficult decision.

All right. Anything further from committee members before we vote on the mayor’s motion? Oh, did you, did, I’m sorry. Councillor Hill, you’re, I didn’t think he withdrew his second.

I just said he thought he said he wasn’t being supportive possibly. Am I right about that or you withdrawing your second? No, I did not withdraw my second. I just wanted to do the conversation, but I did not support it.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, you can do that soon if you want. So I’m gonna call the vote on the mayor’s motion.

Cheryl, yes. Closing the vote. The motion fails four to two. All right.

We’ll be moving on back to the staff recommendation, which I’m hoping someone will move in second and we won’t have a lengthy discussion about that. If it’s repeating anything that we’ve had. Councillor Hopkins, are you prepared to move the staff recommendation? Yes, and Councillor Lewis is prepared to second.

Anything further before we vote on the staff recommendation? I’ll call the vote on that. No. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins, you want to speak to it?

Yeah. I’m moving the motion. Go ahead. I have to.

First of all, I want to thank the mayor. I know he feels very strongly about the need for housing and the importance in our area. And I do appreciate that. And I also appreciated the debate.

It’s taught me just listening and reading this recommendation. It is a tricky one. I had myself, when I was reading the recommendation, are the lands in or are they out even given the history of these lands? But I am supportive.

I think there is a process in place. And the comprehensive review and the secondary plan. I know representing award that has a lot of development, those plans are really important. How we connect our neighborhoods as well is also really important.

And we have those plans in place. And just finishing off with that. I again, just want to thank staff and for this recommendation and look forward to further conversations on the urban growth boundary review. Thank you.

And then further, where we vote, I’ll call the vote. Chair, I’ll vote no. All right. Those in the vote, the motion passes four to two.

Thank you very much. And thank you for staff for dealing with the challenging issue as did the applicant. So thank you for everyone. Moving on to item 3.3, which is a public participation meeting with regard to a 3.5, 5.7 Colonel Albert Road.

And I need a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Hopkins, a seconder, Mayor Holder. And unless there’s something further, I’ll call the vote. Yes, Chair.

Chair. I’ll go to staff for a presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is Melanie Vivian. The proposed development is located at 3.5, 5.7 Colonel Talbot Road. It consists of four two-story townhouse wash, consisting of a total of 21 units with each block at nine meters in height. The site was rezoned last year to permit cluster townhouse dwellings at a maximum density of 51 units per hectare.

With the proposed 21 units, the applicant is proposing the maximum density. Parking on site is being provided at a rate of two per unit, which does exceed the requirement of the zoning by-law, which requires 1.5 per unit for a total of 44 parking spaces. And this includes the two visitor parking stalls. Appendix A on page 329 of the agenda does provide the current proposed site plan showing the proposed parking, which is included one in the garage, one in the driveway.

The resolution of council from last year’s rezoning included direction to the site plan approval authority for enhanced screening, privacy, and privacy along the Northern property line, including boundary landscaping along the Northern West property boundaries. So on pages 32 and 333 of the report, these provide for the proposed tree preservation and landscape plan. This is for council meeting there. And staff have received three comments from the public with respect to this application, with the concerns being raised for the privacy and loss of boundary landscaping.

So in terms of the landscaping and the privacy, tends to go hand in hand in this regard, and it has been a prominent matter for this application. Of the existing trees on site, the applicant is proposing to retain the cedar hedge along the Western property boundary and to retain six additional boundary trees while planting 13 additional trees, as well as placing a 2.1 meter high board on board fence along the Northern property boundary. It may be important to note at this time that that board on board fence is higher than what we typically see for the site plan control by-law and is from the fencing by-law. Based on the limitations due to a swell and retaining wall in the Western property boundary, additional screening is being sought where there are gaps in the existing hedge and where possible, given those from the Commission.

So based on that, staff are of the opinion that the post plans satisfy Council’s resolution. I’m happy to go into more detail on any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Questions, technical questions, Mayor Holder? I’m not sure this was a technical question, but I recall the concerns expressed by residents in the area. And have there been discussions with staff and residents since that time? Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We received some comments from those members of the public that were involved with the rezoning process. The only comments that came forth that had pertained to the site plan application were the privacy and the loss of trees.

There were questions regarding the proposed decks, but I will note that the decks along the Northern property boundary do comply with the zoning by-law. So essentially we have no control on reducing that amount. Sorry, Chair, my, and I appreciate the answer. Thank you.

My question was, I want perhaps a bit more specific were there any of the residents that of course funded you were the supportive of this application since our last meeting as a result of these changes? Please. Go ahead, sir. It’s Mike Pease here, manager of site plans.

