May 31, 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. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1 to 2.6, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   234 Edgevalley Road - Removal of Holding Provisions - (H-9342)

2021-05-31 SR 234 Edgevalley Road H-9342

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Ironstone, relating to the property located at 234 Edgevalley Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R5/Residential R6 (h*R5-7/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R5/Residential R6 (R5-7/R6-5) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.2   704 and 706 Boler Road - Boler Heights Subdivision - Special Provisions - (39T-15503)

2021-05-31 SR 704-706 Boler Rd 39T-15503

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Southside Construction Management Limited, for the subdivision of land over Concession 1, Part Lot 44, situated on the east side of Boler Road, north of Southdale Road West, municipally known as 704 and 706 Boler Road:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Southside Construction Management Limited, for the Boler Heights Subdivision (39T-15503) appended to the staff report dated May 31, 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 31, 2021 as Appendix “B”; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.3   995 Fanshawe Park Road West - Creekview Subdivision Phase 4 - Special Provisions - (39T-05512-4)

2021-05-31 SR Creekview Subdivison Special Provisions 39T-05512_4

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, Landea North Developments Inc. and Landea Developments Inc., for the subdivision of land over Part Lot 22, Concession 5 (Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the north side of Bridgehaven Drive, south of Sunningdale Road West, west of Applerock Avenue, municipally known as 1196 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, Landea North Developments Inc. and Landea Developments Inc., for the Creekview Subdivision Phase 4 (39T-05512_4) appended to the staff report dated May 31, 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 31, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.4   1600 Twilite Boulevard - (H-9345)

2021-05-31 SR 1600 Twilite Boulevard H-9345

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc, relating to the property located at 1600 Twilite Boulevard, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15th, 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 (hh-100R1-4) and (hh-100R1-13) Zones TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) and (R1-13)) Zones to remove the “h and h-100” holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.5   Building Division Monthly Report for March 2021

2021-05-31 SR Building Division Monthly report - March 2021

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

Motion Passed

2.6   4th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2021-05-20 EEPAC Report

2021-05-20 EEPAC Presentation - City Hall Reorganization

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 4th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 20, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   349 Southdale Road East - (Z-9308 / 39CD-20501)

2021-05-31 SR 349 Southdale Rd E - Z-9308 - 39CD-21501

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Incon Developments Ltd., relating to the lands located at 349 Southdale Road East:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 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 Residential R3 (R3-3) Zone TO a Residential R6 (R6-5) Zone to permit cluster housing in the form of townhouse dwelling units with a maximum density of 34 units per hectare; and,

b)  the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 349 Southdale Road East:

i)  safety;

ii)  privacy;

iii) tree ownership on the property line; and,

iv)  possible removal of the chain link fence;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   1752 – 1754 Hamilton Road

2021-05-31 SR 1752-1754 Hamilton Road - Z-9314

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Connor Wilks c/o Thames Village Joint Venture Group, relating to the lands located at 1752 – 1754 Hamilton Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 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 Residential R1 (R1-14) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-R1-3) Zone;

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

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

  • the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

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

  • the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation; and,

  • the zoning will permit single detached dwellings which are considered appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area, and consistent with the zoning that was applied to the adjacent draft-approved plan of subdivision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   Request to Remove Properties from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2021-05-31 SR Request to Remove from Register - RT Properties

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following properties BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:

a) 1033-1037 Dundas Street

b) 1 Kennon Place

c) 19 Raywood Avenue

d) 32 Wellington Road

e) 34 Wellington Road

f) 90 Wellington Road

g) 98 Wellington Road

h) 118 Wellington Road

i) 120 Wellington Road

j) 122 Wellington Road

k) 126 Wellington Road

l) 134 Wellington Road

m) 136 Wellington Road

n) 138 Wellington Road

o) 140 Wellington Road

p) 142 Wellington Road

q) 166 Wellington Road

r) 220 Wellington Road

s) 247 Wellington Road

t) 249 Wellington Road

u) 251 Wellington Road

v) 253-255 Wellington Road

w) 261 Wellington Road

x) 263 Wellington Road

y) 265 Wellington Road

z) 267 Wellington Road

aa) 269 Wellington Road

bb) 271 Wellington Road

cc) 273 Wellington Road

dd) 275 Wellington Road

ee) 285 Wellington Road

ff) 287 Wellington Road

gg) 289 Wellington Road

hh) 297 Wellington Road

ii) 301 Wellington Road

jj) 327 Wellington Road

kk) 331 Wellington Road

ll) 333 Wellington Road

mm) 72 Wellington Street

nn) 44 Wharncliffe Road North;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

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)

3.4   16 Wethered Street North - (Z-9309)

2021-05-31 SR 16 Wethered Street Z-9309

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2445727 Ontario Inc. (Phil Pattyn), relating to the property located at 16 Wethered Street:

a)  the application by 2445727 Ontario Inc. (Phil Pattyn), relating to the property located at 16 Wethered Street BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further discussion with the applicant and to report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the proposal within the context of the Near Campus Neighbourhood Policies, as they relate to residential intensification, focusing on lots that front onto neighbourhood streets, but are immediately adjacent to rapid transit place types or urban corridor place types;

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

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   Demolition Request for Garage on Heritage Listed Property - 325 Victoria Street 

2021-05-31 SR Demolition Request - 325 Victoria Street

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.5

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the request to demolish the garage on the heritage designated property at 325 Victoria Street BE PERMITTED, and the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED of Municipal Council’s intention in this matter;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated May 24, 2021, from C. Egerton, 315 Victoria Street, with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-P10D/R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   135 Villagewalk Boulevard – (SPA18-067)

2021-05-31 SR 135 Villagewalk Blvd - SPA18-067

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.6

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2560334 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard:

a) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of a 2 commercial pads in the southeast corner of the subject lands and associated accesses; and,

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing the Site Plan Application;

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 26, 2021, from S. Lebert, by e-mail; and,

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from A. Mustard-Thompson, by e-mail;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-D11)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property - 126 Price Street 

2021-05-31 SR Demolition Request 126 Price Street

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.7

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendations of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the existing dwelling on the heritage listed property at 126 Price Street, the following actions be taken:

a) the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the dwelling on the property; and,

b) the property at 126 Price Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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 22, 2021, from W. Rohrer and C. Scott; and,

  • a petition signed by approximately 24 individuals is on file in the City Clerk’s Office;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding this matter. (2021-P10D/R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   1697 Highbury Avenue North - (Z-9302)

2021-05-31 SR 1697 Highbury Avenue North Z-9302

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.8

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, based on the application by Habitat for Humanity Heartland Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 1697 Highbury Avenue North, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5/Residential R6 (R5-2/R6-4) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process:

i) orientation of the easterly stacked townhouse building to Highbury Avenue North;

ii) visual access for the southerly end units to the open space area and the Thames River interface be enhanced by providing increased number of windows and/or balconies;

iii) naturalization of the Open Space lands on the site; and,

iv) the potential conveyance of all or part of the Open Space lands to the City;

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

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

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential designation and Environmental Policies; and,

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   1634 – 1656 Hyde Park Road, 1480 North Routledge Park and Part of 1069 Gainsborough Road – (Z-9301)

2021-05-31 SR 1634 - 1656 Hyde Park Road and Other Z-9301

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.9

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 1630 HP Inc., relating to the property located at 1634 – 1656 Hyde Park Road, 1480 North Routledge Park and Part of 1069 Gainsborough Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial (BDC) Zone and a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(39)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus (BDC*B-_) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a mixed-use apartment building, with a maximum height of 8-storeys or 29 metres and a maximum density of 169 units per hectare, in general conformity with the Site Plan, Renderings and Elevations appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law, and provides for the following:

  1. Exceptional Building Design

i) providing an ‘L”-shaped mixed-use building that is generally in keeping with the vision of the current Official Plan as well as The London Plan by providing for continuous street walls along the Hyde Park Road and North Routledge Park frontages;

ii) providing a 7-storey massing along Hyde Park Road that includes a significant step-back above the second storey and 8-storey massing along North Routledge Park;

iii) providing for appropriate scale/ rhythm/ materials/ fenestration;

iv) incorporating all parking in the rear yard and underground, away from the adjacent street frontages;

v) providing ground floor commercial space with transparent glazing and principal entrances facing the Hyde Park Road frontage creating an active edge;

vi) providing ground floor residential units with individual entrances and patio spaces along the North Routledge Park frontage;

vii) providing a rooftop patio;

viii) providing a parking lot layout that accommodates appropriate driveway alignments across North Routledge Park; and,

ix) relocating the existing heritage structure and providing a glass link between the heritage structure and the new building along the North Routledge Park frontage, and a recessed courtyard immediately south of the heritage structure;

  1. Provision of Affordable Housing

  • a total of five (5) one-bedroom units will be provided for affordable housing. Subject to the concurrence of the City, some or all of these five (5) one-bedroom units may be allocated from the adjacent development owned and/or managed by the Proponent, noting the bonus zone requirement and encumbrance would remain specific to the Subject Lands;

  • rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

  • the duration of affordability set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy;

  • the proponent enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the affordable units with priority populations; and,

  • these conditions to be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies;

  1. Relocation, conservation, and adaptive re-use of the existing heritage designated structure at 1656 Hyde Park Road:
  • the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of London;

b) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning implements the site concept submitted with the application;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment conforms to tin-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and the Main Street Place Type policies;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor designation;

  • the subject lands represent an appropriate location for mixed-use residential intensification, within the Hyde Park Village Core and the recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood;

  • the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development.

(2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.10   Public Participation Meeting - Not to be heard before 5:30 PM – 435-451 Ridout Street North - (OZ-9157)

2021-05-31 SR 435-451 Ridout Street North OZ-9157

2021-05-31 Public Comments 3.10

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Farhi Holdings Corporation, relating to the property located at 435-451 Ridout Street North:

a) consistent with Policy 19.1.1. of the Official Plan for the City of London (1989), the subject lands, representing a portion of 435-451 Ridout Street North BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Downtown Area designation;

b) consistent with Policy 43_1 of The London Plan, the subject lands, representing a portion of 435-451 Ridout Street North, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Downtown Place Type;

c) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new policy the Specific Policies for the Downtown Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan;

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

d) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 15, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan (2016) as amended in part c) above), to change the zoning of a portion of the subject property FROM a Heritage/Regional Facility (HER/RF) Zone and a Downtown Area Special Provision (DA2(3)D350) Zone TO a Holding Downtown Area Special Provision Bonus (h-3h-55h-_DA2(3)D350B-_) Zone;

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate a high quality mixed-use office/residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 40-storeys (125 metres), and a maximum density of 500 units per hectare, in general conformity with the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated May 31, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

  1. Exceptional Building Design

i) retention in situ of the heritage buildings along the Ridout Street frontage;

ii) materials on the podium of the building that are in-keeping with the surrounding heritage buildings;

iii) a slender point tower design;

iv) the tower portion of the building located to the south of the podium to increase the spatial separation between the tower and the Eldon House property;

v) interesting architectural design features on the tower that will enhance the downtown skyline and break up the building mass;

vi) terraces overlooking Harris Park and providing opportunity for activating these terraces with the proposed adjacent office/commercial uses; and,

vii) connections between Ridout Street North and Queens Avenue to Harris Park that provide new entrance opportunities to further connect the Downtown with the Park.

  1. Provision of four (4) levels of underground parking, of which a minimum of 100 parking spaces will be publicly accessible

  2. Provision of Affordable Housing

The provision of affordable housing shall consist of:

  • a minimum of twelve (12) residential units or five percent (5%) of the total residential unit count (rounded to the nearest unit), whichever is greater;

  • the mix of affordable one- and two-bedroom units will be based on the same proportion of one- and two-bedroom units as within the final approved plan. Subject to availability and with the concurrence of the City, some or all of these units may be secured through existing vacancies in developments owned and/or managed by the proponent or associated corporate entity;

  • rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

  • the duration of affordability shall be set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy; and,

  • the proponent shall enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the affordable units with priority populations;

  1. Conservation, retention, and adaptive re-use of the existing heritage designated buildings at 435, 441, and 451 Ridout Street North
  • the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of London;
  1. Construction of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the public participation process:

i) design the parking and drop-off areas between the building and the adjacent streets (Ridout Street North and Queens Avenue) as a shared plaza space, using pavers or patterned concrete to:

I) tie into the design of the terraces

II) reduce the amount of asphalt

III) provide a welcoming entrance to the development

IV) provide for a stronger connection between the stairs leading to Harris Park and the City sidewalks along the streets;

ii) design the westerly stairway as a more naturalized landscape solution to soften the experience and avoid blank brick walls. This stairwell should provide for a grand entrance feature between the development and the Park;

iii) final location and design of all vehicular accesses on-site, including service access;

iv) final location, design, and landscaping of publicly accessible spaces, including terraces, staircases, and walkways;

v) the final building design is to incorporate bird-friendly design features;

vi) the applicant is to work with the City of London with regards to compensation restoration to create a wetland and other natural features (ie forest), either on-site or within Harris Park; and,

vii) the final building design is to include a fully enclosed mechanical penthouse, clad in materials complementary to the building, to screen rooftop mechanical equipment and contribute positively to the skyline.

f) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the changes in building height and setback to the residential component of the building are minor in nature and the illustrations circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting accurately depict the development as proposed;

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 20, 2021, from C. Naismith, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from D. McKillop, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from R. Lacy, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from K. Baker, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 20, 2021, from C. Ryan, by e-mail;

  • communications dated May 20, 2021, from E. Rath, by e-mail;

  • the staff presentation;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from C. Littlejohn, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from K. Kydd, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from U. Troughton, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. McQuaid, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from G. Hodder, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M. Conklin, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M. Young, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M.A. Colihan, 191 Sherwood Avenue;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. Reilly and R. Shroyer, 574 Victoria Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Skaith, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Andrejicka, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from M. Temme, 66 Palmer Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from M.L. Collins, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from H. Guizzetti, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from M. Rooks, by e-mail;

  • a communication from M. Whalley, 39-250 North Centre Road;

  • communications dated May 26, 2021, from A.M. Valastro, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. Spratley, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from S. Shroyer, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from C. Woolner, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from K. Elgie, Chair, Board of Directors, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from K. Peckham, Wide Eye Television Inc.;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from J. Grainger, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Devereux, 926 Colborne Street;

  • a communication dated May 21, 2021, from P. and J. Wombwell, 174 Guildford Crescent;

  • a communication dated May 21, 2021, from M. Romhanyi, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Saunders, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J.C. Garnett, University Librarian Emeritus, Western University;

  • a communication dated May 26, 2021, from S. Bentley, 34 Mayfair Drive;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from L. Brown, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. and S. Morrison, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from A. Martin, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from D. Rogers, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Agranove, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Manness, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from N. Bol, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from A. Warren, Director of Operations, The Wedding Ring;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Farquhar, 383 St. George Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Hunten, 253 Huron Street;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. and D. Surry, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from B. and H. Luckman, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from G. Nicodemo, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from K. and G. Patton, 20-50 Northumberland Road;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from S. Lunau, 1096 Kingston Avenue;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from J. Spencer, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 25, 2021, from K. McKeating, President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario - London Region;

  • a communication dated May 28, 2021, from A. Little, by e-mail;

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from D. Oates, by e-mail; and,

  • a communication dated May 27, 2021, from C. Mellamphy, 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 these applications for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, as well as - enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Downtown Place Type and Key Directions;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Downtown Area designation;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan, by providing for a landmark development on an underutilized site;

  • the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site at an important location in the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   5th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-05-12 LACH Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage from its meeting held on May 12, 2021:

a) M. Corby, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED of the following comments from the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) with respect to the Notice of Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated January 2021, from Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North, previously received by the LACH:

i) sufficient information has not been received as part of the application in order to appropriately assess the impacts of the proposed applications on the significant heritage resources on this property; it being noted that:

A) the HIA should be prepared by a qualified heritage professional;

B) the HIA should include an assessment of impacts to identified heritage resources of the proposed development, among other content as identified in Info Sheet #5 provided by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries; it being noted that the HIA provided with the application does not speak to the impacts of the proposed development or proposed policy changes on the cultural heritage resources on the site; and,

C) the LACH is supportive of maintaining the overall land use concept identified within the proposal, which is generally consistent with that in the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan (LPHSP); it being noted that this includes the proposed low density residential in the core area with concentration of higher densities along adjacent arterial roadways (the ‘bowl’ concept) and the revisions to the road and pedestrian networks, which appear to support the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage resources;

  • the LACH emphasizes the need to consider the built heritage resources as landmarks within the cultural heritage landscape, and that the assessment of impacts must address the cultural heritage landscape including views and vistas as described through the appropriate governing documents;

  • the LACH acknowledges the differences or ‘inconsistencies’ between elements of the Heritage Conservation Easement, designating by-law L.S.P.-3321-208, and the LPHSP as identified within the HIA, but notes that these documents each have different forms and functions, and do not necessarily conflict (save for mapping discrepancies); it being noted that where these differences or ‘inconsistencies’ are identified, the more detailed description and assessment should apply;

  • the LACH does not support many of the proposed changes to heritage policies within the LPHSP which serve to reduce protection of the heritage resources and introduce greater uncertainty; it being noted that sufficient rationale or justification for these revisions to heritage policies have not been provided within the Final Proposal Report or HIA (examples include but are not limited to:

o LPHSP 20.4.1.4 – “Retain as much of the identified cultural and heritage resources of the area as possible feasible”;

o LPHSP 20.4.1.5.II.a) – “provide for ….and mixed-use buildings where possible”;

o LPHSP 20.4.2.2 – “Development proposed through planning applications… will need not only to consider the significant heritage buildings, but also the unique cultural heritage landscape where possible”;

o PHSP 20.4.3.5.2.III. d) “Built form adjacent to the Treed Allee within the Heritage Area shall should be encouraged to oriented towards the Allee in applicable locations”; and,

o LPHSP 20.4.4.10 - “shall” to “should”);

  • the LACH requests clarification from City of London Heritage and Planning staff on the next steps with respect to this development application, including how the impacts to built heritage resources and the cultural heritage landscape will be assessed and addressed as the planning and design phases progress (for example, can/will an HIA be required for subsequent zoning bylaw amendment applications and/or site plan applications); it being noted that the LACH respectfully requests that these assessments be provided to LACH for review and comment;

  • the LACH respectfully requests to be consulted early on any proposed changes to the designating bylaw or heritage conservation easement and would welcome a delegation from the proponent to present on heritage matters on the property; and,

  • the LACH requests information from City Staff and/or the proponent on the current physical conditions of the heritage structures on the site;

b) on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the removal and replacement of the windows on the heritage designated property located at 40 and 42 Askin Street, By-law No. L.S.P.-2740-36 and Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED; it being noted that this Heritage Alteration Permit application is seeking retroactive approval for window replacements that were previously considered and refused by Municipal Council;

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) encourages the applicant to work with the Heritage Planner to address the concerns raised by the LACH at the meeting;

it being further noted that a verbal delegation from P. Scott, with respect to this matter, was received;

c) on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the existing dwelling on the heritage listed property located at 126 Price Street:

i) the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the dwelling on the property; and,

ii) the property at 126 Price Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

d) on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following properties BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:

  • 1033-1037 Dundas Street ;

  • 1 Kennon Place;

  • 19 Raywood Avenue;

  • 32 Wellington Road;

  • 34 Wellington Road;

  • 90 Wellington Road;

  • 98 Wellington Road;

  • 118 Wellington Road;

  • 120 Wellington Road;

  • 122 Wellington Road;

  • 126 Wellington Road;

  • 134 Wellington Road;

  • 136 Wellington Road;

  • 138 Wellington Road;

  • 140 Wellington Road;

  • 142 Wellington Road;

  • 166 Wellington Road;

  • 220 Wellington Road;

  • 247 Wellington Road;

  • 249 Wellington Road;

  • 251 Wellington Road;

  • 253-255 Wellington Road;

  • 261 Wellington Road;

  • 263 Wellington Road;

  • 265 Wellington Road;

  • 267 Wellington Road;

  • 269 Wellington Road;

  • 271 Wellington Road;

  • 273 Wellington Road;

  • 275 Wellington Road;

  • 285 Wellington Road;

  • 287 Wellington Road;

  • 289 Wellington Road;

  • 297 Wellington Road;

  • 301 Wellington Road;

  • 327 Wellington Road;

  • 331 Wellington Road;

  • 333 Wellington Road;

  • 72 Wellington Street; and,

  • 44 Wharncliffe Road North;

e) on the recommendation of the Managing Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking consent for alterations to the heritage designated property located at 426 St James Street BE GIVEN, subject to the following terms and conditions:

  • the new railing be 24” in height above the porch floor to maintain the proportions of the porch;

  • wood be used as the material for the alterations;

  • all exposed wood be painted; and,

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

f) on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the request to demolish the garage on the heritage designated property located at 325 Victoria Street BE PERMITTED, and the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED of Municipal Council’s intention in this matter; it being noted that the communication, dated May 10, 2021, from B. Jones and K. Mckeating, as appended to the Added Agenda, and the verbal delegations from D. Lee, E. Van den Steen, B. Jones and K. McKeating, with respect to this matter, were received;

g) on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the potential designation of Labatt Memorial Park as a National Historic Site of Canada:

i) the above noted initiative BE ENDORSED; and,

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the application process with respect to this matter;

h) clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, 3.1, 3.2, 4.7 and 4.8 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   4th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-05-05 ACE Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on May 5, 2021:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to Greener Homes London:

i) the presentation, as appended to the Added Agenda, from S. Franke, London Environmental Network, and a verbal delegation from S. Franke, with respect to the Greener Homes London program, BE RECEIVED;

ii) a representative from London Hydro BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment to speak with respect to:

  • future infrastructure improvements to assist with climate change reductions;

  • alternative energy sources for providing power to the city;

  • fuel forecasting to support the Climate Energy Action Plan and net zero targets; and,

  • demand side management strategy and on-bill financing for home energy retrofitting;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated March 31, 2021, from C. Parker, Senior Planner, with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to Encouraging the Growing of Food in Urban Areas – City-Wide:

i) the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) supports the amendments made to date and the amendment that is currently under review; it being noted that the ACE has been involved with the urban agriculture process and development; and,

ii) the above-noted Notice BE RECEIVED;

c)  Jack Gibbons of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance BE INVITED to a future meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment to speak to the current campaign of the Clean Air Alliance; and

d)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2, inclusive,  and 4.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2021-05-31 - DEFERRED MATTERS as of May 5 2021 FINAL

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) 4th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-05-26 TFAC Report(1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on May 26, 2021:

a)        the Educational Initiatives and Outreach Sub-Committee recommendations, appended to the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration and to report back at a future meeting of the TFAC; it being noted that the TFAC reviewed and received the “May 2021: TFAC Educational Initiatives and Outreach Subcommittee: A Few Suggestions and Comments” on the City of London Website;

b)        the following actions be taken with respect to creating ecosystems in London:

i)         a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of J. Kogelheide, A. Hames and A. Morrison, to review the creation of ecosystems in the City; and,

ii)        the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend a future Trees and Forests Advisory Committee meeting to provide an update on the initiatives currently being undertaken;

it being noted that the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee reviewed and received a communication from J. Kogelheide with respect to this matter;

c)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Advisory Committee Review - Interim Report VI:

i)         A. Cantell BE REQUESTED to prepare recommendations on the Advisory Committee Review - Interim Report VI and to report back at the next meeting of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee meeting; and,

ii)        the Chair of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) BE REQUETED to attend a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting to provide an overview of the TFAC recommendations with respect to these matters;

it being noted that the TFAC reviewed and received staff report dated May 17, 2021, with respect to these matters;

d)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Urban Forestry Communications Strategy:

i)         Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the next meeting of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee to provide an update on the Urban Forestry Communications Strategy;

ii)        P. Nichoson BE INCLUDED on the existing Working Group; it being noted that the Working Group consists of A. Cantell and M. Demand; and,

iii)       the Urban Forestry Communications Strategy BE INCLUDED on the 2021 Trees and Forests Advisory Committee Work Plan.

e)        clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 8:40 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 (4 hours, 46 minutes)

going to be starting in two minutes so if everyone could get themselves ready and on screen thank you. All right it’s now four o’clock I’m going to call this meeting to order. Before proceeding any further I think we should recognize as a committee the events that have recently occurred with regards to the finding of the graves the grave of 215 children’s at the Kamloops Indian residential school. I think most of us recognize and have learned about the tragedy of residential schools we’ve learned about Mount Elgin residential school nearby where children also died while at that school so I think it’s incumbent on us to recognize both this particular event but the overall tragedy that occurred in our country and the recognition and the remembering of that is important so if we could just maintain silence for a short period of time thank you.

Thank you very much and I just want to point out several of my colleagues on the committee pointed this matter and made the request to me to do this today it’s always comforting to have colleagues stand with you and have a unified front on an issue like this I want to I want to thank the entire committee it certainly wasn’t my idea. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing a advisory committee meetings and information upon request to make a request for any city service please contact accessibility at London dot CA or 5 1 9 6 6 1 2 4 8 9 extension 2 4 2 5 to make a request specific to this meeting please contact pack at London dot CA. First is there any are there any disclosures of culinary interest from committee members there being none I will move on to the consent matters I’ve not been alerted to any consent matters being pulled does anyone wish to have them pulled you’ll of course have an opportunity to speak to them right can I have a mover and a seconder moved by Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hillyer who is completely out of order wearing a Toronto Maple Leaf shirt does anyone have any comments on any of these matters Councillor Layman. Thank you just again want to commend City staff we’re seeing 100% response times within the 48 hour provincial mandates for inspections and I know how busy they are so a great work on that as far as statistics as we move into comparables because 2020 was such a one-off year I would find it handy to include 2019 in your reports just kind of gives us a bit more of a ground base for kind of a what is a what a what a usual year so I would appreciate if staff would consider that thanks just from staff is that possible to do that through you Mr.

Chair Peter cookers here yes that is definitely possible the April report has been completed and sent to clerks and if it’s okay with you we can start perhaps doing that with the May stats moving forward Councillor Councillor Layman’s nodding I think that’s obviously fine thank you very much Councillor Hopkins yes thank you Mr. Chair and I just want to make two quick comments the first one is on 2.2 a development on Bowler Road I just want to thank staff for getting back to me this is a development with some concerns on Bowler Road safety concerns so I appreciate them getting back to me I know it’s a consent item and I appreciate just being able to just speak to the the safety concerns of movement on Bowler Road so thank you for that and just a quick question through you Mr. Chair on 2.5 the building division report unbelievable to see the statistics of 85% of the residential increase in building permits over last year and through you to staff just wondering how staff is able to manage all this if we’re you can see that we’re we’re getting the permits done but just want to find out a little bit more about the any staff concerns getting all this work done I think they’re going to say they’re really smart and work hard but I’ll let them answer it go ahead thank you Mr. Chair we’re smart and we work hard in all seriousness thank you Councillor Hopkins for bringing this up yes we are pushed to our limits pretty much we are managing some vacancies currently however we are actively pursuing filling those vacancies and I must say that the majority of the permits are being issued within the provincially prescribed timeframes there are a few that have been two to three days past that deadline but for now we’re managing and I would be remissed if I didn’t thank staff and acknowledge their hard work as well we’re keeping up as best as we can thank you thank you any further comments on any of their consent items if not I think it’s been moved and seconded am I right yes so I’ll just call it for a vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero to the scheduled item 3.1 which is 349 Southdale Road East there is not a staff presentation but if there are any technical questions from the committee or for the applicant at this point in time please go ahead all right let’s open the public participation meeting and move on from there I need a mover Councillor Lewis seconder Councillor Hopkins unless there’s something further I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero are there any public presentations or does the applicant which to speak good afternoon mr.

Chair it’s it’s gone Allen from MHBC I just want to confirm that you can hear me at this point yes we can hear you my apologies I wasn’t sure if I was speaking that we’re acting on behalf of the applicant and at this time we’d like to express our support for the findings and recommendations of the development services report prepared by mr. McSula we just wanted to confirm that we agree with the finding that this redevelopment proposals appropriate for the site compatible with local development context and supports housing choice in North Longwoods this finding is also in keeping with the commentary provided in our planning justification report we’d also like to thank staff for their assistance with his applications and with their approval the applicant intends to proceed to site plan approval and is hoping to initiate site development in the fall thank you for your consideration and we’re glad we answered any questions committee members may have thank you very much questions from committee for the applicant or for staff they’re being done is somebody prepared to move the recommendation moved by Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hillyer any comments or questions there being none I will call the vote oh sorry oh I’m sorry there’s another person wishes to speak I apologize I thought that was it go ahead I thank you mr. Chair it’s Aminee Omar is here to speak today thank you good afternoon how are you today I’m very good sorry we that I skipped over you that’s that’s our fault so go ahead that’s all right that’s okay perfectly okay how are you guys doing today I’m good go have that’s good oh I do appreciate you given us the opportunity to avoid for concerns I have a couple here my backyard is to the west facing to the west so the property that they cannot is right behind my backyard and my first concern is privacy slash safety can you hear me yes I can’t hear you I’m just and I’m writing down your questions oh okay so I think I babysit my grandchildren both of them under the age of six and most of the time I just let them play in the backyard unattended so I’m very concerned now that there will be condominiums built behind my house and right now there’s just a chain link fence it’s like maybe four feet high and there is a gate as well but I’m very concerned about their safety my pride you see most of the time I just let them play in the backyard unattended I was wondering what will happen with the chain link fence fence where you repair I’m sorry not repair it but there over some of something else would you go there okay did you have any other concerns you wanted me to find out about yes there’s also a tree it it’s between the two between my backyard and a lot and it goes right between the chain next fence goes right in the middle of the tree so it’s mainly leaning towards the vacant land so I was wondering will you be having that down okay is there any other concerns that you have many and one more concern of the trees will you be able to save okay all right did you want to say anything else well while you had the opportunity that’s about it great well I’ll ask your questions we’ll try to get answers if you stay on you could be able to hear that thank you very much maybe I can go to the applicant I hope you heard the three questions the first was privacy and safety as between her home which backs on to the development the tree between her yard and the development site there’s a tree right on the property line and she would like to know what’s going to occur with that and and the last thing is how many trees are you able to save on the site thank you mr. Chair in response to the first question there will be a believe a 1.8 meter tall wood board fence that will be established and that’ll be addressed through site plan approval I believe mr.

McSula’s report speaks to that that would be like so that matter would be addressed in terms of privacy there would also be landscaping like tree planning as well adjacent to that fence to have additional privacy so that that matter certainly is of concern and will will investigate it further during site plan approval secondly with respect to trees there has been a tree preservation plan prepared and several of the trees and the boundary trees are to be preserved I can’t speak specifically to this one but I can speak to the fact that trees and then the northern boundary the intent is to save those and I am I’m apologize I don’t really have the details in front of me but that would be further investigated this specific tree that miss miss Omar I believe it is speaking to we will certainly investigate that further to see if we can preserve it as well if it happens to be not identified currently under the tree preservation plan for protection okay does that help you that’s absolutely it did just one more question the tree that I’m talking about between the two properties I don’t know who it belongs to if it belongs to me or else it belongs to them property yeah I think I think they will I think they’ll be able to tell you who owns the tree and I think they’ll also be able to tell you what the plans are for the tree and you can always check with our staff or the planning committee and when and we can help you with that okay and you did say there will be a foot 1.8 meters 8.8 meters 1.8 meters I think was what they said wooden fence yeah okay now I have a gate I don’t know why there’s a gate I can actually literally open the gate and walk into the property will you be getting rid of the chain link fence oh this I’ll ask that okay applicant are you gonna I assume you would be building the wood fence inside of the chain link fence perhaps I’m wrong mr. Chair we can certainly investigate that I just don’t think that that specific detail has been evaluated yet but whatever the most appropriate approaches will take okay there will be another site plan meeting and these things will be ironed out but it’s good you came today to mention them okay okay all right thank you so much you’re very welcome have a nice evening you as well any other public I’m sorry for someone speaking oh okay any other participants okay we’ll go back to the committee then this was moved and second hello hi who is who’s on the line now hi my name is Roberto Vivota with my wife mooching we live at 1166 doggy okay I did not know you were you were going to speak but now that you’re here it’s it’s our pleasure to hear you so go ahead thank you very much we we were having issues trying to set everything up in order to do it yeah that’s okay mr. Chair it’s Kathy Saunders I believe these individuals are here for item 3.4 not 3.1 oh okay so they’re I believe they’re here for 16 leathered street north okay they could confirm that yes okay we’re not on that item right now okay sorry that’s okay okay let’s take one more final shot at this is there any are there any other public presentations Councillor Hopkins was there something you wanted to say when this is done or yes mr. Chair I I’m not sure if we we going to be closing the public participation meeting as well yep let’s do that somebody moved to do that Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hillier all in favor we’ll vote on the screen it’s good thing we kept it open for the additional people here in the absence of screen voting may I vote yes please thank you all right closing the vote the motion carries six to zero anything further actions this has been moved and seconded Councillor Palosa hello mr.

Chair thank you for recognizing me as a guest at your committee as word Councillor for this development haven’t heard too much from the community at this point grateful for the resident who did take the time to call in with some concerns wondering just as this is your first one of the evening if you could just tell my resident or those on the line of once they go through this section like what is a site plan or how does that come back for concerns and details that will be addressed yeah I think what we’ll we’ll we’ll let that staff do that at the planning committee I don’t I think they’re probably finished now so I think I could leave that to staff to do am I right I’m going from staff going to help me in terms of providing information to the residents about next steps is that something that staff will be able to do mr. Chair it’s my fellow there speaking thank you and through the Councillor so at this point it’s a rezoning and the next step will be to receive a site plan application I don’t believe we have a public public site plan or an H5 on this property but should be we should be able to address most of the concerns presented by the resident what I would encourage is they could email our general email address or call us and they could get some more information about the about the files it moves through thank you for that just didn’t want the public thinking it was one and done and they wouldn’t have an opportunity to have a say so thank you for receiving me at your committee thank you anything further from the committee or anyone else okay I’ll call the vote we did have a mover and seconded are we not okay mover and seconders Councillor Lewis I’m getting off to a bad starter folks I get better as evening I’m like a comedian I get better as my material yes I’m a mare holder seconding we can only hope chair I’ll vote yes thank you thank you to zero okay I’ll do better on this one anticipation meeting with regard to 1752 to 1754 Hamilton Road we’ll have to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Lewis any further comments there being none I will call the vote Carol who yes thank you closing the vote the motion carries six that presentation yes mr. Chairman it’s very much from here and I have a short verbal presentation if you like go ahead thank you this is an application by Connor Wilkes on behalf of Thames Village Joint Venture Group for an amendment to the zoning by lat 1752 1754 Hamilton Road on the north side between chemistry’s road east and the Thames River the request is for approval to change the zoning from a residential R114 zone to a residential R13 zone to facilitate creation of four single detached dwelling lots fronting on future Oreo Drive the site that is affected by this application is approximately 0.26 hectares and is occupied by an existing single detached dwelling which has been converted to two dwelling units the subject site is part of a draft approved plan of subdivision by Thames Village Joint Venture Group that includes the vacant lands on the east side of Hamilton Road public road access to these lands is provided by an existing unopened road allowance known as Oreo Drive the applicant’s intent is to consolidate 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road as a single block within the plan of subdivision as it goes through the process of final approval and registration at that point an application for exemption from part lot control can be considered by municipal council to allow for creation of the four single detached dwelling lots the requested zoning amendment is intended to facilitate that process the subject lands are within the neighborhood’s place type in the London plan where it’s permits a range of uses such as single detached semi detached duplex dwellings converted dwellings and townhouses as the main uses the 1989 official plan land use designation is multi-family medium density residential permitting a similar range of uses and the policies within the London plan and the 1989 official plan include the old Victoria community specific policies which in vision over the long-term infill and and residential intensification opportunities along Hamilton Road including small scale commercial and office-based uses the current R-114 zone permits single detached dwellings on lots having a minimum lot area of 2,000 square meters and a minimum lot frontage of 30 meters it was applied to recognize the existing uses and the pattern of large deep lots established years ago when this area developed as a strip of rural residential dwellings along that site of Hamilton Road the R-13 zone permits single detached dwellings on lots having a minimum lot area of 300 square meters and minimum lot frontage of 10 meters the lots that are being proposed range from 15 to 22 meters lot frontage and approximately 645 square meters lot area and would meet the minimum lot size regulations in response to the notice of applications concerns were expressed about demolishing the existing house proposed lot size and orientation not in keeping with the character of the area a loss of trees and privacy and impacts from noise lighting and vibration from construction machinery the proposed zoning will permit single detached dwellings which are compatible with existing and plan residential development and are consistent with the neighborhood place type vision the proposed lots will have frontage and access to a local street which minimizes the number of individual accesses to Hamilton Road and the proposed lighting pattern also mirrors the draft approved lots on the north side of Oreo Drive as part of the detailed subdivision design and environmental impact study and tree assessment and protection plan we’re prepared and submitted and recommendations have been incorporated into the subdivision engineering drawings. Pre-protection fencing for the subject site has also been incorporated into the engineering drawings in order to preserve existing trees along the Hamilton Road frontage within the future road allowance and road widening block and along the Southerly property boundary the applicant has entered into a site alteration agreement with the city and so the preliminary site grading installation a sediment and erosion control fencing and removal of trees and vegetation has started residents also expressed concerns regarding potential privacy impacts and requirements for rear yard fencing the city does not normally impose conditions for privacy fencing between residential single detached dwellings within subdivisions any fencing would be initiated by the developer or by agreement between the affected property owners who would be responsible for future maintenance of the fence heavy vehicles and construction traffic are expected to access the site from Hamilton Road via Oreo Drive it is the responsibility of the developer and their contractors to ensure the approved construction access routes as provided in the subdivision agreement are complied with the developer would be liable for any damages to adjacent properties during the construction period so in conclusion Mr.

Chairman staff are supportive of the recommended recommended zoning and the and associated holding provisions as it conforms with the London plan and the 1989 official plan and because and is consistent with the zoning that has previously been approved for the adjacent draft plan of subdivision thank you very much just to change things a little bit we’re gonna have the applicant make their presentation then all about the committee make technical asked technical questions of both the applicant and staff so that we’re covering that off before we go to the public is there a presentation from the applicant sure I do not have an agent for the applicant showing I do have a member of the public in attendance all right any technical questions and just of staff Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you and through the chair to Mr. Motland thank you for the presentation and a few questions I have it’s about the I just hope I have the right application here municipal services to the area it is it it’s suggested that a holding provision may be applied but I’d like to know a little bit more if there are municipal services that are adequate for this area and my second question is around the open space just wanting to know what is being done to buffer the open space to this development as well go ahead yes sure the servicing is available both all stormwater sanitary sewer and municipal water is available along Hamilton Road there is a stormwater management facility that has been constructed by the city to service this development and the engineering drawings are currently in their second submission of review which includes a detail design for all of the servicing for development here including the subject lands the open space lands have also been considered as part of the planning for the draft plan of subdivision and and it includes the buffering for the delineation of the development limit the identification of the environmentally significant area and the buffer have all been included as part of the draft approved plan and as part of the zoning so that includes lands that are just a little bit further to the to the east and north of the subject site that include ravine lands and it also includes a the Thames Valley pathway trail which will run along the edge of the open space and through this draft plan of subdivision we’re able to incorporate that path that pathway project thank you thank you all right we’re going to hear from a one member of the public okay yes mr. Chair mr. Sim is here in attendance okay mr.

Sim are you there mr. Sim famous on mute we’ve asked him here he goes should be there now mr. Sim here me there I can hear you now the spell squire I’m chair of the committee so you have five minutes to make your presentation starting now okay thank you my name is Gary Sim and my family owns the property besides 1752 Hamilton Road at 1764 my family has lived here for the last 70 years 1752 myself in a lot to the south of the original three lots sold on this street the were sold to veterans of World War II and into the VLA lands the Veterans Land Act which was formerly Westminster Township 1752 as I said was the first home on the street and we are opposed to its demolition in the creation of four lots it should remain where it is the streetscape does not really need to be altered many of the residents on the streets feel the same way I’ve outlined my comments further to mr. Hilliard mr.

Lewis and some of the counselors in little less detail about my opposition to the applicants plan of design among other issues I’ve spoken with previously with other residents of the street I would say most of them are adamantly opposed to altering the streetscape and again the creation of four lots many wanted to participate but they’re either at work and kind of found this process difficult to navigate as well did I myself although I do appreciate you guys taking the steps to do this you know if if we if I could say anything that would be the takeaway here I’d like to see a vote of some sort amongst the neighbors and in conjunction with council maybe put through post or at our local church here to have a further meeting about this site and what’s going on on the street as far as development once the stay-at-home orders have listed just in regards to my family’s home at 1764 it’s going to be impacted by vibration it already has been across the street and what’s going on everybody down here has had their homes shaking I do realize that’s you know part of what happens with infilling but you know we have a septic system chimneys outbuildings and ultimately this plan is going to reduce the value of our home create further lack of privacy issues of lights at night which are already happening across the road basically if council were to put this application through we’d like to see a burn with trees something like a spruce or a juniper put from front to back just inside the applicant’s property line to allow for further privacy as we have three acres and about a thousand foot deep property that’s basically being rendered useless which you know more or less just because of the creation of the subdivision at the back of the property you know you’ve got thousands for property that you’ve got no privacy now and due to what they’re going to build with roundabouts and so forth and we’ve kind of mentioned to the developer we do want to install a fence down the property line or just inside our property line but nobody on the street that I’ve spoken to thus far is happy about the plan one thing I did want to note was that City has lowered the road in front of our houses kind of without notice back in 2018 2017 and rip aside the applicants front driveway our driveway there’s an island there that’s been that way for like I say 70 years and the driveways are our dimensions are not right and that’s gonna have to be corrected so I don’t know how that will affect the applicant’s plan but one of the comments that many neighbors are just a little upset about is that a lot of the trees in the front yard of 1752 have been taken out now mind you that being said a lot of the trees have been taken down at the rear of the property which which got approval and further in other lands that they own on the street but the the big bugaboo would be people are saying we’re in a tree protection zone and we’re in his environment environmentally sensitive areas anybody really in London like as much as metal lily the amount of animals and wildlife that are back here it’s tremendous really and so we’re kind of just wondering specifically with the trees at the front why was the developer able to cut down these trees at the front when this this plan this file is Ed 394 14 has not been yet approved and that was kind of just baffling to us all and I specifically have a minute a minute remaining sir I’m just about done I just had spoken to one of the developers workers and they had flatter just told me that the developer had tried to get some of these trees out earlier without without permission without permit and CTV has been doing a story about how we know we’re not meeting the targets for trees so that’s kind of baffling to us and just in conclusion just about done many people are pretty irate with what’s going on you know they worked their butts off to be outside of a 30 by 50 lot and they’ve created lots here with mature trees in a large neighborhood and you know now basically two developers are carving up the neighborhood and people basically just said and I’m sorry I’m just about done the city doesn’t really care about us they’ll do what they want where the east end and the neighbors on the street have had a meeting with the developers in the city in July of 2018 and kind of said the lot of our concerns have gone unaddressed and they’re kind of left with the point of like what do we have to do go to the media or to appeals board and our like my family alone like you know I’ve tried to be okay you did say because you said you’re about done I didn’t interrupt you but your time is is pretty much up I’ll give you 10 seconds okay did I have what if you okay if I had 30 seconds more I’m just just go ahead as long as you stick to that sir yes thank you sir you know I’ve been trying to try to be respectful with the developer but we’ve had constant issues with the developers saying their workers on our property the last three years trespassing our yard verbally abusing my mother members of the family and due to the actions of this developer my mother was hospitalized let rendered unconscious a while back and it’s just it’s we’re left just shaking our head at just like how they’re allowed to get away with what they get away so that is your time sir thank you any other members of the public all right we’ll need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by counselor Lewis seconded by counselor Hillier anything on that or not being any we will call the vote chair let me vote yes thank you chair I’ve had my hand up here okay and sorry what we just closing the public we’re just but we haven’t done we are yes okay thank you answers Hopkins and Hillier please I’ll vote yes it’s not coming up closing the vote the motion carries six to zero thank you very much I’m just going to stop there was the one question asked in about the trees in front of 1752 and removal of those trees can you help us with that Mr. Chair it’s not Felberg speaking so just just to highlight this this block is actually a block within an approved plan of subdivision and once once the city receives a planning act application the tree protection by no longer applies and we address tree retention protection and preservation through the review of the application in the develop the proposed development so now the standards for those are informed by the by-law in our in our engineering design standards on which trees are to be retained we have an arborist who looks at the at the preservation studies as well there was action that occurred prior to the site alteration agreement being signed and put over the lands and we actually issued a stop-work order to the developer the developer at the time was then we lose Mr. Felberg sorry about that somebody else was calling there for a second oh yeah so we issued a stop-work order and we worked with the developer to develop the compensation plan a compensation plan and and they and then what we did then through the the review of the engineering plans is we incorporated that into the overall design of the site so at this point they are any of the work that they’re doing so they they’ve got tree protection fencing they’ve got erosion sediment control measures that all have been installed under the site alteration agreement we also have securities against that as well so our our role or the next step for us would be to confirm that those have been installed correctly and any remedy would be through that site alteration agreement if there was something that needed to be addressed I’m not sure Mr. Chair if you wanted us to adjust some of the other comments from the resident I think there was one about if we could do so fairly quickly yeah that would be great yep there was one about the the the elevation of the road I will note that we do have a project plan for Hamilton Road for this section of Hamilton Road to improve it from a rural to an urban cross-section and apologies I can’t recall the other matters that the resident was looking have answered we’ll leave it at that for now perhaps some of the counselors might ask so I’ll turn it over to the committee for any questions or comments somebody prepared then to move the recommendation Councilor Hopkins are you moving it did you want to ask something else yeah I’d like to just make a few comments if I may Mr.