I can advise that there hasn’t been any outward support in that sense, if that’s the question that’s at hand. I’ll answer you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

That was the question, thank you, Chair. Any other technical questions? There aren’t, we’ll go to the public. Is the applicant wish to present?

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Matt Campbell here from Zilinka, preammo. I would like to just say a couple of words if that’s appropriate at this time. Sure.

Great, thanks very much. I don’t have a whole lot to add to staff’s presentation, but I will add just to the previous comment, there’s been ongoing discussions with the neighbors. This zoning application for this, we’ll call council approved the zoning application to permit the development. That was subsequently appealed to LPAP.

The developer was in consultation with the appellants, which were the neighbors, and they came to a resolution in order for the neighbors to withdraw the LPAT appeal, which I understand had largely dealt with landscaping. And as part of that settlement process, the developer has incorporated a number of landscaping features into the site design, which are largely reflected on the site plan that you have in front of you today. I can advise that we’re doing everything we can to add more landscaping and really solidify the vegetative buffer there. Again, not a whole lot more to add to staff’s comments and we’re looking forward to the public comments on this one.

Thank you. Any other public presentations, one more? Yes, Mr. Chair, Heidi Smith.

Ms. Smith, hello, Ms. Smith. Sorry about that, just trying to find my unmute button.

Oh, listen, well, we all have that challenge in these times. So you have five minutes, so you can start now. Okay, I had my husband, Darren, here with me. We actually live in the property bordering the West side of the site and I understand from what Matt was saying and just some neighborhood discussion that lots of consultation was happening with the neighbors along the North side of the property, but we actually haven’t had any conversation with the developers.

We’re very happy to see that the cedar hedge is staying. That was our primary concern. It does provide some, a lot of privacy and screening and we enjoy the wildlife in it, but our other concern at the time that we came to the meeting last fall was about the runoff along our side of the property. And I guess looking at the plans, and I have a hard time seeing it, I’ll be very honest.

I tried to put magnifiers on, but it’s really hard to see from the printed paper. But the discussion sounds like there’s a retaining wall and stormwater management has been incorporated. It just is a little unknown to us. It’s not very tangible for us to picture what that’s going to look like.

That cedar hedge sits right in the property line between our property and the development site. And there are three mature evergreen trees less than a meter from the property line, which are proposed to be taken out to facilitate, I guess the retaining wall going in. And our concern is how close that is and the impact of that on that cedar hedge. So it’s great that it’s going to stay.

It provides great screening and privacy, but is it going to survive the construction and the retaining wall? And since we have no fence going up there and no enhanced landscaping or trees being put along there because the roadway comes so close to that cedar hedge that there would be no way to rectify that after the fact and then we are without recourse. So that is our concern. All right, thank you very much.

I’ll try to get you an answer to that concern. So we have about three minutes left for your husband. Does he wanna? No, I’m good.

Good. All right. Any other public? Mr.

Chair, there are no other members of the public. Thank you very much. And I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman.

All in favor? We’re gonna vote on the screen. I don’t know why. I put my hand up and I got you all started.

Sorry, I’m getting excited. I don’t think I can put my hand up here, I’ll vote yes. All right, good. Thank you.

Councillor Hopkins, closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you very much. I wonder if the applicant could or someone could address the concern that was raised by the second member of the public just to deal with that issue.

Mr. Chair, Matt Campbell here. I have. So when we put together these site plan applications, we rely on professional arborist to give their opinion on the survival chances of any particular tree.

And as part of this application, we’ve submitted a tree preservation report and plan which identifies the trees to be removed and the trees to be retained, which I believe Ms. Smith was making reference to. So again, we rely on those professionals for their opinion. And in this case, it is their opinion that that hedge can be retained in light of some of the works that are going on there.

There is the retaining wall. It’s about half a meter in height or so that comes close to that cedar hedge. We are required to match grades though. If we can’t match grades, then obviously we’re gonna be impacting root structure, which would not be so great for that hedge.

So in the engineering plans and staff can confirm this, we are matching grades, we’re appropriate. I can also advise that some of the infrastructure in that area will be changing on a subsequent revision. There is some stormwater management infrastructure that is below that retaining wall. That’s being moved to underneath the driveway.

So it’ll be less impactful for that hedge. In the unlikely event that any portion of that hedge does not survive, which again, we rely on the arborist to give us their professional opinion as to whether they will survive. In this case, they do say it will. In the event that it does not survive, we can certainly replace plants in that location.

Obviously, it’s not an ideal solution, but that would be a restoration that will be in compliance with any sort of development agreement that will be registered on title. Thank you, committee, questions, comments, motions. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair. And just to follow up on the public’s question about the runoff and the water, I wonder if staff can also make a comment about the swale that is going to be put into this development. Go ahead. Through you, Mr.