Chair and I would like to suggest to the committee members given the concerns that we just heard from from the public and the and and the bit of history on this property and the fact that other residents had not been able to attend I would suggest that that a holding provision be put on for a site plan public participation meeting because what I heard from the resident and is that a lot of these are concerns can be addressed through the site plan process but the public participation meeting will give an opportunity for the public to still be involved to give comments and follow the site plan process I would also encourage the applicant to to meet with residents to address some of the concerns that can also be done but if the committee members I’ll go to the word counselor if he would be prepared to put an H5 on on this recommendation moving forward who is that which counselor is yes I would move that I’m just reading it over right now I’m just wondering I’ve had a lot of conversations a lot of residents in the area and I’m just trying to figure out a way at the end we’ll make people happy and just trying to figure this out and I know that I know the spacing I’m also concerned with some of the lot sizes going into this new neighborhood yes I would like to see H5 go on this all right so you’re prepared to move that and counselor Hopkins is going to second it I’m sorry you’re having I’m having really bad audio here that’s okay just staff need to drop something up or is that something that’s fairly quick that’s fine we’ve done that so we have moved and seconded in a holding provision to be added on as an amendment any questions or comments narrow holder and thanks very much chair through you to staff I know we’ve got the neighbor who has expressed some deep concerns about this have we heard from any other the public of regard to this this particular property that’s to staff and perhaps even to counselor over if he’s heard I’ve heard from almost every neighbor along that stretch all right and staff yes Mr. Chair staff have heard from other neighbors and residents along Hamilton Road as well and their their their comments and their contact information has been summarized in our report and what are the implications through your chair to staff to putting in H5 on what the this holding provision what what see is the outcomes there and that’s that through me I take it in this format yes - yeah I thought he said through you chair all right go ahead let me ever do that oh I know that Mr. Chairman the main implication is that these are single detached dwellings which would normally not be subject to application for site plan approval so there’s the difficulty in arranging for a or a precondition in in a holding provision for a public meeting so that isn’t it that would be an issue thank you stop so chair through you go ahead so you say that would do through you to staff that would be an issue of for the benefit of us because it’s easy for us to say let’s put a holding provision in and and and often by the way it’s it’s a good catch-all to make sure that that the appropriate dialogue with neighborhoods are considered but what are the what are the ultimate implications with this it sounds like it’s not something that would be typical since with single family residential units could you just clarify again a little more broadly what this can does should mean yeah the what the what’s the subdivision plan has been registered it will have zoning on the lots to allow for development of single detached dwellings we do have holding provisions now when that are in place for a subdivision agreement to be entered into as well as another holding provision has been recommended very similar to the rest of the lots in the subdivision plan that there be water looping and a second public road access provided for the development but is because they are single detached dwellings after after the zoning is put in place builders could apply directly to the city for their permits to build the single detached homes there would not be a step for a site plan for site plan approval thank you that’s what I’m getting at thank you anything further in terms of questions or comments from the committee counselor layman go ahead this is by the way that’s what we’re talking about right now right so I’m just looking at the map and and hearing staff this area has been approved already for a subdivision it looks like there’s three addresses that front on to Hamilton Road so there will be something developed here I guess I go to the mover of the motion is what is hoped to be accomplished by putting an H5 on this that that can be addressed other than you know I understand that maybe more people would have wanted to participate here but apparently they have through their counselor at some point this will be developed and I don’t know how putting an H5 provision will will prevent that so I just want to know from the counselor what he hopes to achieve by this okay so that’s through me and that’ll be you do not have to answer that counselor hell yeah it’s totally up to you but if you’d like to answer it go ahead thank you yes I have heard from many of them and many of them have not felt like they’ve been heard especially regarding the site plan and as we heard from Mr. Sims sorry Mr.

Sim there is some ideas that the neighbors have come forth with but they have not been incorporated and I’m what and I’m also thinking because of the age of the residents a digital meeting for them is very very difficult and I’m trying to figure out a way of getting them I pretty much gonna have to knock on their door and give the machine on how to use a phone to call in to use this system so they can participate in a meeting because it’s very overwhelming for some of them and I know Mr. Sims mother quite well I know then I know the area she she is quite upset with what’s going on around her so my the hope is to have a public participation meeting with the build with the developer and for the site plan to get some provisions in place just something something to help make it a little more appealing thank you do you have anything else councilor Layman comments questions I apologize for not following a protocol by not that’s okay Councilor Hopkins yeah thank you Mr. Chair and I had just heard from staff that we cannot put it an H5 on this application so I still have concerns that there are a number of site plan issues still to be addressed by the public and if we can make the notes that we’ve heard today with this recommendation going forward and I look to the word counselor to see if there is an opportunity for the applicant to still meet with the residents to address some of these concerns I find it very difficult here at a public participation meeting when we do not take into account the concerns that are that are in this area so I’ll sort of with being told that we can’t put in H5 I would still support the counselor to put the H5 but it’s a site plan public participation meeting so it’s just to address the concerns that we’ve heard here with fencing with trees with lighting as this development goes forward I I you know staff are saying one thing I’d like to see an opportunity for this applique or for the residents to still be part of this process given the concerns we’ve heard I find it very difficult to just ignore them and just say well we’ve heard and we move on okay here’s what I’m gonna do at this point in time we’re getting into a sort of post-cross debate I’m gonna call on Mr. Yolman and see if he can bring any any suggestions to this and Mr.

Yolman it would be clear suggestions about what we can do and what we can’t do because frankly there seems to be some confusion about that Mr. Chairman I’m happy to help the committee in any way I can so there’s been a lot of really good discussion points raised tonight a lot of really valuable input from the community as well we’re of course going to take that back and work with the applicant on a number of the issues that are raised and they’ll be captured in the minutes as well I don’t think that the H5 is an avenue that committee can explore related to this given that the lots don’t need the test for site plan but what I would suggest is that staff when we bring back the holding provision removal for the H and the H100 could speak to how the matters that are raised of the meeting have been addressed as well so committee and council can have that information for weighing the merits of the holding provision removal as well we of course encourage the public to continue to work with us and the applicant and we’ll do our best to work through these things as much as we can. Thanks Mr. Yolman does that require any motion from council or from the committee at this point in time Mr.

Yolman? Through you Mr. Chair I don’t believe it would given that the holding provision removals are built into the recommendation that’s before you. Thank you anything further from the committee all right so why don’t we find it appears there’s difficulties with the H5 so I’m just gonna ask the mover seconder if you’ve removed that motion to add the H5.

Yes Mr. Chair I just heard from staff I’m glad to hear that the concerns that we’ve heard here tonight are going to be addressed and again I’d like to reiterate the importance of this applicant working with the community so. Okay so that’s a yes. So now we’ll go back to the recommendation which I need to have that moved and seconded I believe at this point in time no it’s been moved and seconded okay anything further.

Councillor Halmer. Thanks very much for recognizing me Chair to say through you to the committee. We’re seeing an example of the desire of people who want to live the rural lifestyle in the city of London and they see the city encroaching up on where they live and they they don’t like it very much and I think the applicant has expressed it pretty clearly and you know given what’s happened with this property already you know the subdivision has been approved it’s been designating the official plan for residential the residential is going to be built here and I hope the applicant is listening very carefully around the buffering issues because there’s one neighbor that has a very long frontage on to the subdivision and as much as they can they should be buffering with landscaping and fencing so that people get a bit of respite from the new subdivision and I’m sure that they will will do that but just across the road from this property is the urban growth boundary just on the other side of commissioners road is the urban growth boundary and it’s dull designated as farmland and don’t build on it and so when we get into discussions around their urban growth boundary I think it’s important to remind ourselves that there are a lot of people in the city who want to live the rural lifestyle they don’t want to have subdivisions keep encroaching on their rural properties and they would like the city to stay in the city and they’d like to have their piece of piece of mind and their quiet in the rural area and we have a huge chunk of the city that’s designated as farmland outside of the urban growth boundary and really need to protect that it’s too late to do that in this particular circumstance it’s already been designated for residential subdivisions been approved development’s going ahead on this property but we don’t have to do that outside of the urban growth boundary and when we get into discussions around expanding it or contracting it or changing it I think we should keep the feedback from this resident in mind thank you anything further on this matter all right we’ll call the vote thank you troubled yes thank you the vote the motion carries 6 to 0 moving on now to item public participation meeting with regard to removing properties from the register of cultural heritage resources need a mover and seconder to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Hillier anything further on that I’ll call the vote yes okay closing the vote the motion carries 6 to 0 yes thank you on you heritage planner during the transit project assessment process for rapid transit potential cultural heritage resources were identified in the cultural heritage screening report the latch recommended that municipal council add the subject properties to the register of cultural heritage resources in 2018 since then the subject properties which are listed on page 143 of the printed agenda have been evaluated using the criteria of Ontario regulation 906 which is determined that the subject properties do not meet the criteria for designation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act the subject properties should be removed from the register of cultural heritage resources the latch was consulted on this recommendation at its meeting on May 12th this year their recommendation supporting the staff recommendation can be found in item 4.1 of your agenda and that’s page 578 I’d be happy to answer any questions that the committee or public may have thank you very much any technical questions from the from the committee and I should add that the latch report item sorry what was the number 4.3 we’ll also deal with that at the same time the latch recommendation and I did find that on page actually 467 I’m not sure if it’s on the added agenda but it’s at 467 of the main agenda and the recommendation is received there any technical questions right is somebody prepared to move the recommendation along with the latch recommendation contained in its report at paragraph 4.3 to chair we have some members of the public here okay let’s go ahead then first is miss Velastro thank you very much miss Velastro I haven’t read the latch recommendations I actually didn’t see them here but I just wanted to speak to this matter because I feel like a lot of these houses are being removed because they’re in the way we know that the city wants to widen while we can road so they can put in bus lanes and when I look at these houses I admire actually a lot of these houses they’re working class houses I recognize some of them are not I don’t know about every single one of them there’s no report really for me to read on each individual building but there are some buildings there that for someone just looking at them I I’m more there they’re beautiful there’s examples of them on other parts of the city like the peak gable the peak roof on some of these houses and the bungalows but they’re very rarely are they examples of middle-class structures that emulate ones that are more grand and I I’m always to say when middle-class or lower-income houses are not given any historical or cultural value and I again I don’t I don’t know what last said but I do feel that these are being delisted on mass because they’re in the way and I again this comes down to this idea that we have to widen a road to make room for transit when a factory should be just narrowing profit lanes down to one they do so many other cities they don’t make streets bigger they make them smaller for cars and then they balance it out with they make room for public transit not the other way around and I feel like this is being deregulated firm because they’re in the way and as there’s no report here there’s not much I can say other than that seems to be the outstanding motive here I recognize there’s been an assessment but a lot of that assessment is interpretative and as someone who’s familiar with that stretch of road I see a lot of history when I look at some of those houses anyways and I’m really disappointed that these are unless he can tell me they’re not in the way I feel I’m really disappointed in the way this city approaches heritage unless your grand is an example of history all through the ages and I’ll speak again when it comes to 126 price street but that’s why I wanted to say I just feel there isn’t really much for the public to go on with this particular report there’s no there’s no I don’t see a latch report myself and there’s no report from the heritage planner okay miss Velastro if I there is a latch report and the latch latch committee I haven’t I haven’t seen it I’m sorry I don’t know I guess it’s on the first agenda I didn’t look on the first agenda okay I’m just telling you there is a lot can I just finish please there is a latch report and I believe latch concurred with the decision and it’s again it’s very brief so just so you’re aware of that okay okay so they’re in support okay that’s fine that’s all I want to say is that the overwhelming feeling I get is that these houses are in the way of something you want to do and what you want to do is just make a four lane highway basically bigger rather than making that smaller for cars and I drive a car and I can get down to one lane okay we’re getting you we do understand you’re we are getting we understand your point I think you’re getting to the end of your time if there’s something quick you wanted to say no thank you thank you very much next member of the public and mr. Chair goran mam mamaka okay go ahead sir I don’t have a comment at this time okay next member of the public is that that is all we have for members of the public in attendance okay for this item and we’ll turn it over to the committee did I close the public participation meeting prematurely then we’re gonna close it now move over please move by Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hopkins you don’t have to wait Councillor Hopkins I get the the hand up is sufficient we now close the public participation meeting I’ll turn it over to the committee or we’re gonna vote sorry no what is going on with me tonight I don’t know on the top of my game for sure Councillor Hopkins you want to say about closing the public to assist patient meeting we’re just voting on that once you get there chair thank you Councillor Hopkins please still waiting closing the vote the motion carries six to zero all right question you’re on mute still Councillor no problem I think I know by now just following up on the question from mr.

Oastro about are these buildings in the way for our rapid transit system I would like to go through you mr. Chair to staff to ask that question and to also ask the question on how many properties are on the register for the cultural heritage resources as well just to get a little bit more clarification here you mean in total for the city or all right thank you go ahead staff thank you and through the chair if you’ll just bear with me for one moment I can get you the number of properties that are listed through the chair this is Jenny Dan I can speak to the other question while Kyle is looking up that information go ahead mr. Absolutely thank you so again through the chair the widening of the project for the rapid transit is doing a number of things in addition to installing improved transit it’ll also be improving critical infrastructure along the full corridors this is one of the city’s most critical arterials and as part of that we’ll be upgrading underground infrastructure but also improving the safety of the Wellington S curve so many of the impacted properties are right along the Wellington S curve part of that project will straighten that curve to improve a safety component so I think that ultimately any any future works or widening of this project would have a very similar impact to many of these projects or properties mr. Ganyo do you have that number yet yes they do thank you for your patience there are 2266 heritage listed properties on on the register and that’s as of the end of 2020 anything further councilor Hopkins yes I guess when we’re ready to you can do your comments now yeah I I hear the concerns from the community but I also do support this going forward there are many on the register and it’s a good way with this transit project to be able to assess and to look at the priorities of these homes along the stretch of the the corridor so I am supportive of the motion moving forward thank you any further comments from the committee counselor Lewis thank you mr.

Chairman just going to move the staff recommendation all right let’s get it on the floor then do we have a seconder for the staff recommendation counselor Hopkins will second it go ahead counselor van Holst you wanted to speak yes thank you mr. Chair and my first question through you to our staff when were most of these properties put on the heritage registry okay that’s through me to staff are you able to say that I know there’s a lot of different properties yes and through the chair they were generally added there might be a few exceptions but in 2018 the bulk of the properties thank you councillor okay thank you so that’s interesting so that was we’ve known that already that we were going to be doing the the BRT project along here so okay that’s it I noticed we’ve got some on the on the on this on the east side some on the west side looking at them are there are there are every one of these being removed from the registry because they’re all going to be demolished through me to staff sorry the chair not all of these properties will be demolished these are properties that were flagged as part of the rapid transit project and subsequently evaluated and determined to not have cultural heritage value or interest so that’s what you have before you tonight in the future some of these properties may be made be demolished for infrastructure projects like rapid transit thank you anything further councillor okay thank you mr. Chair and that’s great so and to you you know I’m pleased to see we’re able to remove properties from the list when we’re hoping to do some development I know that in my area Hamilton more there’s Ward Hamilton Road there’s a number of we have a number of properties on the list and that some of them we want to retain and then some of them were planned for but I but I would ask it we can deal with that another man let’s deal with this particular issue which is these cultural properties okay thank you so those are my questions about that thank you thank you anything further from the committee this matter is moved and seconded I will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero we’re now moving on to item three point public participation meeting with regard to 16 whether it’s street north I’ll ask for a mover and seconder to open the public participation meeting moved by councillor Lewis seconded by councillor Hopkins any questions or comments about that I will call the vote closing the vote thank you that presentation thank you mr. Chair I think the presentation is a page 209 am I correct of the added agenda I believe so yes thank you just for staff committees reference if you’re looking for it that’s where it is thank you very much go ahead okay thank you mr.

Chair zoning bylaw amendment application for 16 weathered Street just going to slide two here subject site is on the north side of Oxford Street east of weathered Street looking at the property the subject site is within the neighborhood place type in the London plan to win the within the low density residential designation within the 1989 official plan and it’s currently zoned within R1 - 6 for single detached dwellings moving to the next slide so the proposal here is for eight townhouse units and to rezone to allow for these eight units and I’ve shown you just a site concept up on the in the presentation further to that I’ve inserted the proposed development within the context of the neighborhood so you can see how the development will will is proposed to be within the neighborhood moving on to the next side I’ve inserted the applicants renderings for the front view from weathered Street looking northeast so you can see the proposal next side it’s a front view from weathered Street looking southeast so I’d like to get into the policy and I know we’re running behind on time so I’ll go through this pretty quick looking at the PPS the intensification through redevelopment is promoted through intensification in the official plan and London as envisioned by the PPS further looking at the near campus neighborhood policies in the London plan in the 1989 OP provide additional evaluative framework for all the planning applications within the near campus neighborhoods these near campus neighborhoods policies are both in the 1989 plan and the London plan with direct directing residential into intensification to nodes and quarters and away from the interior of the low density residential neighborhoods I should note that the subject site is within the older established neighborhood which I show I did show you on I think was the second slide it’s designated and zone low density residential to recognize the existing single-detached dwelling it is not identified as an area for intensification in the proposed form of redevelopment in the near campus neighborhoods quickly moving on to we’re gonna be looking at use in the London plan the London plan does encourage intensification where appropriately located and provided in a way that is sensitive to and a good fit within the existing neighborhoods within the neighborhoods place type along a neighborhood street this development that this development may be appropriate through intensification policies however as noted this site lies within the near campus neighborhood area and these intensification policies apply to protect the many areas that I have already observed observed significant amount of residential intensification therefore this proposal sorry excuse me redevelopment is not appropriate and does not meet the policies in the London plan for the near campus neighborhoods quickly moving to the OP the official plan 1989 the subject sites again are is in low density residential designation proposals for residential intensification within the near campus neighborhood areas are subject to the area specific policies and we’re looking at the near campus policies again the planning and urban design goals set out in the near campus neighborhood are intended to serve as an additional evaluative framework for all planning applications so within the near campus neighborhood residential intensification may be permitted within the low density residential neighborhoods subject to the criteria that we reviewed so looking at the criteria in the use these policies further discourage these forms of intensification intensification within the neighborhood campus neighborhoods near campus neighborhood sorry so these policies the goals encourage appropriate intensification to create the balanced neighborhoods that preserve the low density residential neighborhoods I’m just going to skip a little bit further just I’m going to quickly look at intensity and form looking at the London plan as mentioned we are within the neighborhood place types the low rise low density residential uses in the form of single-detached dwellings were built in the 1950s and 60s in this neighborhood and are the dominant forms of development the existing lot fabric in the surrounding area is also characterized as relatively large lots with significant lot steps this can proposal although conforms to the height policy in the London plan does come with introducing a new form of development within the existing context which does not have any special attributes or is not unique within the context of the area to warrant the repository development with the form and intensity the request of redevelopment is not an appropriate level of intensification within the near campus neighborhoods continuing with the 1989 official plan looking at intensity and form I’ll go through this quick we’ve looked at these policies and come to a conclusion that the proposed redevelopment would also introduce undesirable changes in the character and amenity of the street states and the neighborhood I’m going to continue just quickly to the recommendation but I do want to note there was there was quite a few neighborhood responses for this application concern for density traffic safety student housing privacy was a big one so those are the neighborhood concerns the main ones that came in so just moving forward with the recommendation we are recommending a refusal for this application it does not meet the PPS the provincial policy statement the proposed rezoning to permit the requested development does not conform to the in force policies of the 1989 official plan or London plan proposed rezoning to permit the requested redevelopment with in close proximity to Fanshawe in the near campus neighborhood area with the proposed intensity and form is not appropriate and is not good planning and lastly the subject site does not have any special attributes or is not unique within the context of this area to warrant the proposed redevelopment with the form and intensity thank you thank you very much so as I indicated we’ll go to the applicant let them present and then we’ll do a technical question so the applicant go ahead please Mr. Chair is Matt Campbell from Zalenka preamble can you hear me yes I can wonderful thank you very much um so again Matt Campbell was Zalenka preamble here with the applicant Phil Patton what you have in front of you here is really boils down to interpretation of policies obviously you’ve heard the city’s position and we we don’t agree with that position and we don’t agree for two principal reasons I believe the last point mentioned by Ms. Riley there was that this this site doesn’t have any special attributes well we contend that it does have special attributes and is and is unique in its context in the site and when we’re talking about the near campus neighborhood policies there are two points that I’d really like to bring up for a committee to consider one is that the site is in fact unique and two is that it is not located in the interior of the neighborhood and those are the two key points that that really um that planning as that planning committee should be mindful of when making a decision on this application this evening when we look at 16 Weathered Street it is a very very large lot if you can look at the air photo there is a huge backyard area that is not being used this is an excellent site for appropriate redevelopment and appropriate intensification so the reason why is is unique not only because it’s a large site but also because of its location is literally a stone throw away from Oxford Street those properties that front onto Oxford Street those will be redeveloped under the policies of the London Plan for apartment buildings and mixed-use buildings of up to six stories in height we we have received correspondence from the owner of 1160 that’s the corner property for a development proposal for a five-story apartment building when we look at the context of that site versus 16 Weathered Street again it really emphasizes the fact that perhaps there could be a transition of uses here going further north to the interior of the neighborhood when we’re looking at those those building heights it really doesn’t make sense to leave this relatively large property with with one unit on it I hope Planning Committee was provided with the letters that were sent in just this morning there were approximately 17 letters from the public that were in support of this application and I’ll leave it with a planning committee to review those as well the other point that I really wanted to make with this site is that it it is not in the interior of the neighborhood this is on the just the edge the periphery of the neighborhood not the interior if if this property was 15 30 25 meters further north I don’t think we would be having this conversation today but it’s right on the edge and it certainly warrants consideration especially when we have land use policies on literally the next property to the south that would permit a six-story building so we provide that that this redevelopment proposal for eight two-story townhouse units is appropriate for this site we think it makes a lot of sense and we would ask the committee to provide a motion to to recommend approval of the application which is obviously contrary to the to the staff recommendation I do have the the developer Phil Patton available we can answer any questions and I’ll ask if Phil would have any comments you’d like to make to Planning Committee at this time go ahead okay um I don’t think I have him and if he doesn’t have to make comments okay he can make them later sorry are you there mr. Patton okay I’m going to move on to the committee to ask technical questions technical questions only about to the applicant or the staff our staff please there are none so we’ll move on to the public yes who is this hi my name is Roberto Vivota and Mu we’re 1166 after 1166 uh I’m sorry what street what street did you say did you say after them no sorry it’s 1166 Dobby correct we’re actually right right beside the oppose for the the building that’s being proposed all right okay go ahead sir you have up to five minutes thank you very much so um we’re opposing it for the 16 weather street zoning amendments be allowed for the eight-story building uh for us it took us a lot of effort and lots and lots of tries to actually try to get a house the reason we like this area in general was because of it’s a nice quieter family area it’s actually not right off of Oxford it’s in quite a ways so it’s in the registered dental and it was a lot better for our kids which is two and four years old we moved here with around August the first though less than six months we actually received a letter from the city about the planning application we were very sad about the news for such a larger building going in just because the whole area around it is nothing but just small houses and when we look at the the aerial mapping it actually isn’t like right off of Oxford is actually quite a ways in in the center of all these nice small family homes low density houses so we were a little concerned for many different reasons for for privacy for the backyards be able to have our kids out for for safety with we look at the proposed building for the two stories it actually looks literally right into our backyard where kids play right into the kids building like their bedrooms and we’re concerned about the density of people if it’s going to be more students or not can i just there just to be clear someone else is talking and we’re sort of getting two voices so it would be great if someone else wants to speak they can speak afterwards if that’s okay okay so that was my wife oh okay we had lots of different things and we didn’t know exactly everything that’s going to be proposed for this we’re between the two lots is just a very small pain link fencing as well there’s lots of different things that we were opposed for this being built do you want to speak yes i do okay go ahead hi counselor this is more speaking and uh one of the partner of the neighborhood of the property dopey street 1166 okay in uh highest picking for the meeting for the 16 weather street application for eight unit story town house development i’m actually opposing it because it’s for my uh family and our safety concerns and privacy and um i hope that um the proposal will not be able to go through it’s just that i know it’s not um for for for the commercial or business perspective is they could probably you know um make more money and be able to utilize the backyard for a single uh property but if we come to a unit property i think that the backyard for that is actually not quite enough for the space class whole property is in the middle in the center of all amount the uh low density residential so if we put into the eight unit town house and right across right behind and willing to our backyard it just make me and my kids will not be feeling you know safe or comfortable be able to let them go outside and play and exercise for their growing because uh yeah this is uh my concern for it okay did you want to add anything else i’m so fun um yeah i also very very is my two kids that you know the two and four we just moved in here less than a year and we were thinking to raise them in here quietly and safe because we just down the road to the catholic school primary bless uh bless i comment and then we were thinking about the other catholic schools in john two but then uh we were thinking to live here like you know probably until they grow up so we were actually very set and uh affected our living space here yeah thank you thanks to both of you very much we appreciate your comments thank you thank you thank you my two kids that you know and four i think we just moved in here less than a year and we yep i know you you told us that i i think we’ve got what you’re what you’re saying is or i thought you were done are you is there something else you wanted to add mr chara some uh another individual on the call hat was unmuted and so oh they were that it was a delayed uh we’ve muted that individual okay perfect then okay we do have one more uh individual great thank you bachelor go ahead hi um i live at 22 wetherard street with my husband jim and he’s here as well uh we have a few concerns about uh the property uh one of them is that we are right next door to that and our backyard is um their backyard is going to be facing our backyard so we’re going to have eight units that are going to be looking onto our backyard um and so we’re concerned about the noise once people get in there that i’m from my understanding it’s only going to be about five or six meters from the start of the building to my property line um so of course we’re worried about people in there um that these are their backyards or if it was their front yard either one we’ve got the noise from them if they uh have dogs let’s say even just half of the have dogs then there’s barking dogs not just one that you have next door to your eight or four whatever it would be um we were told that there is going to be a fence between the property and some um trees and that which is good i don’t know how high the fence is going to be and we would want it high enough that you know people aren’t able to just look over the fence and and into our backyard um things like uh air conditionings going on and off times eight you know it just seems like a lot of uh a lot of people in that spot um one of the things that was brought up was the fact that it’s a huge lot and there’s all kinds of space in behind but if you look at the aerial picture all the um backyards are like that in this neighborhood that’s not unique and if uh this zoning goes through then how many other people are gonna you know do something like that so um the other concern i had was garbage we don’t know how that’s going to uh be handled but i think that’s the main part of it for me um you know whatever happens we’re we’re willing to to work with the the people but if you sit you know asking me do i want this or not no i guess that’s all i have to say great teacher husband want to add anything i think Judy covered most of this mostly concerns like we’ve been here a long time residence and that is your country like yards right here i’m from the small town of concartion and now my property’s gone from that to like double to single and smaller just being dwarfed first part is is we’re gonna have traffic radio they’re gonna turn in right at our yard right right it’s where it is stands now and we don’t want that and there’s so many young kids along here now and the people speak flying by it’s like we just want to see that make sure they’re safe we’re safe and people aren’t just prying in what not in the backyard all the time yeah there’s only room for one spot i think for um somebody park maybe there is a garage there too but you know it there’s enough parking on our street as it is sometimes in the evening there’s three or four cars in the front of our house and what’s it going to be like when you got eight more people in there and they’ve got friends over and stuff like that so okay all right okay thank you very much for participating we appreciate it very much have a really nice evening thank you thank you any other members of the public to chair i i believe that that is it uh we we’re expecting a christina but i have a christine on the call and i believe christine is here for another item so without the last name we’re not totally sure but i think that’s it for this item okay thank you very much i appreciate that so we’ll need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by counselor luis seconded by counselor layman anything further on that i’ll open the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero questions that maybe the applicant can answer um there was some concerns from the people next door and probably from the people um uh whose backyard also touched on the property as to um privacy uh fences um how they would be protected from noise from the uh or anything from the new development so maybe you could answer that absolutely through um mr chair uh the comment about privacy what i can say is that in the conceptual site plan that we prepared um and as we do with with the vast majority of any intensification projects we indicate a standard six-foot board on board fence um we’re happy to increase that to whatever uh the city will allow through site plan approval and what i can say is that i know of uh two specific uh applique or or site plan applications that we’ve gone through just recently where the height of the fence has increased to something in the neighborhood of of eight feet or something like that um additionally uh with uh say an eight-foot fence we’re proposing that the vast majority of trees along that lot line that’s between 16 weathered street and the abutting properties to the north uh are retained and where trees can’t be retained or where there isn’t any sort of um vegetation in an area we’re proposing to line that area with uh with trees maybe some columnar cedars or columnar oaks that would provide that visual buffer in terms of noise what i can say is this type of development there would be noise commensurate with with any standard residential use i mean certainly there would be noise associated with construction but that’s just a temporary thing um we’re not looking at any sort of of uh noise fence that would be required under the uh ministry of environment or anything of that nature but there uh there are different types of fence construction that would attenuate noise to a greater degree something along the lines of overlapping board fences that that you can’t see through at all uh it’s almost like a double layer of boards that would provide additional sound attenuation that’s something that can certainly be explored through okay the site plan approval process thank you and the other question was about garbage removal absolutely uh through you mr.

chair garbage removal that hasn’t specifically been identified at this point uh we haven’t gotten that far through the process uh the two options that are available either uh collection from a private service and that would likely be taken from say uh what’s called a deep well container or a mollock container uh we haven’t specified a location for that on the site or alternatively it would be a standard collection service through the city again i don’t have a whole lot of detail to share at the time those are the two options thank you um going then to the committee for questions first uh counselor helmer questions thank you just through the chair to planning staff this is a wide lot as has been pointed out by the applicant what options uh outside of the rezoning would the applicant have to intensify on that lot could they sever it and add secondary dwelling units for example like what is permitted as things stand right now go ahead stop through you mr. chair this is michael tom is insick and the counselor is exactly correct uh a severance could be applied for on this property and in fact dividing this property into two lots would uh recreate the lot fabric that exists in the neighborhood and of course then uh secondary dwelling units would be permitted as well thank you go ahead counselor just a brief follow-up through the chair so if that what if that did happen um what is the total number of units that could be built on the the property given the way the policies are now go ahead mr. chair it’s michael tom is insick again the policy would allow two additional dwelling units uh for each primary dwelling unit so a total of six uh on on this whole lot area thanks that’s it for questions thank you very much counselor any other questions from the uh committee any uh counselor layman questions no thank you through you to stop can you tell me where the border of the near campus neighborhood zoning is in relation to this property through you mr. chair i’ll double check but i believe it is one block over to the west which is clement street uh that would be the border of the near campus neighborhood area yeah thank you and um with your permission chair one for your question uh it was mentioned that um the corner property on oxford and whether um would have the potential for um a five-story unit if that was indeed the case let’s uh and i’m because you might not be able to answer that i understand if that structure is a had an existence existing now would that change your opinion of uh of what your recommendation would be for this particular property uh you can answer that if if you’re able to uh mr.

thomas sensing uh mr. chair i’d be happy to answer that uh it would not because the policies contemplate that form of intensification along oxford street they also uh contemplate making sure that there is a sensitive transition between the oxford street properties those at the exterior and those in the interior of the neighborhood um and just while i have the mic i just i just want to clarify it’s actually two blocks over the near campus neighborhoods area ends at mckay which is two blocks over so i apologize for that thank you for clarifying that no thank you um questions uh counselor van holst thank you uh mr. chair and through you i wanted to ask about the uh the lot that seems to be between sixteen weathered and and the corner lot and it looks like a big lot there is that just an empty lot is that the backyard of uh of the oxford street property mr. chair there is a building on that uh northeast corner of oxford and weathered street it is a large backyard but right now there is a dwelling on that property okay so that that i’m looking at at the google and i can see obviously why uh the the applicants would consider this a good location because it’s only one one dwelling you would have to tear down to be able to put up eight and uh my my question through you mr.

chair uh when we went through the London plan and and set set the zoning uh would we be did we did we look at these larger lots and and places where it seemed like there might be an opportunity to development or were we looking primarily just along along the corridors and deciding it that way mr. chair it’s the latter uh the intent was to intensify those properties that are directly along the corridor to provide that symbiotic relationship between intensity and transit right thank you very much that’s my only questions mr. chair tomas since it can maybe more of interest um the area that i represent in in north london has at least one very large townhouse development sort of in the middle of it and i’m just wondering is that because it was pre uh near campus or is it some other reason mr. chair uh i’ve been at this position for nine years and i don’t recall uh supporting a zoning bylaw amendment for a townhouse so unfortunately i can’t picture the one that um you’re speaking to right now but uh i know that we’ve had had proposals for townhouses in the interior of the community and staff recommended refusal as did the committee but that was some time ago okay i’ll take you for a walk one night and i’ll uh i’ll show it to you looking forward to that excellent that was just i was just hoping you might know the reason it’s obviously not crucial to the debate um council van holst you had some is this a question we’re just going to finish questions first yes again uh just pursuant to uh councilor helmer’s comment about uh this being divided and made into six units um just i i wonder if if staff could comment on the the comparison between between those those two forms uh so i i suspect the uh the the eight units might might be a little better uh in in in terms of being able to access and for for parking for the various residents i i know the intent the intensive intensification with with three units i’ve seen it in my own ward and it’s sometimes sometimes kind of awkward can is there is there a comment staff could make about that because i i think i might prefer to see uh the development that the applicants are suggesting uh to two of uh those awkward developments that i’ve seen again in my own ward okay so if you can mr thomas since i curve your wish to it’s more of a qualitative question between two forms of housing yes thank you mr chair i think what’s important to note is that if that uh form of development was pursued then they would have to be constructed a single detached dwellings which is consistent with what you have on the corridor and then through that you can add an additional dwelling either in the basement or another area as well as an accessory building at the back but they would be in the form of single detached dwellings consistent with the neighborhood the other thing that i think is important to note that in that form of development the number of bedrooms would still be maximized at five for the entire property so each dwelling would allow to have five whereas right now under the townhouse proposal you can have three bedrooms in each of the eight dwellings thank you any further questions from the committee before we move to debate there being none i’ll turn to committee see what we uh where we are on this okay before we make any motions and go ahead counselor helmer you were first off so we’ll let you go thanks i thought i’d provide a bit of uh my view on this this is a tough one um for me the policy rationale i think is very clear in the near campus neighborhood to discourage this kind of intensification uh if it was outside of the near canvas neighborhood i think it’s a good idea and i think the application has um revealed that there’s a bit of a weakness in the near campus neighborhood policy framework which is you know these transitional lots that are sort of right beside along the urban corridors like a street like Oxford Street or Adelaide Street any of the rapid transit corridors we could have quite tall buildings along there so along Oxford Street for example it’ll be between six and eight story buildings you know the eight stories with the type two bonus thing which is under appeal right now so we’ll see what that lands but six stories is the normal maximum and we’ve got proposals coming in already along Oxford Street for buildings up that size and the transition from a eight-story building down to a single family house um immediately beside it is quite abrupt and so i think uh as those redevelopment opportunities happen along the urban corridors having some kind of townhouse or you know not single family uh form of development uh and the immediate sort of adjacent lots i think that makes a lot of sense and i think you can make a lot of sense all along those urban corridors and the rapid transit corridors where even tall art buildings are going to be allowed so i don’t think it would make sense on other streets and so we’re very fortunate to have all these place types in the London Plan the ones where i think it makes sense to have those adjacent lots a little bit more intense are along those urban corridor place types and the rapid transit corridor place types and not any of the others so you know not if it’s just a neighborhood place type i don’t think that would make i don’t think that would make sense and the problem is that that doesn’t exist in the policy framework right now and so i think the staff have made a good argument that you know the application should be refused they certainly won’t prevent uh you know the applicant from intensifying the property if they wanted to do something else they could sever it they could put uh maybe four or six units using the additional dwelling units as a way of doing it um i do think uh so what i’m saying is i think we should refuse the application or refer it and ask a staff to review those policies around the near-campus neighborhood when it comes to the lots that are just the ones that are adjacent to uh the other place types those urban corridor place type and the rapid transit corridor place type and then if we decide that you know what those lots and not ones that are further into the neighborhood with the ones that are up against those lots they should be transitional we should allow slightly more intense form of development along there than single-family houses and i think that that could that could make sense and that it would be supportable you know within the near-campus neighborhood and we did when we last discussed the near-campus neighborhood policies we changed the boundaries quite a lot and i i wonder if we perhaps uh should have drawn the boundary a little bit further east of mckney because i i do think there’s actually quite a different situation on part of berg and ryan which is just a little further east of here than there is right now on whether it whether ed or clemens for that matter you know those streets are a bit different um so i would encourage colleagues to either refuse it or refer it back um the referral i think would take a really long time and i would i’d look to see if uh staff want to weigh in on that because a review of these policies is not a small thing even if we focus it in on just those place types it’s still a big area and the staff are very busy so it could take a while to come back and i’m sure the applicant would not be very happy with that kind of delay and so i think i’m probably angering everybody in saying you know refuse it but also try and make it work eventually but i do think that’s the right thing to do given the the proposal and what was come up in the discussions with the community and with the applicant who i think has done a good job of trying to accommodate a number of the concerns that came up you know the way they oriented the building the way they designed it especially for the neighbors who are immediately to the north who we heard from and people in the neighborhood there’s quite a few people who are supportive partly because this specific property has been derelict and a big problem in the neighborhood for a long time and so any kind of redevelopment seems like a great idea uh to a lot of people thank you maybe i could just ask staff about the idea of a referral to review the the near campus policies in the in the way that the counselor saying what kind of just to give the committee some kind of context of how much time we would uh we would that would take and not not i don’t want you to be overly overly optimistic or or go out on the lamp go ahead mr.