Chair, it’s Michael Pease. I’m gonna tee up Paul Delosa, one of our senior technologists to discuss that. The slow tee up. Sorry, there we go.

It’s on mute. Sorry, Councillor Hopkins, can you repeat the concern? Yes, there was a comment made about water runoff. And I understand that there is a swale that’s also being built within this development.

If you could just make a comment about the swale and exactly where it’s going to be. Well, as far as I know, there is an existing side yard swale that runs along the property line. That should be unaffected as for runoff. The site is supposed to contain, or it has been designed to contain all stormwater generated by their site.

So as far as our review has gone, we have no concerns really with that. Few minor details that need to be cleaned up through the review, but generally, everything is conformed to city of London standards. Councillor, anything further? Yeah, just got a further question.

And I’d like to make my comments. This is a development in award nine. And my last question, because there has been a lot of concern in the community about privacy and landscape and those are the two issues that I’ve heard over and over again with the concerns that the community has. And I understand we’re going through this site plan process and we still have that process to move forward.

And the applicant, Mr. Campbell, I appreciate your comments that there’s probably still some further work to be done with the trees and the landscaping. But just a question to make sure that are there going to be opportunities as staff and the applicant continue with this process that to look at further screening or landscaping to help with the privacy issue? That’s a question to staff.

Through you, Mr. Chair. So as part of the review process, we can explore more opportunities for not only trees, but smaller plantings on site. It’s based on the review of the site with the swell and the retaining wall along the west end of building A.

There is limited opportunity to provide for plantings in that area. So I think at this point, given what’s already proposed in the landscaping, we’d be looking more so at the rear of building C and building D at the south side of the site, as well as the open sawed area. However, we’d have to review that with our landscape architect to ensure that if anything else is planted in the area, it is going to survive and flourish. Can we get a motion on the floor?

Did you want? I’d be happy to put forward the motion. Okay, you can move it and then comment. The seconder, Councillor Layman, and then I’ll go back to you for your comments, Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, and I just want to thank the community and the applicant working together to come about with a resolution. I know this was contentious in the community. We’d like to see the application moving forward. The changes that the applicant has made would be something that’s developing around an OS four and an OS five is challenging at the best of times.

And I would like to encourage the applicant to do whatever needs to be done as you develop around this sensitive area to protect the natural features that exist. And I will put forward the motion. Thank you, it’s been moved and seconded. Mayor Holder, you want to speak to this?

Thanks very much, Chair. I’d like to acknowledge the applicant for the efforts they’ve had in working with the neighborhood. My challenge at committee, which I did not support this application, were for several reasons. Privacy, loss of boundary landscaping, too intense for the site in terms of the number of units.

So I’m going to come back to that as my comment. So many aspects of this application seem reasonable, but I’m not supported in so far as I think that this has that it’s too intense for this location. And I respect the word counselor’s perspective on this. And if it goes forward, I certainly wish the neighborhood and the applicant’s success and great cooperation because that’ll be incredible.

Doesn’t fix to me the issue of the intensity of development, but I wanted my thoughts done. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any further comments before we call the question?

There being none, I’ll call the vote. Chair, I’ll vote no. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to one.

Moving on, there’s one item for direction. A direction from Councilor Van Holst with regards to study a report backwards regards the Meadow Lily ESA. The correspondence is there. And I wonder if Mr.

Fabro be willing to comment on the request and however it fit in with work that’s being done. And then I’ll let the counselor speak to his request. Is Mr. Fabro there?

Through the chair, Mr. Fabro had to leave. So you’re stuck with me. That’s unfortunate, but you know, we’ll make it.

Thank you. So pitch heading for Mr. Fabro. Just a couple of comments I could provide on this first off.

The request is that we bring forward a report looking at additional steps that might be undertaken to preserve the environmental heritage and the natural heritage features of the Meadow Lily ESA. I’d like to just remind Council that the Meadow Lily Conservation Master Plan was just completed and adopted by this Council in 2020. And as part of that process, there was an updated boundary for the ESA that was established. The one of the primary purposes of doing a Conservation Master Plan is to actually characterize and delineate the natural heritage features and functions within the boundaries of the ESA and to confirm the boundaries of the environmentally significant area and then to plan for the stable management of that area.

Also, any development around any ESA and then this ESA in particular or any other natural heritage feature would be subject to the requirements of the environmental management guidelines as they would apply to how you would review development application adjacent to those lands. And that those environmental management guidelines would set out the requirements for an EIS that would need to be undertaken that would address such things as buffers, setbacks, mitigation activities, and or any compensation that may be required for natural heritage impacts that could not be. So all of that process has now already been laid out, has been undertaken, and the natural heritage features and the natural heritage area of the Metrolily ESA, in fact, have been defined and have been established through the work that was done and then confirmed through the Conservation Master Plan. Thank you.