Thomason said could you help? Through the chair it’s mr. Barrow take that one um as it relates to a referral um on the neighborhood uh on the near campus neighborhood policies um they’re very much reliant on some of the policies that unfortunately are still in her appeal in the London Planet so a referral back would um would actually the control on the timing on that is more on on the selling out of some of these appeals um and i would anticipate that it could be a year out before we do that um what what the counselor’s noted is that um this is adjacent to a place type it’s not the corridor it’s not the fact that it’s that Oxford Street is classified as an urban corridor it’s the fact that the place type along that stretch of Oxford Street is urban corridor so i think that’s important uh an important distinction that the counselor has raised but as it would relate to a referral on this um it would be some time before it could actually get back to you on that given uh the relationship between uh some of the NCN policies and some of the outstanding appeal matters in the London Planet. Thank you Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah thank you and i really do appreciate Councillor Hummer being here and giving more insight into the uh challenges and i am prepared to move uh the uh recommendation supporting the refusal of this. I think it’s important uh to note that the applicant does have other opportunities available for some form of intensification and the one thing i’ve heard um tonight is that there is nothing unique and we can probably differ on what uniqueness means or special with this development and so supporting the refusal encouraging the applicant uh to um take other opportunities that are available for intensification but for me when i look at this map this is in a neighborhood this is in a residential neighborhood uh i understand the the buildings fronting onto Oxford will have some form of intensification but we’re not talking about those properties we’re talking about this property that is in a residential area the fact that the property is derelict i would definitely encourage the applicant to do something uh some form of intensification but to continue that conversation with staff so prepare to move the motion. Somebody prepared to second the staff recommendation doesn’t look so at this time so i’m going to go to councilor lewis and see what he has to say thank you mr chair uh well i i will start by saying uh councilor helmer and i uh disagreed on a matter at corporate services earlier today but tonight i i actually agree with almost everything that he said um and uh i agree with him that we’ve i think with the near-campus neighborhood policies we’ve been uh maybe a little too broad and i think that transitional uh development off of those intense routes is is absolutely something that should be considered um so with that in mind um i do hear what staff are saying about the the policies that are under appeal from the London plan uh but i do think that there’s an opportunity uh for the applicant and staff to continue a discussion here and come back with something you know when i hear sever the law and and put in granny suites and and doing the math here on the bedroom maximums you know we’re talking about the difference between 18 bedrooms and uh or sorry 15 bedrooms and 24 bedrooms um so there is an intensification uh difference there but it is an intensification nonetheless so um and i do you know with all due respect disagree with councilor hopkins i i do think that this is uh an interpretation this is a an entry point into a neighborhood yes um but it is is very much a stone’s throw from the transit routes on oxford and and the commercial district and everything else that’s right there um i think it’s an entry to a neighborhood um but i do agree with the applicant in that this is not deep into the neighborhood uh this is you know very close to a really really really busy corridor in our city so i with that in mind i’m going to uh see if we can move a referral back to staff um to uh revisit revisit this discussion with the applicant again as we heard from the applicant’s representative um you know there’s some differences in terms of uh their private consultants interpretation and our staff’s interpretation of a couple of the the factors involved i’d like them to take the time to talk that out and see if they can find a middle ground here and maybe we get something back in in less than a year i i hope um that can be acceptable to the neighborhood and to the applicant and and achieve some intensification so i’m going to move that referral and see if there’s a seconder for that then let’s see if there’s a seconder for the referral oh counselor uh halyard sorry i couldn’t see with that sweater on um sorry just a point of order mr chair that’s called teamwork we’re we’re wearing the same symbol there yeah i noticed that um so it’s now been seconded so we’ll have to bait on the referral and i think uh counselor uh louis has explained his rationale uh for that uh counselor layman no thank you i feel more cultural uh with going with this approach um you know i understand uh comments made by counselor helmer and um and the frustration um and that’s why i said you know with going from um uh you know a higher level building allowance uh right into a neighborhood and with no uh gradual progression into there um i also heard from him um the concerns of residents in his his area you know this is a derelict building and um they would like to see something happen here um to get something going we’re not far off like i was surprised to hear uh the amount of units that would be would be allowed if the uh developer went another direction um so i think you know i think in this case uh i’d like to i’m hoping that the developer could work and maybe reject plans uh with our staff that would allow um allow some progress uh on this property um it is uh very close to oxford street and um potentially could be uh behind you know an eight-story high rise or a commercial building um so i will support this uh oh counselor hopkins on the referral yeah thank you mr chair i do have a quick question for you to staff what is the difference between supporting the uh recommendation before us and referring back like what will be different between the two go ahead mr tama sensei thank you mr chair i i guess i’d like to see the specifics of the referral is it is it asking the applicant to revise the proposal and and then working with staff if it’s simply the same proposal um we have exhausted the discussions and i think we’ve gone as far as we could in in the policy interpretation so i’d like to see um some of the the the wording of that referral thank you thank you for that because i too would like uh maybe to go to the mover to find out what is the reason for the referral okay you’re doing that for me and i will ask counselor those if he wants to respond to that well through you mr chair i think i was pretty clear on my rational in the beginning um yes it would be an opportunity for the applicant to potentially revise pieces of their their uh proposal it’s also an opportunity you know with all due respect to mr tama sensei we we heard two different interpretations his and and uh private planners and i think that there’s an opportunity for that discussion to continue so um i was not especially specific in the referral because i would like both parties to go back to the table and and uh investigate further options here there is an opportunity for intensification and uh i don’t want to presume what that might look like i would like both the proponent and and our staff to work together on finding a way to make that happen thank you anything further counselor counselor hopkins anything further yeah i’d like to get staff’s response on that to the reasons for the referral that we’re just express and still not sure can we do that yeah i just i don’t think staff should be entering into the debate about whether we should have a referral or not um i think mr tomsick’s been fairly clear is there something you can add mr toms and sensei keeping in mind that that obviously there’s a difference between the role of staff and and counsel with the committee i should say mr. chair the only thing i would add is we would endeavor to implement the the council resolution and and speak with the applicant and see if we can come with the meeting of the minds thank you thank you uh counselor helmer i saw you wanting to speak go ahead and thank you just on the issue of the referral i think if we don’t have a review of the policies that are discouraging intensification of this kind uh the answer is going to be the same from uh planning staff and so i don’t think a referral without a direction to review the policies um and the time is going to take to do that properly will be productive i’ve talked to the applicant about what they’re proposing i’ve talked to planning staff about how they’re reviewing the proposal nothing substantial is going to change i don’t think i think people are pretty well established in their positions uh so you know sometimes referrals make a lot of sense and people can work out some kind of difference in the proposal and it accomplishes um some useful and i just don’t think that’s the case right now so if there is a referral i think it needs to go with the the policy review and be on the same timeline as the policy review which is obviously going to be a long time for the applicant i do think though the situation we’re in right now you know one of the residents who’s opposed to the development could also file their appeal with LPAT and say you know what i don’t want any development here and that’s going to be a big delay too and they have a staff report from the city that says all the reasons why it’s not a good proposal and you know i think it’s better to take the time to work it out i think the policy framework has got to be adjusted to allow for intensification on those lots that are adjacent to those specific place types just the rapid transit place types and the urban quarter place type and if that happens then this kind of proposal could be supported um so i think that’s the best way forward i did send the clerk some language around the policy review just to maybe if that’s helpful then obviously i can’t move any motions at your committee thank you so if we could get that wording up i don’t i mean just chair i don’t think they’re mutually exclusive or referral and and also a referral on the policies i don’t i don’t think they’re mutually exclusive so we could we could also do that the wording is apparently up on counselor helmer’s wording yeah could you read it please that the application by two four four five seven two seven ontario ink fill pattern be referred back to the civic administration for further discussion with the applicant and to report back at a future planning and environment committee meeting the civic administration be directed to review the near campus neighborhood policies for residential intensification with a focus on lots that front onto neighborhood streets but are immediately adjacent sorry that’s out um to rapid transit place types or urban corridor place types okay so we we’re going to have that but we still have the referral that is on the floor so we can we can certainly add that to it i don’t i don’t i don’t i my perception is that there’s not going to be opposition to counselor helmer’s motion um but the referral is still being debated at this point in time so the the just so everyone’s clear the matter referred by being asked for by a counselor helmer is one year plus i suppose and counselor louis i suppose if it goes away and the sides i mean it must be clear to the sides if if they do if the applicant says well i just want exactly the same thing it’s going to be a really short referral and come right back so i think that’s where we are and hopefully i’m hoping we can move along the long agenda and deciding on the referral and we’re going to vote for it or not and then also deal with counselor helmer’s motion counselor hockens and then counselor louis yeah i i’d like to go to the mover maybe i i’d like to hear his comments first before um i uh speak to his um referral okay so so just one of the things is happening i mean i i one of the challenges with china people are sort of directing how the debate’s going to go and um i i’ll let you do that counselor hockens but you’ve asked you’ve asked the mover twice already wants to speak to his referral now you want us to him to speak to again and i’m going to ask counselor louis if you want to maintain your place behind counselor hockens i’m fine with that what would you are you all right speaking first uh i’m fine with with responding through you chair to counselor hockens because uh i am fine with what the clerk had up a moment ago now it’s changed but hopefully we can get that back up i’m fine with the referral and including in the referral that direction to staff to review the policies with the language that counselor helmer’s provided i’m fine with those two things and and i am saying that i’m fine with that because i want that review of the near campus neighborhood policies to happen anyway the way that the motion is is developed it doesn’t actually prevent uh the applicant from meeting with staff and coming back with a revised proposal before that policy review is completed if they want to wait for the policy review to be completed they can do that too so it leaves it really creates two branches in the road that the applicant can pursue but it does provide our staff direction to start reviewing those near campus neighborhood policies so i i support that and i’m fine with it being included as the clerk had up originally all right counselor hockens thank you for that anything further okay i should ask the seconder who is counselor hallyard you’re okay with what counselor louis said yes you are so i uh my understanding is and i don’t have i don’t see it in front of me it has two branches to a one’s of referral of this matter and then uh an ask to do the near campus neighborhoods uh policies am i right okay does anyone want that separated all right anything further on that motion all right i’ll call the vote sir hockens please oh yes i lost my connection closing the vote the motion carries five to zero moving on to item three is a public participation meeting with regard to a demolition request for a garage on a heritage listed property at 325 victoria street and we’ll need to open the public participation meeting moved by counselor hockens second by counselor layman anything further on that we’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero all right do we have a staff president yes uh good evening uh thank you mr chair this is laura dent heritage planner and planning and development this application is a demolition request for the existing garage on the heritage designated property located at 325 victoria street 325 victoria street is a heritage property designated pursuant to part four of the ontario heritage act the property is located on the south side of victoria street between wartalo street and runwick avenue located on the property is a primary residence along with a detached garage the existing primary residence dates from 1930 and there’s a two and a half story stucco clad and brick building the building is an example of period revival styles being used in the first half of the 20th century and in this instance reflecting the tutor revival style the detached one car garage on the property appears to be original and also reflects tutor revival styling details of the primary residence the property owner has requested consent of municipal council to demolish the garage on the property which will allow the construction of a new garage in an alternative location on the property and a proposal for a new rear edition the pbs directs that significant built heritage resources be conserved further the london plan states that attributes of a heritage designated property shall not be adversely affected through alteration removal or demolition the detached garage on the property at 325 victoria street is not mentioned or identified as a heritage attribute in the designating bylaw and therefore does not contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property its demolition will not adversely affect the cultural heritage value or interest of the property it is recommended by staff that they request to demolish the detached garage at 325 victoria street be allowed to proceed i should note at an earlier meeting this month on May 12th the london advisory committee on heritage supported staff’s recommendation thank you thank you do we have that part of the report from the latch committee before us today four point five so we’ll also be moving approval of the recommendation from latch of item uh four point five thank you very much um is the applicant here yes this is dashing Lee i’m here with my husband Eric Vandenstein and we’re here just to answer questions okay thank you very much any technical questions from the committee are there any other public participants they’re being done i will ask for a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by counselor hopkins who’s working hard tonight second moving or seconding every motion on the floor seconded by counselor layman all those in favor we’ll vote we’ll vote on screen motion carries five to zero uh committee is someone prepared to move the recommendation moved by counselor lewis seconded by counselor hopkins questions or comments i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero the next matter is item three point six participation meeting with regard to 135 village walk boulevard i’ll need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by counselor layman seconded by counselor lewis anything further i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero staff presentation please uh good evening this is uh like me and i just have a short uh verbal presentation on this one for this evening um the application in front of you right now is a site plan application uh spa 18 067 um and it’s required as part of a holding provision h5 that’s applicable to the site what’s proposed at this time is two commercial pads um which appears for buildings due to walkway connection between them for approximately 2 000 square meters of commercial space um the site plan for for reference for those following along is on page 243 of your agendas the important or one important complexity worth highlighting on this is that the application at this time does not apply to the entirety of the site and so what is currently under review is the southeast corner of uh this property right at the corner of sunny dale and richmond as well as a east west uh vehicular and pedestrian spine that connects to village walk and a vehicular access to to sunny dale in the south of the property um i’m just highlighting that to characterize uh some of the concerns that were received between the completion of the report and tonight’s meeting which focused on the main street application or uh elements of the site um they referenced um both uh expectations through previous planning processes and the um urban design pol guidelines that are applicable to the site and they relate to the creation of a main street character a long village walk boulevard from sunny dale to uh sunny dale through to up to richmond those uh that portion of this property would be subject to a future site plan public meeting as a result of the h5 um and uh those elements it’s it may not be entirely clear on the site plan is printed out but those are currently hatched and not subject to the review at this time so i just want to make sure that was clear before we uh open any conversation um uh that’s it thank you thank you very much is the applicant here mr allen is here on behalf of the applicant mr allen hello mr allen allen your unmuted should be able to speak hey doesn’t appear that uh mr chair mr sous fan is attendance okay and mr sous fan can speak hopefully mr chair can you hear me now so is that yes i can hear you now okay i i’m my apologies i don’t know what happened there um mhbc acting on behalf of the applicant and with me today is Carlos Ramirez actually and he’s able to respond any specific questions relating to the project design at this time we’d like to simply express our support for the findings of development services report presented by mr maitland we also wanted to reiterate as he did that this proposal relates to the first phase of site development it’s designed to comply with the applicable official plan area plan and zoning permissions and the associated design guidelines applications for future phases will address development plans for the balance of the property most importantly the village walk full of our main street that was discussed we’d also like to thank staff for their support uh with through this application and just to advise the committee that the applicant intends to proceed with site development this summer thank you for your consideration and we’ll gladly answer any questions any members may have thank you very much technical questions for the first app or the applicant place being done we’ll uh close the public participation meeting there’s no one else i take it um moved by counselor louis seconded by counselor hopkins anything further than i will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero any questions to be brought by committee counselor layman thank you chair um the communications that we received by email um and uh by the um urban design peer review panel uh touch on the concerns i have as well um the original development uh with previous developer uh i thought brought brought a unique uh plan to the city this was not going to be uh usual strip mall commercial development but a really interesting cool place uh that i think uh provided uh um very interesting break from what we usually see um you know the one comment from the um urban design peer review panel is this the panel is of the opinion that the design does not support the main street vision from village walklover per the upper richmond design guidelines in the main street place type policies of the linen plan is detailed uh in their comments below i’ve heard tonight that uh this is for only two uh pads uh but at a predominant corner um of the development at uh uh richmond and sundale so i guess my question um through you chair um then either the staff or the developer um is this doesn’t this uh initial design and build will not set the tone uh for the rest of of this development and the second question is why um have they moved kind of off the look and feel um that we originally uh envisioned uh for this uh horizontal plans thanks counselor first we’ll go to the staff and then i’ll let the applicant uh speak if they wish to uh life maitland here um so with regards to the kind of look and feel of the main street um it is correct that this will not achieve that but that’s because uh again the portion of the site that is under consideration right now does not include that main street element and so uh what we’ve looked for through this review and for this balance is to ensure that what’s being proposed now does not preclude the remainder of the site uh developing in accordance with those main street uh policies guidelines and kind of intentions that were set out um with regards to the urban desired guidelines that were set forth for the entirety of the site uh at the time that the main street uh guidelines were set out um any guidelines that are applicable to this portion of the site uh are at this time um met or with very minor tweaks will be met by the uh met may will be met by the design as proposed thanks thank you uh does the applicant wish to comment briefly mr chair first of all i’d like to thank um mr maitland’s comments are very accurate to our perception of phase one that the intent of of this phase is to meet those existing design guidelines fully recognizing that what would likely be phase two relating to the main street uh village walk full of art area uh will be looked at and much closer scrutiny uh and in with full consideration of those design guidelines you know that is the main street component of this development and it will have to be evaluated closely and an effort to align the design with those guidelines thank you counselor that satisfy you thank you um you know i’ll just make this comment you know um i look to york uh to you know there there are major player in this city and i look for leadership on this they have an opportunity to build something very special here um i understand that this is the the only two paths and there is an opportunity uh to be truer to what was originally envisioned uh for the rest of the development so i encourage you work um you know to to set the example of making a London a unique town with some unique commercial properties that they have the opportunity to do here thank you further questions comments someone prepared to move the staff recommendation moved by counselor lewis seconded by seconded moved and seconded anything further all right i’ll call the vote posing the vote the motion carries five to zero and moving on to item 3.7 which is a public participation meeting with regard to a demolition request for a heritage listed property at 126th price street um i will ask for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by counselor lewis seconded by counselor hopkins anything further on that then i’ll call the vote i told you i’d get better slowly getting better would you say slowly good evening mr chair this is michael greg wall heritage planner i’ve read a short verbal presentation thank you this is a demolition request for the heritage listed property at 126th price street the property is located on the east side of price street just south of hamilton road in the area between uh agerton street and hybrid avenue north the dwelling on the property consists of a one-story frame cottage that was previously clad in buffbrick and is estimated to have been constructed around 1876 written uh notice of intent to demolish the dwelling at 126th price street was submitted by the applicant on april 26th 2021 and as per section 27 of the ontario heritage act municipal council must respond to a notice of intent to demolish a building or structure on a heritage listed property within 60 days or the request is being consented during that 60 days of latches consulted and as per council policy a public participation meeting has held for this application the 60 day period will expire on June 25th 2021 with regards to consultation the latch was consulted on the application at their last meeting held on may 12th 2021 and i’ll note that the latch did support the staff recommendation and pursuant to council policy property owners within a 120 meter radius were notified of the public participation meeting this evening staff have evaluated the property according to the criteria of ontario regulation 906 which is a criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest and determined that the property has not met the criteria for designation pursuant to part four of the ontario heritage act as a result the staff recommendation is to consent to the demolition request and to remove the property from the register of cultural heritage resources and i am happy to take any questions that the committee may have thank you very much and uh just to point out item 4.2 in the latch report which was is the concurrence with this uh um this recommendation we’ll also be moving and and uh seconding it and approving it or not approving it with the staff recommendation is the applicant present yes mr.

uh levi loverton is in attendance good evening did you want to speak tonight or or not you don’t have to no i have nothing to uh do say just appreciate your time thank you very much you’ll you’ll want to stay tuned and see what we say no any other uh members of the public christine Fletcher or scott is on the line all right go ahead hello hi yes i can hear me uh my name is christine all right you have five minutes um after it’s christine i’m sorry your last name scott all right thank you very much okay i own a home at 97th’s mystery which is a hair listed heritage property my other half of 20 coming up 22 years is at 145 price street which used to be an old funeral home we had seen uh we were very interested in 126 price street in buying it it was where uh bill and cafe that were in there before they sold it privately everything went privately there was never a sign on the property um levi ended up purchasing it from a woman a realtor and uh we did talk to him at that time and to see about purchasing it because we wanted to keep it it’s original way and it was where the amount of money that was asked of us to pay within two weeks of him owning the property and nothing really done the house was gutted when he had purchased the house so when my other half at 145 price street uh bill he had said about had received a letter and um we feel that it should not be done i did go around uh down price street to home and street i did get 27 signatures for a no on demolition uh i believe the property like the for the bricks being taken off it was a beautiful cottage home and yes i understand structure problems but structure problems can be fixed um i feel we feel there was an out if it was going to be too much problem because we were interested with it as a heritage property the tree also in front of one one twenty six price street is also a heritage tree um it’s original there there’s uh used to be a post office on price street there was a doctor on price street uh one forty five price street was a funeral home so it’s where it’s just a shame to take a cottage home beautiful cottage home that was there and demolish it and change the landscape of uh that area as i said uh we also own own a home on 97th’s mystery it’s a queen Anne cottage home it’s beautiful and uh it’s just a no vote for us and for 27 other people from Hamilton road to Holman street and if you count the amount of people i pretty well got everybody’s signature except for two people that rented uh one couldn’t speak English and the other one worked for the city and he didn’t want to respond um i had talked to the guy at 128 price street and he was the one who because we were interested in what was going on and he was the one who let me know about a woman realtor and uh everything just went very private so we were interested in purchasing that property to keep it as the heritage home that it is and the characteristics and we had even commented that we would go to ace wrecking all the different places and tried to get it back to its original state you know we have uh we have to uh stick up for these heritage homes so uh i guess thank you for hearing me and uh i hope yous do a no vote thank you very much for your time um thank you to speak to us we appreciate it any other members of the public that wish to speak yes uh mr velastro mr velastro mr velastro you’re on mute we’ve asked you to unmute just here to speak um on this demolition request because i’m very i’m always very disappointed when um uh small cottages that are representative of um people that came to Canada that lived along the river the river was the life of a lot of these small working class um people that came to Canada as a wood structure it’s just a perfect represent just a perfect representation of working class um new Canadians set up along the river and because they’re not glamorous they’re tiny it’s wood it’s it’s old growth forest these should be these should be considered uh valuable cultural structures because they say so much about who lived there and what these communities relied and a lot about the river and i’m really disappointed that they um are not recommended for preservation just based on our history and again i i the same thing happened at black fires at 82 black fires that was the last standing house in that neighborhood it saw the flood it survived the flood and it got demolished because there’s nothing overwhelmingly special about that that house except that it was just rich with history and same with this cottage and i wish council would protect more of those intrinsic historical cultural values and not just on the fact that it’s wood it’s small uh those are worthy of protection so i hope you vote no as well thank you very much any other um members of the public okay they’re being done i’ll just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by councilor layman seconded by councilor lewis any comments on that there being none i will call the vote i think here he’s five to zero all right i’ll turn it over to this or comments uh councilor hopkins yeah thank you for recognizing me i do have a follow-up question for you to staff on uh the comments made by the public and if if we um do not support the recommendation what would be the applicant’s um process for um appealing or just following through with a non-decision thank you staff thank you very much uh through the chair if council were to disagree with the staff recommendation and and prefer to designate the property that they ultimately under under the heritage act for a heritage-listed property within the 60 days of property must either be designated under the heritage act or uh consented to for the demolition so a notice of intent to designate would need to be uh issued prior to the expiry of the 60 days which would be June 25th uh and along with that a statement of cultural heritage value or interest would need to accompany the notice of intent to designate as well thank you council yeah thank you for that if i could do a follow-up mr chair just to just follow up with my comments unfortunately i i hear um you know what the community um is saying and how much this building does mean to them given that they’ve already um gone out and petitioned as well uh but the reality is that uh the designation uh is not supported by latch uh and uh i am there would have to be a process um and that we would not have enough time to evaluate so uh i am uh following up on latches recommendation as well as staffs and supporting it moving forward so you’re prepared to move the staff recommendation counselor thank you uh do we have a seconder counselor lewis any further comments or questions all right i will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero and uh as a public with regard to 1697 library avenue north and i will just need someone to move opening of the public participation meeting moved by counselor lewis seconded by uh counselor layman anything further there being um we’ll call the vote council here please closing the vote can i get the staff patient please uh yes thank you mr chair um and there is a uh a slide presentation on page 341 of the pdf copy of the agenda thank you very much this site is located on the west side of hybrid avenue north directly north of the tems river um on the site location and context map you can see that the two story townhouses to the north off of calarney road and the two story semi-detached dwellings to the west fronting calarney place just to provide a little bit of context um in addition these lands include part of the tems valley corridor and you can also see on the map that the formal multi-use pathway system has been established to the south and east of the subject property um but we have not been able to complete it um across this property and to the west on the north side of the river i’m going to move to the next slide the applicant originally proposed a 23 unit stacked townhouse development with a three-story building located toward the rear of the property and a two-story building located adjacent to hybrid avenue north the application was revised during the process to reverse the buildings and place the taller one adjacent to hybrid avenue north this also resulted in reducing the number of units to 20 in addition the open space five zone line was requested to be moved further north on the site to better protect the features and functions associated with the tems river and to keep development out of the slope hazard area the decrease in number of units combined with the decreased development area resulted in an increase in the calculated residential density from 54 to 58 units per hectare the application before you is a zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning of the property from a residential r5 r6 zone to an r5 seven special provision zone um with special provisions to allow a third level of stacked town housing in the building adjacent to hide adjacent to hybrid avenue as well as others to permit the development as shown i’m now moving to the policy slides in the london plan the property is in the neighborhood’s place type fronts on an urban thoroughfare in this area that permits low low rise residential uses including stacked townhouses at a minimum height of two stories a maximum height of four stories um and with the ability to bonus up to six stories um through type two bonusing there is not a bonusing request on this property in the 1989 official plan the property is designated low density residential um and open space and it permits residential intensification in multiple forms including attached dwellings and cluster housing and generally developments will not exceed 75 units per hectare area residents raised a number of concerns with this application with respect to the intensity of the development traffic impacts lighting privacy noise and environmental protection in the next slide i’m going to talk about um the proposed building height and development setbacks from the adjacent properties so on this slide um uh you can see the uh the area that’s marked out in yellow is actually an easement that goes across um from hybrid avenue across 155 klerny drive uh and then heads south and provides access into the um natural area associated with the Thames River corridor so just to provide some context there um you can also see that um we’re looking at a two-story building uh along the west property line um with two-story semi-detached dwellings on the developed properties to the west um when we’re looking at the relationship of buildings to the north um you can see that we’ll have three stories along the hide part or sorry the hybrid avenue frontage um with two-story development across that walkway um to the north so the proposed development yields a density of 58 units per hectare which is well within the maximum density of 75 units per hectare as set out in the 1989 official plan um so in terms of in terms of intensity this um development is completely reasonable um just with respect to the relationship um between the heights and the type the setbacks and the um types of adjacent development um provided in conjunction with fencing landscape buffers and other measures to be identified at the site plan stage these heights and setbacks will mitigate impacts of privacy lighting and noise um on the next slide um just very briefly going to touch on traffic considerations um with respect to those the proposed driveway is located as far north on the property as it can be transportation staff were specifically requested to review the public concerns raised with respect to the proximity to the bridge and the safety of vehicular turning movements into an out of this development uh transportation advised that they did not have any particular concerns but that the driveway location and design will be addressed at the site plan approval stage um and just for the question period we do have transportation staff um available at this meeting to answer any specific questions um the last item i’m going to discuss is ecology and hazards so the red line on the um slide shows the limit of the erosion hazard including the required six meter setback allowance from the top of slope within which development will not be permitted this line was identified in the geotechnical assessment accepted by the upper Thames river conservation authority the flood hazard and the required minimum 30 set 30 meter setback from the high watermark of the Thames river also lie within the identified erosion hazard area so the development limit is determined wholly by the erosion hazard line and the recommended zone line delineating the develop the developable area follows this limit um there was also a tree preservation report um submitted with the application it recommended the retention of 20 trees on the site um a number of other trees were recommended to be removed those are primarily non-native non-spessment trees invasive or undesirable species and unhealthy dead or severely cut back trees um 10 trees were otherwise identified for removal that are within the grading envelope of the subject site um as part of the tree preservation plan there was a naturalization plan which would entail the planting of 32 native tree species and seedlings um and seeding with native plant species within the open space area um the tree preservation report and all of its recommendations will be refined and implemented through the site plan approval process the staff recommendation will be for approval um of the requested zoning bylaw amendment as the proposal conforms to the policies of both the London plan and the 1989 official plan and represents a compatible form of development at an appropriate level of intensity for the site the recommended open space zone will also provide for the protection of ecologically significant features and prevent development within the hazard lands associated with the Thames river it will also provide future opportunities for the city to acquire these lands and complete the multi-use pathway connection thank you very much thank you um is the applicant present yes mr. Campbell is uh speaking on behalf of the applicant mr. Campbell can you hear me again i can wonderful uh so thank you very much um to mr for the the presentation i don’t have much to add other than the fact that we’re very excited to be in committee with this application now i can’t hear you oh hey sorry about that am i am i back now yeah sure back okay great i was just saying we’re very excited to be in front of committee we think this is one of these feel good projects that uh we’re very excited to to bring forward there was the the slight revision to the application as uh city staff mentioned but i believe we’re we’re coming to the table um hand-in-hand as we’d like to say i think this is an excellent uh win for both habitat for humanity and for the the community of London so i’m happy to answer any questions that the committee may have we also have a representative from habitat for humanity on the call as well and uh if there’s any specific questions that uh that are are more in tune with their operation they can answer that question as well thank you very much technical questions only from the committee councilor castes here also i don’t know if you have any technical questions nope all right um we’ll move on to the rest of the public uh mr chair there’s no members of the public in attendance with respect to this matter all right so i’ll just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor lewis seconded by councilor lema all the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero all right any questions from we’ll do both at the same time councilor cassy you’re you’re gonna go ahead then there’s nothing from the committee proceed thank you mr chair thanks for recognizing me i have a couple of questions out sometimes there’s a fine line between technical and other questions so um my question is about the removal of some of the invasive species i want i have done um guided walk tours along with um with mr levin in this area and uh he did point out that there is a little bit further to the west where there is the ungroomed trails there’s quite a lot of buckthorn uh further to the west and i’m wondering if that is as if there’s a substantial invasion of buckthorn in this particular area don’t know if staff know that kind of minute detail but just curious somewhere from staff can answer that yes uh through you mr chair um the tree preservation report didn’t um deal to a great extent with other uh growth other than the the tree species to be removed um so i um personally i’m not aware of what this the status of buckthorn on the property is okay sorry couldn’t help you with that one okay through you mr chair thank you um so i’m wondering as we move forward with naturalization in the open space area will we be doing that will that be city staff doing that will that be the conservation authority will be or will it be a combination of the two yeah um uh through you again through you mr chair we have not discussed the particulars of who would be doing the naturalization plan um certainly it will form part of the tree preservation plan that will be uh submitted uh in an updated form uh by the applicant at the site plan stage to the city um so i can ask the applicant then if they have anything to say about the uh that part of it yeah go ahead yeah i’m back on thank you mr jirth and through you um the question about the naturalization just as mr mr mentioned we haven’t gotten to the point of specific discussions with the city as to the conveyance of that land um based on my experience with similar situations recently it’s generally been the developer’s responsibilities say to put down native seed or something to that effect before lands would be conveyed to the city for parkland purposes so they’re already inset to go for the city’s use uh in this case i’m we haven’t gotten into those specific parkland dedications discussions so i can’t say that specifically for this property go ahead thank you thank you mr chair one final question to city staff through you uh and i i understand that there’s transportation staff on the call as well so this traffic has been uh an issue in this area um and and i’m not going to make the claim that 20 additional units is going to add to the already uh high volumes of traffic on hybrid that’s what hybrids designed for high volumes of traffic but there is a serious speeding and racing issue in this area right now especially because of the pandemic uh it is rather close to um fantall park road one of the concerns uh that was raised from area residents is accessing the site so i’m wondering would there be would there be any limits on on on terms with would people exiting and entering this site be only limited to a certain like a right turn or would staff um see having a left turn lane added at this location to allow people to access the site safely yeah they didn’t say they had transportation staff so this one you should be good on thank you uh through you mr chair uh josh gardener transportation technologist um so yeah the proposed density will certainly not uh contribute a significant volume of traffic the hybrid um certainly we we can understand that uh there may be concerns specifically with the left turn movement uh although there is already a an existing i guess kind of taper in this area um typically we address these concerns regarding access and and whatnot through the site plan application process um and at that time i believe that we would be looking for a a site line analysis and a left turn lane analysis specific uh for this for this site plan okay so just a couple of comments mr chair go ahead um thank you i thank you to staff through you for for that um there are concerns uh people that live nearby any kind of infill development uh where there’s already existing neighborhoods always causes some concern for people i’m i’m i’m getting some hope uh by the fact that nobody has registered to come to this public participation meeting tonight that’s telling me that hopefully that they um have received answers from staff and there may be feeling a little bit better about the development i think it’s um i think it’s a very good use of these lands i think staff have done a good job i think habitat for humanity have brought forward a really good proposal it’s 20 units it’s quite a fairly large port parcel of land when you include the natural area so i understand when the natural the os 5 zone that’s being proposed is eliminated from the development area that’s what brings up that um that units per hectare number from 50 and brings it up to 58 because we’ve eliminated part of the of the site as undevelopable so so that makes that proportion uh that calculation seem higher uh but the fact that we would see a quite a significant portion of land satisfied as open space and then also extending that path but recreational path would will be a really really good thing for for everybody in the general area there is a page pathway on the south side of the river but um there’s not not access right now to the north side and so having that open up and and you see we’ll see the people that are in those existing neighborhoods now have access as this continues to develop this path system they’ll have better access to this recreational path it’s it’s a really i was just on it yesterday on the south side riding bikes with my sister and it’s just it’s just lovely being along there and it is so well used there were so many people walking rollerblading cycling so to have that kind of connection on the north side of the river as well will be it will be very very welcome and and also i’m really glad to see habitat for humanity trying something different trying a little bit more higher density kind of development to get more people housed we know that that there is housing crisis and now we see in London it’s at all price points it’s when we see the average house price the way it has skyrocketed in London we’re seeing I have nieces and nephews in their 30s who are looking to get married looking to move out of my sister’s basement and start their lives and they they they can’t do that right now and this this price point of affordability is is necessary and needed in the north end you see the Mesaville area the Adelaide Fanshawe Park Road area those retail and commercial areas there are a lot of jobs in those areas but they’re not always necessarily high paying jobs and that’s what the kind of affordable level of housing is designed for people young people looking to get out start their lives out on their own and they’re being priced out of the market right now so every every little dent that we can make to add new units to the city and to add affordable units is welcome and and i i really do think that this is a good development i’m looking forward to to seeing it progress from here so thank you again mr chair for allowing me to speak at your committee any other comments Councillor Lewis no mr chair i’m prepared to move the staff recommendation get something on the floor for us to thank you focus the debate and prepare to second that Councillor Layman anything further before we vote i just myself i just want to congratulate habitat for you involvement in in housing when i was chair of the board of habitat and it’s it’s wonderful to see how the organization has grown and moving into new housing so i’m just so pleased to see that and it makes all the work i’m sure that habitat’s done in the past and all the people who’ve contributed to habitat it makes them very proud so thank you if there’s nothing further i will just call the vote thank you closing the vote the motion carries five to zero attention to do one more matter and then have a short break before we go to item 3.10 we’ve been needing now for almost three hours um 3.9 is a public participation meeting with regard to 1634 to 1656 Hyde Park Road and 1480 Northridge Park and part of 1069 Gainesboro Road so i just need someone to open the public participation meeting Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hopkins i will call the vote closing the staff presentation for this matter thank you mr chair there is a slight show we love our slideshows but go ahead okay thank you this is an application for a zoning by-law amendment affecting lands at the southwest corner of Hyde Park Road and North Rutledge Park proposal includes the demolition of the existing commercial plaza on the site and the construction of an eight story mixed use apartment building which will suitably incorporate the heritage designated property known as the Rutledge farmhouse located at 1656 Hyde Park Road this development is the northerly continuation of the proposed eight story mixed use apartment building at Hyde Park and Gainesboro for which zoning was approved in early 2020 the proposed building will accommodate 144 residential units and almost 1300 square meters of commercial space oriented to Hyde Park Road with a mixed use density of 169 units per hectare the proposal also includes a modest relocation of the Rutledge farmhouse closer to Hyde Park Road within the same property the land is in the main street place type in the London plan which permits the requested uses but limits the height of six stories with bonusing since the London plan maps are not in force and effect these policies are informative but not determinative for the review and decision on this application in the 1989 official plan the lands are designated main street commercial corridor permitting mixed use development with the maximum density of 150 units per hectare with the potential to bonus for additional density in exchange for certain facilities services and matters overall the proposed eight story apartment building implements the planned vision for the Hyde Park village helping to establish an appropriate form and scale of development while complementing the character of the area the request for bonusing to increase the density from 150 units per hectare to 169 units per hectare is supported by exceptional urban design the provision of affordable housing and heritage conservation with respect to design the proposed building will integrate with the existing less intensive development in the main street commercial corridor designation while setting a positive tone for development within the Hyde Park village as future development and redevelopment occurs the proposed building is located close to Hyde Park road creating a strong street wall and setting the context for a comfortable pedestrian environment the building design includes stepping back above the two-story high commercial component and again at the seventh floor to provide for a human scale unique window and door treatments and a range of materials textures and colors provide for variety and interest along the street frontage and for differentiation between the commercial and residential uses opportunities for outdoor space are provided through a rooftop patio and a recessed courtyard to the immediate south of the relocated heritage building the affordable housing component includes a total of five one-bedroom units some are all of which may be allocated to the previously approved development at the corner of Hyde Park and Gainesboro these units are to be provided at rents not exceeding 80 percent of the average market rent at the time of building occupancy for a duration of 50 years the conservation of the Rutledge farmhouse is required as it is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act heritage considerations for this site included establishing an appropriate interface so that the heritage building will appear visually separate and distinct from the scale and massing of the new building at the same time the new and old buildings will be linked by an appropriately scaled and designed glass structure along the north Rutledge frontage and distinguished from adjacent storefronts by a recessed courtyard facing Hyde Park Road and at this point i’ll just refer you to the images that are on page 366 of the pdf copy of the agenda and on page 17 of the html version so those drawings show the slight relocation of the building and the concepts for the linkage and the courtyard the linkage will facilitate the proposed adaptive reuse of the building for commercial purposes while allowing the heritage building to be highlighted as a key feature of the development moving the building is to be done in conjunction with the rehabilitation of the existing foundation which needs repair to ensure the structural stability of the building into the future all of the works associated with moving and rehabilitating the building for adaptive reuse and for maintaining the building into the future will be in accordance with the heritage easement agreement between the owner and the city entering into this agreement is a condition of the recommended bonus zone work on the building and the construction of the new apartment building will also be subject to the issuance of a heritage alteration permit that will be reviewed by latch the requested zone change is to add a bonus provision to the existing business district commercial zone to allow for the additional mixed-use density the development complies with the provincial policy statement and the 1989 official plan and implements the vision for the Hyde park village the staff recommendation is to approve the request with special provisions relating to building placement and parking rates consistent with the approved development to the south thank you very much thank you is the applicant present uh mr chair mr chair can you hear me i can mr mccollie is here on behalf of the applicant thank you raj mr mccollie go ahead thank you um again good evening mr chair and committee members uh my name is ben mccollie from salinka preamo limited and i am the agent representing the applicant hlh investment um i have just a brief comment um initially there was an application on this entire block between north rattleton gainsborough road which was ultimately split into suit two separate applications um is owning by-law memo application proceeded to committee and council early in 2020 as staff alluded to for the south side of this block for virtually an identical proposal um and construction has begun on that portion of the site however the north portion of the site which is under consideration tonight was handled separately primarily to address heritage comments and concerns we are happy to share that we have come to an agreement with planning and heritage staff to on how to best address the designated heritage structure on the site and we look forward to proceeding with the subsequent site plan approval application to facilitate the remainder of the construction of the full block that will truly transform this intersection um thank you for your time and i’m happy to answer any questions thank you any technical questions for either staff or the applicant councilor hopkins yeah thank you mr chair through you to staff i think on the parking so just wondering uh are we looking at 114 on-site parking and uh i just want to confirm the parking situation go ahead staff uh through you mr chair the um the exact number of parking spaces escapes me but the parking rates that we are looking at are one space per unit for the residential component as well as for the commercial component a standard rate of one space for every 20 square meters of gross floor area of commercial space um the philosophy that was applied to the um development to the south as well as this one is that because of the form of development we can expect some sharing of space to be able to occur because we have obviously more intense requirements for residential parking in the evenings and and overnight and then more intense requirements for parking for commercial purposes during the day um thank you so i think um so the question the the surface parking is more shared with the commercial and then there’s underground for residential i just want to so is that a question you’re asking through me yeah i just want to make sure i’m reading the recommendation that way okay so staff can just confirm that yes that would be correct there you go any other technical questions only okay other public participation there are no other uh public comments from what i understand so i need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by counselor lewis seconded by counselor hopkins nothing further i’ll call the question closing the vote the motion carries five to zero unless someone else wants to go ahead keep it going nobody wants to hear from counselor or deputy mare morgan so just do a stall yeah i’ll just uh quickly um say that uh you know i like see this development get going um it’s great to bring more residential down to high park um and i think we’re seeing a really neat development around high park and gainsboro uh to be a separate little village on its own that’s uh the next five to eight years is going uh terrific so i will move the staff recommendation and it’s being seconded by counselor lewis and i’ll go to uh deputy mare morgan uh thank you chair um i just wanted to say that you know the reason why there aren’t uh a lot of public comments tonight is because the developers work very closely with myself as well as the bia on both the development of the south as well as this one i think this is uh an excellent development and the developers and a good job of engaging with the community and keeping them posted of all the steps along the way as uh as our staff have indicated this is a continuation of the development to the south uh they were divided so that more time could be considered on the heritage building and integrating that into the development i think they’ve done a good job of this and um so i’m hoping uh committee can can approve this and the the two developments will go well together adding both some commercial elements as well as a residential to support that commercial into the high park village area um with a lot of street activation opportunities coming out of uh of this development with uh with the frontage that they’ll have to work with i think it’ll be an exciting transition of the high park corner uh and uh we’re all looking forward to seeing this happen thank you very much deputy mayor uh counselor hopkins comments yeah i’d like to make a few comments i do appreciate the deputy mayor’s comments as well as he he knows this area quite well and i think this is such a good news story i’m very familiar with this area i’ve worked up and uh he here for for many many years and it is starting to become quite busy and quite developed but i just want to make comments about the heritage house the Rutledge house uh there’s a lot of history in the high park area and and the fact that they’ve been able to move it and repurpose it as well uh and to use it it is really quite exciting and then the affordable housing piece to this as well as the urban design a lot of good things happening so want to thank the applicant any further questions comments we have a motion on the floor i will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero and recess for seven perhaps till 7 15 give people a short chance to have a break do i need a motion for that or yeah so i’m just going to ask someone to move that seconded counselor hopkins moved it but he wants a second to a 15 minute break thank you counselor layman call the vote oh hands is fine okay we’ll do hand vote then we are adjourned till 7 15 thank you okay we have two minutes so if people could turn their cameras back on that would be great and take off your leaf shirts please everyone stop i had the normal class of a Montreal fan and didn’t wear things although nobody where knows what my underwear is we’re back at uh 7 15 so i’m going to call the meeting to order and proceed on to item 3.10 which is a public participation meeting with regard to 435 to 451 right out street north i will need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by counselor lewis seconded i think by counselor layman it looks like the arm it yes seconded by counselor layman and i don’t know how many counselors are here i’m just looking to see where there’s counselor halia so we do have quorum another leaf shirt pressing i will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries board is zero all right is patient i assume there is there is mr chair this is catheter mountain and planning and development i do have slides prepared to accompany my presentation and they’re at page just so we are all on the same yep i believe it’s page 504 that’s right all right just for the committee we are starting with the presentation that’s at pot page 504 the agenda including adids go ahead thank you so this is an application for an official plan and zoning by law amendment for the land’s municipal address as 435 to 451 right out street north if we move to the second slide the subject lands are located on the northwest corner of right out street north and queen’s avenue the site backs on to the tems river northeast of the forks of the tems and is immediately south of eldenhouse and harris park the site has a total area of approximately 1.4 hectares and is developed with three designated heritage buildings currently used for office and commercial uses the site is regulated by the upper tems river conservation authority and is partially located within the floodplain moving to the next slide the applicant is proposing to develop the site with a new 40 story mixed use apartment building containing 280 residential units and 6,308 square meters of commercial office space the existing heritage buildings are proposed to be retained and will continue to be used for office and commercial purposes 372 parking spaces are proposed in underground and surface parking facilities and the proposed bonus zone would permit a mixed use density of 500 units per hectare a building height of 40 stories or 130 meters and a setback of 14.9 meters to the residential component to the building next slide these are renderings of the proposed building from various views showing the podium a view from the river and an aerial view showing the full building the tower has been located on the southerly portion of the base providing spatial separation between the tower and eldenhouse next slide the subject site is in the downtown and green space place types of the London plan and a specific policy to the downtown place type is recommended to permit a mixed use building with a maximum intensity of 40 stories with a type 2 bonus zone the subject site is designated downtown an open space in the 1989 official plan and is currently split zoned a downtown area special provision with 10 density permissions of 300 units per hectare a compound heritage and regional facility zone and an open space os4 zone the recommended zoning bylaw amendment would rezone the small portion of the site currently zoned h er slash rf to match the existing da2 zone and would add a bonus zone to permit the proposed development as the boundaries between place types and designations are not intended to be rigid staff recommend the portion of the site already zoned for development uh be interpreted to be in the downtown place type and downtown area designation next slide the downtown is intended to be the highest order mixed use activity center in the city and will permit the tallest buildings and highest densities the downtown place type of the London plan contemplates a standard maximum height of 20 stories or 35 stories with the type 2 bonus zone the downtown area designation of the 1989 official plan contemplates a maximum density of 350 units per hectare and also contemplates increases beyond this limit with the bonus zone the building design is in conformity with the London plan the 1989 official plan and the downtown design manual the urban design peer review panel supported the scale and positioning of the podium relative to the existing heritage buildings and the positioning of the tower relative to Elden house a shadow study was completed demonstrating minimal shadow impacts throughout the year and an h3 holding provision is recommended to ensure a wind study is completed prior to site plan approval and that any mitigation measures are incorporated in the final design next slide so as previously mentioned a bonus zone is proposed and the applicant is proposing a number of bonusable features in return for the requested increase in height and density these include exceptional design affordable housing in the form of 12 units or 5% of the total unit count whichever is greater at 80 average market rent for 50 years the applicant is also proposing green building design including lead certification provision of four levels of underground parking of which a minimum of 100 spaces would be publicly accessible and conservation and retention of the existing heritage buildings including entering into a heritage easement agreement which with the city which would add an additional layer of protection for the heritage buildings on site and would be registered on title the easement agreement would include terms and conditions agreed on by both parties and would be executed at a future site plan stage to implement the bonus zone next slide the existing buildings are individually designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act and are also part of the downtown heritage conservation district designated under part five the site is also recognized as a national historic site of Canada known as the ride out street complex some concerns were expressed regarding the close proximity of the development to the existing heritage buildings however limitations of the subject lands and the prevailing high-rise environment that already exists in the downtown was also recognized as well efforts have been made in the design approach to be sensitive to the heritage scaling character significant concerns were expressed by latch in the architectural conservancy of Ontario with regards to scale design and location of the building concerns were also raised by Elden house with respect to potential risk of physical impacts to Elden house particularly during construction staff recommend a holding provision be applied requiring additional reports and studies these reports include an arborist report a building condition assessment a conservation plan and a vibration study and would ensure the development will not negatively impact cultural heritage resources on site and adjacent to the site next slide a stage 1-2 archaeological assessment was submitted with the application and recommended no further archaeological work be required heritage staff have confirmed that archaeological conditions are satisfied next slide a portion of the building foundation and parking structure uh encroaches into the floodplain and the applicant has worked with the UTRCA since 2010 to establish a development concept that aligns or closely aligns with UTRCA policy the applicant submitted three applications to the UTRCA hearings committee and in may of 2018 the hearings committee supported the third and final application subject to a series of conditions approval of a section 28 permit is required from the UTRCA which would ensure these conditions are satisfied approximately 0.49 hectares of land would be dedicated to the city of London to be integrated into Harris park the applicant would be required to work with city staff and the UTRCA through a site plan approval stage with regards to naturalization and compensation restoration on these lands it has also recommended the applicant incorporate bird friendly design features into the final building design next slide the applicant submitted a transportation impact assessment as part of the complete application transportation staff have requested revisions to the TIA be made prior to site plan approval and as such it is recommended an H 55 holding provision be applied to ensure these revisions are made and just onto the last slide here staff has satisfied that the recommended amendments are consisted with the provincial policy statement and is in conformity with the London plan the 1989 official plan and our move forward London’s downtown plan as such it has recommended the amendments be approved and i’m happy to answer any questions of the committee thank you thank you very much is the applicant present or representative mr chair it’s my understanding that mr tillman will speak all right on behalf of the applicant all right mr chair my is my audio coming through it is coming through and uh welcome to the committee we’re looking forward to presentation and you have five minutes starting now thank you very much well i will try i will stay within the five minutes because i know you’ll make me stay within the five minutes i want the timer going here first let me just thank city staff for the report that they put together supporting uh the application in this development um the only correction i had to Catherine’s remarks where we we began in 2012 um on this project with Fari holding a discussion with our office and Fari about the potential the site after the city had presented some diagrams and a planning document that they had put together about uh investment in the downtown and what was possible in 2013 we did meet with planning the staff and the upper tems to talk about what were the so-called showstoppers and where did we need to to go first uh and at that time we put together a what we called option one uh we met with uh again staff and upper tems and decided that meeting with upper tems and going through their board was going to be an important first step in 2015 a second option was explored with the city staff again and upper tems and at that time i went to UTRCA board and that was rejected because of the amount of space that we were taking up within the floodplain third option was developed in 2017 that reposition the building outside of the floodplain and that was not getting support from city planning staff by 2018 we had a fourth option that seemed to meet with city staff as well as UTRCA staff and as mentioned in may of 2018 that option was presented to upper tems and the board approved that particular option and that’s the one you’re seeing here with some adjustments made to it in july of 2019 we had a justification report submitted and met with city staff to put get forward a site plan consultation and by december of 2019 option four had been revised a little bit in terms of positioning of the of the tower as it related to comments back from the urban design review panel uh and it was then presented to Elden house and the building was the tower which shifted south to be as far from Elden house as possible and it presently about 76 meters or so from Elden house in march of 2020 we did confirm back to UTRCA that the project was still live and that was moving through the rezoning process and in November of 2020 we responded to comments received from both latch and Elden house and then in april of 2021 we responded to development services heritage with the concerns that they raised and certainly we recognize that the heritage aspects and importance of this site are critical and we have made the commitment that we will be putting together all of the reports that Catherine has identified in the staff report this is the kind of work that is not unfamiliar to our firm in terms of what is required having done work recently at university college at western uh st jose’s hospital and the heritage chapel that’s there uh as well as work at 192 194 Dundas street and so we take that very seriously you know the important point for us was that we are preserving all of the existing three buildings that make up the right out street complex and in fact we’ll be restoring them along with as along with integrating them into the proposal so this creates a very sort of unique uh proposal i’m not sure that there’s anything yeah about one minute i see that uh maybe the closest thing that that comes uh to a project like this was the delta armories project but i think this one’s different and i think what makes it so unique is it is a London made solution this is not something that’s repeatable anywhere else i think that what’s happening with the land uh going back to Harris park and the opportunities of how this particular site is going to link downtown to the Thames River and vice versa it is going to be something that’s quite dramatic and it will become a very sort of public space if you will it’s a dynamic mixed use uh development that i think will strengthen the downtown it builds on the investments that have been made downtown as well as the uh fact that i think it will promote better development through design excellence thank you four minutes and 59 seconds very good um technical questions for staff or the applicant these are technical questions only councilor opkins yeah thank you i do have a question through you to the applicant regarding the application that went to the upper Thames Conservation Board the fourth um the fourth um review i just would like it to know a little bit more about that sure it was the third review was where it was passed the first review where the building had been positioned so that it was not abutting any of the existing heritage properties and at that time although we did have uh support from the upper Thames staff it was turned down at the board uh there were concerns raised at that time about how would we waterproof the building um there what there hadn’t been any discussion at that time about needing land or or giving land back to the city to complete the south end of Harris Park when we went back uh the second time we had moved the building to the south end and it didn’t seem to satisfy the the issue again related to well how are we dealing with flood protection as well as displacement of water from putting a building in the floodplain so at the in the third offering to upper Thames we were able to satisfy them that flood protection measures would be in place that there would not be property damage in that regard and that we had through the transfer of land to city we could do a cut and fill that dealt with the displacement of water of the parking structure sitting in the floodplain and they were looking for a balance of a net zero gain of flood water being pushed into the the rest of the city if you will thank you council thank you if i just might add i i just wanted the clarification of the hearings board approval just to make sure i understand what the applicant is saying here oh uh sorry that we have approval for the development as presented with the package that city staff have provided you and they have uh section 28 if i’ve got my right policy in place that there’s certain matters that still have to be satisfied through the spa process thank you anything further and technical questions they’re being done we will move on to the public mr. chair alex ferrell is here all right sorry beryl or beryl mr.