And I do enjoy hearing from you. I was just making light earlier when it spoke to you. Councilor? Thank you very much.

Just go ahead, go ahead. Okay, yes. So our last decision regarding development around the ESA was pretty challenging. And I think people that hoped we would do a little more.

So my initial submission were a couple of very specific ideas. And it was suggested that it would be better to ask in along this lines is just to ask for a report, what might come back. And then that would allow myself and others to submit some suggestions. And then perhaps staff could evaluate and return those.

So that was the purpose of this. Of course, the area around the ESA is there’s other portions that could be developed as well. And I think we may find the same challenges and concerns from the residents. There might be an opportunity to head some of those things off with a few minor changes.

And even the response to the development that’s happening now, there might be some mitigating actions we could take. So my hope is to look at those. And if this isn’t the best way to do something like that, then perhaps the staff could advise maybe taking a different approach. But certainly I’m not asking that all the work that has been done, be redone.

I’m hoping to look at a couple of new ideas that might be small but helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can, if you’d indulge me to through you to ask a question of Councilor Van Holst, I’m looking for a little clarity and particularly in follow up to Mr.

Barrett’s response. My sense is that you were referring to preservation steps in areas immediately adjacent to the ESA and not necessarily the conservation plan for the ESA itself, is that correct? That’s right. So just in follow up to that then, Mr.

Chair, I’m happy to, first of all, I share Councilor Van Holst’s concerns about a decision that was recently made in the area. I’m not sure that this motion accomplishes that, addressing some of those concerns the way it is right now. So I wanna just offer to the Councilor, I’d be happy to meet with him offline and discuss further some steps we could take. I just feel that this is maybe too general and maybe need some more specifics included before it can advance and rather than try and word Smith and sort of thing, so here at committee, I’d be happy to meet with the Councilor one-on-one and perhaps bring back something to a future meeting.

Councilor Van Holst, is that acceptable to you? And then you can just withdraw this letter and come back with having a member of the committee moving it? Thank you very much. It did, as I said, I had some other ideas originally.

It was thought that maybe a more general motion would be good, this one, as the Councilor suggested, maybe too general, and that’s fine. So we can work on that, come back with something with greater specificity and… So you’re gonna withdraw this one and come back? I’ll let you know right now.

If that’s even possible. So maybe it’s something that just has to be received. I don’t know, perhaps the clerk. Yeah, we can just receive this.

Somebody make a motion to receive and we’ll leave it at that. Councilor Hopkins will move to receive it. Mayor Holder, we’ll second that. I think we can vote, can we?

Yes, Mayor, can I just make a quick comment of the Councilor for bringing this forward? I know when we approved the conservation plan last year, we had enlarged the ESA area as well. And I know it is a very important part in the community. And I thank him for the questions, ‘cause I had a number of questions that I followed up with staff to make sure we, how we develop around this ESA.

I have a number of developments in my ward around ESAs. And it is something that we do have to be mindful how we work within the ESA. And I appreciate just having this conversation and understanding on the conservation plan for metal Italy. Thank you, Councilor Hillier.

Thank you very much. Yes, if the Councilor could please include me in those discussions and the word near, you’re saying near metal Italy, how close are we talking? So I am very concerned about this area. So please include me in those conversations.

Thank you. There you go. Lots of interest and it’s something we’ll be coming back. So the motion is to receive in file and I’ll call, unless somebody else wants to venture in, I’ll call the vote.

Oh, yes, Mayor, Chair. Boy, that’s slip, I could make so many comments on that slip, but you know. It rhymes with mayor. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Under deferred matters of additional businesses, the third report of the trees and forest advisory committee, they make a number of suggestions to staff. From what I could see, no directions to staff, which of course they’re not supposed to be doing. So we drafted up a motion just to accept that and is it on the screen or is it gonna be up? So if someone can have, we could have a look at that and then we’ll, I just need a mover and seconder.

So I’ll get it moved and seconded then if there’s any comments. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillyer. Any comments? There being none, I will call the vote on the motion.

Yes, Chair, not Mayor. I’d like that title, Chair, but not Mayor. Can live with that. To zero.

And that brings us to adjournment. So I just need a mover and seconder. Councillor Lewis with enthusiasm, seconded by Councillor Hillyer. And we’ll just do a hand vote, all in favor.

Thanks very much. Great work tonight, committee. Appreciated the debate. See you later.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.