beryl uh sorry mr. chair it’s alex ferrell that isn’t fair i’m sorry about that i heard i heard something different uh no you have five minutes starting now thank you very much for your time today mr. chair mayor holder and council members my name is alex ferrell i live across the street from banker’s row in london i escaped downtown toronto in 2018 to take care of my mother who has all his armors and to improve my quality of life i’ve lived and traveled to most of major Canadian cities in many other parts of the world i can honestly say that london is truly unique because of its history and its connection to to nature however as a resident i am very concerned about this project we are still living in a pandemic and people are still really hurting and struggling many business owners small and large have stepped up to combat the pandemic and help the city in its time of need as one of the city’s largest property owners how has mr. far i helped the city in its time of need has he used temporary shelters for homeless people or central workers with the fake land and property that he owns this project does not address the homelessness of london and the exodus of tenants from its urban center over the last 20 years it mainly benefits mr.

farry street to have the tallest tower in london all the way west to go can i just can i just stop you there if you don’t mind um this this is not an attack on a particular person or other things they may do this is this is a planning application with regard to this particular development so i’ve given you a little bit of leeway but a but continuing personal attacks of any nature whoever it is is not something that we’re going to do here okay no thank you for letting me know um okay can i can continue yep go ahead okay um okay for those uh so while putting tremendous strain on the city’s limited resources and infrastructure to reiterate other voices this project is a slippery slope and we’ll set the president to open up the floodgates and there will be no turning back mr. farry has stated that this project will be his legacy london londoners would then be welcomed to the farry tower from all angles is this really what londoners want to be its most recognizable monument it will take a considerable amount of time and effort on his part is he biting off more than he can chew as a professional i’m very concerned about this project as well as a former corporate bank of her large financial institutions i’ve analyzed and managed billions of loans involved in commercial real estate infrastructure structured securities and film and television production over my 20-year career i’ve also managed relationships with municipalities university school boards and hospitals based on extensive research my main concern with mr. farry is his experience his development experience to complete a hundred million dollar project of this size i would like to know what project he has actually developed over the last 20 years start to finish that are even close to a hundred million dollars farry that is the interface being new to london farry is the interface of the city of london you can see this through the many buildings and signs he has throughout the city itself he does hold many valuable heritage properties we all know this this reminds me of the railroad hundred years ago and most recently amazon this the city has taken major risk by transforming one of its one of the mental heritage bylaws to accommodate one person we are in a new era of higher inflation and possibly higher rising interest rates around the corner so time is of the essence for mr. farry an inexperienced developer could handcuff the city for years and will leave it with little to no farry power moreover construction for complex projects of this size will likely be four to six years due to unforeseen circumstances like broken water main structural deficiencies protest and traffic jams cities also taking a major financing risk here will farry step up for cost overruns to complete the project if things don’t go as planned what assurance does the city have other than his word londers lenders take first charge on all assets in our first in line to get paid you have one minute remaining thank you what for you an unencumbered assets mr.

farry have that have not already been leveraged with that for project of this nature especially for any developer without a proven track record most major lenders would require that the developer put in 50 equity as part of the financing plan in conclusion yes london needs to build up and needs housing in its core for everyone yes london needs a property tax revenue from these projects but also london also needs a right projects for the city at the right time and maintain to maintain the city towards residents its resources can be better spent on projects with developers that are benefiting the needs of the community not one single wealthy individual companies that employ in generate cash will change london non-companies that buy and hold assets and sell and trade heritage properties as a tax and financing mechanism for its overall business operation this is fundamentally a chill of two cities the city of london and the city of farry the question is your time your time is up sir your time is up i’m sorry your time’s up thank you very much for coming today who is uh next Marvin Simner mr. Simner mr. Simner sorry i just turned the microphone on all right you have uh five minutes or go ahead it was absent during the beginning part of the discussion here but i just wanted to share with you one thing i’m talking on behalf of the one that a middle-sex historical society uh our uh concern here has to do with the fact that harris park is listed as a designated park five downtown conservation heritage district uh as to the case with victoria park this designation was adopted by the municipal council in 2012 and fell under the part five of the Ontario Heritage Act of 2013 which means that harris park is considered to be as central for london’s history as is much of the heritage site as much of the heritage site as victoria park therefore we believe that harris park deserves the same degree of consideration as has been granted to victoria park although today both parks are used for a variety of purposes that benefit london’s citizens throughout much of the year city council recently drafted recommendations to limit the height of all future buildings to be erected adjacent to victoria park in order to maintain the ambiance of this park in keeping with these recommendations we believe that similar thought needs to be given by the council to the height of the proposed residential tower which could also negatively impact the ambiance of harris park but we do not wish to discourage the corporation from constructing a tower on this site and it means it can be enacted to reduce the height of this tower by 10 to 15 stories will be very much appreciated thank you for your time thank you very much next speaker kelly mikitin is mikitin i trust you can hear me i can hear you uh go ahead whenever you’re ready thank you and i know i’m on the clock hello my name is kelly mikitin and i’m speaking on behalf of a co london what we’re asking you today is for the city to follow its own rules the staff recommendation in front of you is to interpret the 1989 official plan in the london plan in a way that differs from how they’re written in order to justify approval of the requested official plan and zoning amendments we’re asking you not to do that but to respect and uphold the spirit and intent of those plans give serious consideration to paragraph 802.5 of the london plan which provides for the zoning by law to include regulations to ensure that the intensity of development is appropriate for individual sites we believe that the current zoning for the property no building taller than the current buildings should be given considerable weight this is a national historic site and arguably the most important historic streetscape in london by the 1960s bankers euro london’s first financial district in the 1840s had become decrepit and run down the plan was to demolish the block partly to make way for a widening of queen’s ab and partly to get rid of an eyesore concerned members of the university women’s club saw things differently and took steps to prove the buildings were important under the leadership of president jake moor lebat brewery purchased and restored the three buildings and built a modern four-story addition to the rear and down the hill remaining sensitive to the historic streetscape as they adapted the property to house their head office from the citizen activism to save the right out street complex a co london was born from that restoration the principle of adaptive reuse of historic buildings was introduced to london since 1970 the right out street complex has been in continuous use by organizations large and small and the historic streetscape has been retained until now the peck should consider paragraph 803.6 of the london plan that recognizes the primacy of ontario heritage act hcd and national historic site protections the london plan requires continuity and harmony with adjacent uses that are of our contextual or historical significance the sheer size of this contemplated development makes harmony impossible we have no quibbles with the design or height of the proposed tower our concern is with its location a 40-story building on this site so close to 451 right out that they would actually share a wall fails to meet the requirements of the downtown hcd plan to remind you new and renovated buildings must ensure the conservation of character defining elements of the buildings at neighbors be physically and visually compatible with the historic place respect the significant design features and horizontal rhythm of adjacent buildings and be designed to be sympathetic to the district heritage attributes you should also seriously consider that a 2015 omb ruling set an important president for ontario it ruled that a 32-story building could not be constructed adjacent to a designated property the omb determined that respectful separation distance was critical to conserving the heritage attributes of the neighboring designated property given the reasons for designation and the character defining features of the right out street complex and london house we expect that l that l pat or the courts might take a similar view here our members are also concerned about the impact this project would have on Harris park and elven house and on the city’s river focused strategic one minute remaining to encourage public access to in use of the historic forts of the Thames a vote for these amendment today’s means you’re undoing decades of broad-based efforts to retain the forts as a centerpiece for londoners when other locations for increased density exist you should also be concerned with the foreseeable issues that future councils will have to deal with if this application proceeds puts a large building extra flood plane on land that may well be in a flood plane in the future there’s no underground parking being proposed the four levels of in down in ground indoor parking would be all be above ground where the existing rear edition currently stands you must turn down this application based on all of the safeguards enshrined in the official plan zoning bylaw and hcd plan based on the demonstrated desire of the public as expressed in the numerous letters you’ve received and based on the premise that this building should be built in a different location and we thank you for considering these points thank you very much next speaker meggy wally is wally hello can you hear me i can you can go ahead as soon as you wait thank you very much um i’m maggie wally and north center road and i have i feel many objections um to this proposal i have so many i don’t know where to start but i’ll try um bring it down to a few points um it’s already been pointed out to you that on historical grounds this site is basically the centerpiece of london’s historical heart the heritage impact statement that i read for this proposal was completely inadequate in in recording this and represents basically uh ignoring or disregarding the importance of this site we know and we’ve been told tonight there are at least two designations on this site and is a national historic site all of these documents speak of any new development as having to respect character and they cite streetscapes and views and viewscapes as being as significant as the structures themselves this development would diminish and trivialize these buildings reducing them to an unimportant footnote i think as well as distorting and obstructing views bankers road can be seen from a distance and is highly visible and has a completeness all of its own talking about context now this is as i said a part of an extremely important historical scene uh harking back to the very beginnings of our city can’t get more important than that this striped tower would be out of place in congress and rather ridiculous on this site the wall of glass and metal and plastic would loom over elder health garden casting it all into shade and destroying the special sense of place that of that locale this large building would cut off views of the river and also help to destroy any connectedness with the river for london which so many people have wished for and planned for for so long so to get into the the site as we know it’s right on the floodplain um they had to go 40 stories because they had such a small footprint and that is totally unacceptable i hope you’ve all seen the photos that i’ve been seeing recently of the many floodwaters that have inundated this site and as far as i know no one else is allowed to build on the floodplain from a public and a community perspective um don’t forget that it’s not just us history buffs or heritage activists who have an interest in this every every comment that i’ve seen on social media in the last few weeks has been in opposition to this development and that’s a very unusual statistic i think i’m sure you are aware that very rarely happens and this is also true of everyone that i’ve spoken to the word ridiculous was often used this is our city our view our river from a design point of view um i i wonder why um we run after density at all costs this 40 story tower would become the highest in london why in this place it looms over and dwarfs heritage buildings it blocks views i’m sorry but black and white stripes do not mitigate any of this obtrusiveness it’s i think ill conceived in congress and too tall far too close to heritage buildings density yes i’m totally in favor of that but don’t abandon all other principles in that desire good planning suitability of sight and even design and aesthetics one minute left okay i’m almost done and don’t let a development like this harm our history powers which should be a source of pride to a mature city thank you very much thank you next speaker susan Bentley is Bentley is Bentley Bentley we’ve asked you to unmute if you unmute your audio please hey hello yes we now are hearing you and you can start anytime you wish i’m sorry i’m maybe a heritage enthusiast but i’m also a dinosaur um especially when it comes to technology um i i’ve presented i’ve got a written presentation but i i think i want to just forget it and say in the interest of brevity that i just would like to echo and repeat what miss makitaing and miss wallie have said and i think the letter that the ACO sent you was superb and extremely detailed um but i just want to add a few things it is my fervent hope that this rezoning application is denied and that the current height and setback allowances be maintained by planning committee um were the worst case scenario to happen and council does agree to this application i would also hope that a very stringent set of design guidelines be attached to any consent the height needs to be significantly lower for example and the buildings overall mass decreased members of the latch should be part of the guidelines team so that the heritage attributes of the ride out buildings and elven house are taken into account and respected and the use of materials and the overall design the current design and we know that this can be subject to change doesn’t really reflect the surrounding context with all due respect to mr tillman he said it was dramatic and i know he’s very proud of it and it’s certainly extremely dramatic just not quite sure as others have said that it’s in the right place um that downtown hcd plan states that the city should influence the renovation or construction of modern era buildings so that it is done with regard to the district and complementary to the character and street state i would dearly love to see mr fari develop the right lithography building into condos and the lc perin williams memorial library on queen’s avenue undergo its projected transformation into the underpinnings of a high rise development when there are opportunities for intensification throughout the downtown do not destroy historic views and natural landscape why is development not directed to them please listen to the many voices from londoners who are stating their objections and deny this occupation unlike my birth i do not believe that he will be cursed who states polled enough um and i’m afraid i have a question i only recently became aware of this application to build anything on this site thanks to the aco and it seems that the proposal has already moved quite far along in the approvals process my question is if these exceptions to the zoning by-law are not allowed will the building be constructed anyway cannot committee member or staff person inform us please i will make sure that happens thank you so much thank you for your attention and thank you for allowing us to speak thank you very much next speaker nancy toskey mrs toskey hello am i unmuted nope you’re uh we can hear you okay that’s good um my comments too echo some that have already been made and i will therefore try to be very brief i’m looking at things from a slightly different point of view um thinking that this rezoning application is in fact the major it in fact involves a major decision to be made with this site uh and given that it seems to me that there should be a lot more information that one usually finds in a site plan proposal for example uh heritage planners report talking about the historical import importance of the buildings here um and uh secondly some substantial mention of the relationship between the river and these sites this has been touched on by other people but i think a little elaboration is appropriate here um governor syntko um seized on this site for his new town on maps even before arriving in Canada because of the convergence of the river and uh the need for river transportation um this was his new london on his new tims for his new britain and his wife chose the site where elven house was eventually built as the site for her new home this one moment i have to hang up by um i’m sorry about that um and increasingly from the late 19th century on the site has been a one for public enjoyment with its baseball diamond boathouses sulfur spring picnic grounds uh horse races trails and increasingly festivals of various sorts and from the time of those first still sorry from the time of those first forms of entertainment when we were having when uh people were having uh the first tour services below the courthouse people have been able to look up at these uh early buildings and be aware of the relationship between the river and the entertainment and london’s origins the third thing that’s missing uh here is um uh the well thought out uh report from latch i don’t understand why council hasn’t been able to look at those uh comments when making their uh consideration about this when making their decision about this proposal um and finally or not finally i’m sorry there should have been more i think on the effect that this will have on elder house and one’s experience of the elder house grounds uh and the views from elder house which were so important in its original sighting um don’t understand why some consideration hasn’t been given to the rationale for the previous zoning that we’re now proposing to get rid of uh it was attempting to unify this idea of heritage with the idea of the river and i think that’s a very important concept in the uses that have been made of the site and finally i’m wondering why heritage considerations weren’t an important or why just one minute one minute remaining thank you i’m wondering why people representing heritage considerations were involved in those original uh considerations back around 2012 this has been going on all this time and still it seems now the council is being asked to make a decision on the rezoning for this massive property uh without really hearing uh complete account of the other side of the picture i don’t think this is fair to council i don’t think it’s fair to the citizens of London and i agree with maggie walley in thinking that intensification has an important place in London but that doesn’t mean in all places to misquote the oven’s idea about love conquering off intensification should not you’ve now you’ve now hit five minutes and i’m just wrap up okay thank you very much next speaker and a re of velastro miss velastro read a letter from my neighbor who couldn’t be here today here council is a mare holder i was both saddened and horrified to learn that mr. fari is attempting to build a 40 story building along the Thames river the building will radically impact the look and feel of the entire neighborhood from all directions affect the wildlife change the peacefulness of a walk along the river as well as impact concerts and other events in Harris park it will ruin London for generations to come i’m not opposed to big buildings but it is imperative the impact of a building be measured against the harm to those that live in it and readily use the area as well as how well the building fits with its surroundings i am currently a victim of what i consider an unnecessary large building on Richmond street near duffin since i moved to john street over a year ago the view from my kitchen has radically changed from sky trees and a few rooftops to a monolithic apartment building i also see the building every time i walk down Richmond street it is jolting to the senses as it does not fit the historic neighborhood at all the same is will be true of mr.

fari’s old building as it will dwarf everything around it i lived in the black fires neighborhood for 20 years and like my londoners and like many londoners regularly walked along the river crossed over the dandas street bridge on route to the market and the rest of downtown dally i’m easily sadly i can easily imagine how horrible would be to take that same walk and have a mammoth 40 story building blocking the view and destroying the ambiance of a historic neighborhood is truly heartless it is a truly truly heartless move to approve this proposal as well mr. fari and other buildings in london know it is likely the approval of one 40 story building on the river will set the precedent for more of the same in the future please stop the carnage while you can and this is by jill jacobson at 189 john street london and i just want to add one quick note the birds from the river uh it can’t the building can’t be bird friendly from the river side because the birds need to need space to get the height they need to clear the building i just want to make that know because there was a raised by the planner but you can’t say things like that um unless you actually you can’t say you’re making a building bird family unless you understand um where it is and how the birds be flight so i i know a little bit about that so i just wanted to just counter that and that’s that’s everything thank you again thank you next speaker patricia marley forester it’s morally forester it’s morally forester i can hear you now and you can start anytime you like you have five minutes okay thank you um mr. chair and um counselors uh the other speakers have spoken very eloquently and thoughtfully about uh the potential negative impact of this very very high tower i just wanted to uh give a slightly personal view my husband and i through the pandemic and also with friends have visited harris park visited the waterfront uh much more than in the past and we have really been struck by the beauty of this area we now understand that the back to the river projects uh are trying to promote um this green space and take advantage of the waterfront and um i just think that this is a very retrograde step in that it would reduce access from the downtown to the waterfront rather than as mr. Tillman suggested would link the down link the downtown to the waterfront to be the exact opposite we are not opposed to densification of the core and we are considering moving downtown but um certainly not into this uh size of building when i think of uh heritage when i think of tourist draws and bras to locals you think of the Stratford waterfront the um gauderidge st.

Thomas all of those places have used heritage to their advantage to make the streetscape pedestrian friendly and draw people down there to relax and this tower does the exact opposite both uh both um i won’t say destroying heritage but um it may possibly uh ultimately damage both elder house and the lebat’s buildings we just don’t know with the foundation of a 40 story building uh so that is a concern but the visual streetscape uh will be destroyed and the green spaces will be also destroyed in ways that we don’t even understand as the previous speaker mentioned about the bird uh pathways and the the floodplain is concerned to myself and my husband so um that’s all i have to say i know that the ACO um wrote a very detailed report and i don’t think all of the questions that were raised in that have been addressed uh tonight we only heard of this on saturday through the london free press article and i assume that many many londoners have also just heard of this really in the last 24 hours thank you uh mr. chair thank you next speaker susan bradman yes can you hear me yes i can and you whenever you want to start you’re at five minutes okay thank you very much thank you for letting me speak today and thank you to all the compelling speakers that have gone before me when i read saturday’s story in the free press about mr. far’s proposal for his property of the forts i i was really shocked i i posted the information on facebook spoke to family and friends and then i canvassed my neighborhood i live in oakridge i got the same reaction most people hadn’t even heard of fari’s proposal to erect a skyscraper at the forts of attempts right in the center of london small but highly valued historical area they were angry and saddened that this might happen without proper public debate or information sessions in the middle of a covid lockdown so my question to the counselors is do you really feel due diligence has been given to inform the residents of london about this extremely important decision that has the potential to shape the entire downtown core and measurably mr. fari as you know owns large number of buildings in the downtown core many of which are sitting empty and have been for some time so he has many locations to choose from to build his flagship skyscraper the old free press building sitting empty would sustain a 40 foot story high skyscraper without presenting many of the foreseeable concerns that may also rise up with this current location choice if construction were allowed and some of the concerns that i received from my neighbors were the floodplain um what we were all kind of under the impression that the parking would have to be above ground because this was on the floodplain the traffic flows through the forks area which is already slow during non-folded rush hours and that can be really you can sit there for quite a while when you’re heading down to oracle if would be further it um hampered during and after construction with people pulling in for parking into this unit um a 40 stories skyscraper would block the southern light falling on the london house and its gardens and changed the peaceful surrounding of this block immeasurably london has managed to save three of the five historical buildings and bankers row but what guarantees if any can mr firey and his company provide that those buildings will remain intact and not be structurally damaged there’s been a fire in one of those buildings already on september 24th 2018 and security i walked around those buildings the other day with a friend secure security is definitely seems to be very limited as a matter of fact there’s a lot of homeless people living at the base of it what environmental impact studies have been done in relation to the effect of construction and usage in the area outside the planning department in conclusion i know londoners care about this city and i remember over 2 000 people who circled the Talbot street block to protest the demolition of the Talbot street in that demolition started at 7 30 in the morning on a sunday morning while most londoners were sleeping that was a gut punch please don’t glide so blind side is again please postpone this vote until after the lockdown and after londoners have been fully informed on this crucial decision to the downtown to allow this project to go forward during a lockdown and a pandemic is unconscionable most londoners have been restricted to their homes and their neighborhoods and if you drove down dandas street today from the west to the east you would see a core that is presently being used essentially by non-tax payers is this an appropriate time to vote on this proposal please take time to inform the people of london thank you um next speaker those are the uh as i understand at the public speakers today so i’ll need a motion to close the public participation meeting move my counselor louis i will need a seconder counselor hillier all those in favor uh shouldn’t say that we’ll do it on the screen closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you very much just a couple of questions there was a a lot of rhetorical questions and i and i understand that um just to staff the question was asked specifically about if the exceptions are not allowed i guess from the zoning box will the will the building still be built that’s one and then there was a general concern it seemed from people about the the way this came to committee and the speed that it came to committee and if maybe you can comment if there’s anything different about the process from that point of view i would just ask staff through you mr chair the current zoning uh for the portion of the site proposed for development is a downtown area two zone with special provisions and density permissions up to 350 units per hectare the current zoning uh does permit a broad range of uses including apartment buildings however the permitted uses are only permitted within the existing buildings and the permitted height is as existing on the date of the passing of the by law uh as for the process uh the application underwent the standard public process uh it was deemed complete in december of 2019 and the statutory review period of 120 days actually lapsed in march of 2020 uh the uh city staff advertised and and gave notice in accordance with the statutory requirements of the planning act uh and so this underwent the standard public process thank you very much i’ll turn over the committee for perhaps questions first there’s no questions so do we have uh any i’ll leave it to the committee somebody prepared you want to make comments somebody want to bring a motion where where are we with this counselor louis go ahead thank you chair i don’t see uh anyone else quite looking to jump in so i will uh i’m going to put the staff recommendation on the floor uh we’ll see if we have a seconder and then i’ll offer my comment thank you very much is there a seconder for the staff recommendation counselor layman all right it is now on the floor and i i’m happy to go back to you counselor louis uh thank you chair i’m going to be brief uh or as brief as i can be on this um the reality is uh first of all this has a staff recommendation uh there’s no upper tems river conservation authority objection uh there’s been an extensive process gone through uh with the upper tems uh so that is in place um heritage buildings are not being removed um yes i understand that this is going to be a tall building for people and and that change that way can be hard but at the same time uh you know i also heard some uh some comments about build it somewhere else while that’s you know respectfully not the way development occurs um developers may own various pieces of property and they build a plan based on the piece of property that they’re looking to develop um so so for me uh you know this has been over 10 years in development uh it is a piece of the downtown that’s going to intensify residential and if there is one thing that we can do to really effectively bring back our downtown and and the vibrancy that it used to have it is about having people live downtown uh whether that’s from a safety perspective whether that’s from attracting businesses to fill some of those vacant storefronts it’s about having people who live downtown and this is going to create a lot of new residential units uh so i’m going to be supportive of this um you know i’ve i’ve read the staff report i’ve read the objections uh you know a lot of them you know were honestly and i don’t mean this with any disrespect but they were form letters that said well i basically i don’t like the view it’s going to dominate the view well um we want to grow in and up in our downtown and for me this is one of those things that there’s no grounds for us to object uh to this application that i can see we’re having read through the staff report so i’m going to support it i’ll stop there and see what other colleagues have to say uh but uh to me this is one that um it’s time that we move ahead after 10 years of development on this thank you any other comments councilor layman thank you chair you know this is uh a very challenging um one that’s before us um you know London’s plan but the London plan’s main uh intent and what i see is is intensification and high density development particularly in the core the challenge when we do that is when we um come up against heritage properties and in the core uh quite frankly it’s challenging to develop without without that uh being close uh to heritage properties in this area you know the positive of this development is that this is going to allow much needed uh residential occupancy so near to Dundas Street Dundas Street as we all know it’s facing challenges but the success of Dundas Street i believe is critical to our core we have invested over a couple of councils a lot of money and effort uh to revitalize this area of our city and i believe we were getting there i think the flat street was a terrific idea uh we’ve seen fan shop move down there um and you know the the other anchor of that street is Budweiser Gardens i mean it’s uh i remember when that was being debated and the and the concern about from the uh of heritage the effect on heritage uh at that time what was it was immense and well placed uh it was a dramatic change uh to our city so i i see we have the same um you know types of um weighing in the balance uh before us today what i see and what i read in the staff report is that the urban design peer review panel supports this which is critical because this will be a dominant building on our skyline i see the upper tems conservation authority supports this which is also critical because it is so close to to floodplain um also gives me confidence is the architect involved here uh this architect has has done great things in the city of London and elsewhere and i’ve that most confidence in this firm that they will guide this process so the end project uh will be something that that we all can be proud of um i i understand what people are saying and i don’t disregard what i’ve heard tonight or letters that have come in and it weighs heavily on my mind um at the end of the day uh you know uh i believe that um the heritage properties uh will be protected uh yes they will be close uh to a new development i found it interesting to learn uh tonight that when lebat assumed the three buildings they added a modern structure uh close to those three buildings as well yeah i think when you’re faced um uh in a city that uh is growing and is moving into the next century uh we do have to um do the dance with heritage uh and not disregard one for the other but somehow make both of them work together uh in my opinion uh i think uh this has been done in this case um and finally you know i see the staff has supported it and my experience staff does not move at these things lightly they uh work with all uh interests uh to make sure what their report is to the best of their knowledge and expertise um is substantial and i and i use what they say um i take it with uh with great importance um so that is why i have seconded this motion tonight thank you any other comments being announced for capacity wants to speak yeah the committees go ahead sorry mr chair i was trying to navigate all my buttons um i just have a quick question through you to staff um there’s a there’s a part in the in the staff recommendation that talks about the affordable housing part but to me it sounds like they’re proposing a kind of a swap so not necessarily doing affordable housing at this site in this proposed building i i wonder if i could get some clarification if staff could explain that a little bit better to me not a problem go ahead sir mr chair it’s michael tom is insecure and in fact this type of recommendation is not new we’ve introduced this in a few bonus zones of course in in uh in concert with our friends from the housing development corporation and the reason for that is you can get an opportunity to get affordable housing right now in an existing building um rather than wait for a construction period of two years before an affordable housing unit is actually made available and so again it’s not new but it’s something that we’ve utilized elsewhere now it’s something we could utilize here as well go ahead castle thank you uh so i i just want to say as well to the people that came out that wrote to us that spoke uh thank you for coming and thank you for providing your comments i agree with a counselor layman it is it is sometimes a very difficult thing to find that balance between heritage and uh and new development um i will uh i i still have not made up my mind on this so i’m glad i’m not on this committee and i have another little bit of time to really make up my mind and i know that there will be a lot of debate on this uh proposal at city count at the city council meeting so i’m looking forward to hearing that that uh wider debate as well thank you any uh other comments at this point in time Councillor Hopkins thank you mr chair i was hoping to hear more from the rest of the committee members but i’ll proceed and i am going to give you notice i will not be brief as well um i i want to thank the the public for coming out and i also apologize for not reading all the emails that i have received and we have received a lot of emails from the public so that tells me that this is of great public interest to all of londoners i’ve heard comments here um that this development has been in the process of over 10 years i it would like you know i think as we continue this conversation and as this goes to council like Councillor Cassidy said there’s going to be a lot of due diligence that i’m going to have to take to make sure i understand this application when it does come to council um i do uh want to make a comment about upper tems conservation authority uh approving this application i i think if you reread the recommendations coming out of utrca this section 28 there’s a number of conditions that go that are attached to section 28 it’s not automatically approved and the importance around the naturalization of this area is really important to understand that part of it that that has to happen and with this development that is taking place what happens when this is developed upstream and downstream there are going to be impacts and there’s going to be a need for a continuous um analysis and detail that needs to still be done with this section 28 that the applicant is going to need to proceed with this development so it’s not an easy utrca supports it there’s a lot of conditions that go with that i do want to uh through you mr chair ask a question to staff about the other part of the negotiations that upper tems has had with the applicant in fact there have been three meetings with the building being built on a floodplain in the parking facility and the importance of all these other plans that are going on in the area like the the back to the river ei ea the tems valley corridor and the parks master plan so through you mr chair to staff i would like to hear a little bit more about how this development is going to relate to the river and to our park system and we’ve heard a lot from the community here about the importance of that relationship to the river go ahead start a question to sack yep go ahead stop mr chair michael tom is insecure i do want to point out that stephanie pratt from the upper tems river conservation authority is on this call um i i know the counselor asked for some park staff to be in attendance here tonight and unfortunately i wasn’t able to get that request out for them in a timely fashion so they are not here tonight i’m not sure i can answer with any detail but perhaps we can get more information before council i will say though that through the review of this application we have been speaking with our parks colleagues and they are going to take some undertake some significant capital works in heris park and uh so they will through this process in this rezoning application they’re able to work with the applicant if approved to provide a complementary design including things like a stairway from right out street like a grand stairway from right out street down to the park as well as utilize some of the new lands that will be dedicated to the city for this development for park purposes thank you uh for that mr tom is in it i look forward to continuing the conversation with uh city city park staff on that it is noted in the recommendation that further information is going to be needed before we can even proceed and my question was going to be around how and when is this going to be accomplished i think there’s fundamental considerations that we have to give to this uh application not just heritage uh not just uh our policies but there’s a lot of uh questions so i’d like to make my comments now uh through uh to you mr chair okay you’ve you’ve you’ve now been going for five minutes um so i’d like to last for an extension exactly why don’t why don’t you first will support an extension for me to make these comments okay why don’t you just the counselor’s asking for an extension somebody prepared to move that counselor halyer seconder for an extension counselor lewis do we need to do it on the screen you can just vote by hand all right all those in favor go ahead counselor thank you so one of the uh my comments uh so one of the things i do do completely agree with uh with the recommendation coming forward that this is an underutilized area we do we’re going to see some form of development it’s an important area it’s an important part to our downtown and uh i support that i do think that we’ve heard loud and clear uh some of the concerns coming not only from latch but a co uh from elton house from the public uh the proposal to me is is premature can we probably um still have that conversation it’s been going on for a long time uh but i also understand that uh if a decision is not made uh that the applicant will probably go to el pot on this one so i uh do think it is really important that as we consider this application that we take into account what course we are going in uh with the development of downtown and how we become a livable city i am not convinced that this is the application with all the surface parking that is available in downtown to have the highest building developed on a floodplain and in a heritage district to me makes me question uh there was comment from the public we have a victoria park secondary plan and how we plan around victoria park Harris park is just as important and given the challenges in with this development i think we still have a lot to discuss and a lot to consider so with that i um i’ve got a lot more work a lot more greeting to do uh when it comes to all the emails that we’ve received from the public i know this will be a conversation at council always open to being convinced that i’ve got it wrong somehow but for now i am not supportive of this application thank you very much counselor and um i’ll pass the chair over to you and i’ll make my comments thank you i do have the chair counselor squire thank you very much um i’ve listened very carefully uh to everything that’s been said i’ve also listened very carefully to what staff is saying in the various policies uh they’re very involved um i’ve i’ve listened to the concerns with certainly with regard to the floodplain which i agree there’s a lot of conditions the that are left to be satisfied to meet that but of course the applicant will have to meet those uh those requirements or they won’t be able to develop the property these are all preconditions um so to say that utc RA has approved that you’re quite right it hasn’t approved it yet but it has approved its subject to the satisfaction of all of those conditions so that’s that’s obviously true but the application at some point has to go ahead i i don’t think we can just say uh well i don’t i’m not sure so i’m not going to do anything um i i think what we really have to do is look at it from an objective uh point of view and i’m trying very hard to do that while also understanding the concerns of the heritage community often we get these applications and they involve the demolition of heritage properties i don’t think anybody’s touched on the fact that this proposal is very unique in that somebody’s doing a major development and not in any way saying they’re going to destroy these properties and at present due to what we’re facing downtown these are massively underutilized properties uh we heard people talk about one of them had a fire another one had had people living in it um off the street so what we know now there’s this dichotomy between us saying you know we want downtown to get better we wanted to improve um we know doing that means bringing more development downtown and residential development and yet we we still say this one this this just doesn’t satisfy what we want in terms of development it’s being developed on a private piece of property um some land is being swapped to the city it is adjacent to Harris Park that’s true um but i understand also that this matter has been supported by staff and has met many of those requirements i also understand the view is going to be changed and it will never be the same i understand that um the challenge i have with that is do we stay the same does everything stay as it is now people have to know that we can’t tell this developer do not develop here you must develop someone else that’s we’re not we can’t do that we can’t tell a developer you must build here and you cannot build here so that is not on the table that what is on the table is this particular development at this particular time it meets the requirements as far as i can see it of of all of our uh plans our official plan our London plan is it the decision we wanted to have to make today did we want to have to make this decision as counselors probably not probably not but the fact that it’s a tough decision doesn’t mean i’m going to turn my back on the staff recommendation and all of those regulations um and i also want to make it clear um that it is a tough decision for counselors this is not an easy decision for us and but like so many decisions we’re being called to make it so what i’m going to do is i’m going to support this today with an open mind going to council um which i’ve done recently on a lot of planning decisions more than i used to in the past and see what happens at council in terms of changing my mind but for for now my vote’s going to be yes thank you counselor squire i um can only see uh counselor layman and counselor Cassidy so um i’ll turn the chair back to you and i do have counselor Cassidy next thank you madam presiding officer and um i guess the chair is back with the chair so thanks to the chair as well for those comments um i i did appreciate those comments i there was a question i wanted to ask and i forgot and it’s the exact same question i asked i don’t know how many years ago um not too not too too long when there was a development proposal for around victoria park and what i asked was why why was staff not developing or thinking of developing as a secondary plan around victoria park the answer i got back then was that there were a lot of different policies that um that that pertain to the park so at that time a secondary plan wasn’t felt necessary it wasn’t much longer after that that the secondary plan did start to be developed so same question here is there a thought since this really is an important piece of real estate and i’m not looking um this is just being brought to my the front of my mind because of this development and it does it’s not having a bearing on this particular proposal but is there a thought that that we might develop a secondary plan around harris park because these kinds of sites it’s important to um have a plan for development okay stuff mr.

chair michael tom is into here perhaps i’ll start and maybe some of my colleagues can join in uh right now there’s nothing on the docket for uh harris park secondary plan i think what made victoria park a little bit unique was that all four sides of the park had an absolute different policy framework and then there was nothing um comprehensive that would tie the development around the park something that would tie it all together yeah the the uh harris park right now is surrounded by downtown on on uh one side and and um black friars on the other side and so black friars is largely a floodplain in a heritage conservation district and then downtown has policies that talk about intensification and also an hcd so i’m not sure the same context applies but um i hope that at least provides a little bit of context thank you counselor no that’s fine um but i will say i told you so if it comes up in a year or two because that’s what i said was the victoria park had a secondary plan being developed thank you mr. chair you would never say i told you so would you counselor that was a that was a rhetorical question counselor constant um any other comments on this before we uh counselor van holst brave enough to weigh in go ahead thank you i just want to say through you mr. chair that i’m pleased to see the development has both preservation and progress so i i think we’ll be able to look at the the old buildings and appreciate them for what they were and uh in the same vista say look how far we’ve come thank you any other comments before i call the vote all right the staff recommendations moved and seconded i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to one um and i just want to say again that staff uh decisions and the issues or arrays were were very well well done i also want to again commend the public who weighed in i uh understand some people may be disappointed this matter will come to council and i i think my colleagues have said there’ll be a a very lengthy debated council are quite correct and we’ll we’ll see what happens then so thank you again everyone for attending um the next matter that we have is the fifth report of the london this is on dr items for directions fifth report of london advisory committee on heritage um the matters that related to the particular development step and remove so uh i just need someone to move and second that report moving seconded by counselor layman comments counselor opkins did you wish to comment yeah i do i i just uh want to um just make a comment about uh that we’re endorsing the nomination of the libat memorial park is a national historical site canada absolutely that’s ball park in canada i have to say um any other comments or questions and i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero and the next matter is of the advisory committee on the environment is somebody prepared to move and second that like counselor opkins you’re i can always count on you counselor opkins when no one else will move seconded by counselor halia any uh comments or questions then i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero and moves in additional business the item five point one is the deferred matters list is somewhere prepared to move in seconds that moved by counselor layman seconded by counselor louis any comments or questions then i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero and the final matter is item five point two which is the fourth report of the trees and forest advisory committee i just need someone to move or seed and file move by counselor louis seconded by counselor halia any comments or questions then i’ll call the vote closing the vote the vote just need someone to move and second to german move by counselor seconded by counselor halia counselor morgan is in attendance with one of his favorite constituents don’t know if they voted for him and i unless there’s anything further i’ll call the vote do it by hand i just want to apologize again for my week start to the meeting i hope i did better as we went along i have no idea what’s going on i think if the mayor’s not here i do much better so maybe we can maybe we can work on that have a great evening thanks very much for all the work you did that’s a very efficient meeting to get that done by about twenty to nine have a great night thanks mr kara